"David Hamilton-Williams, fake or truth ?" Topic

I don't think that Professor Pedlow did nail Peter Horschröer, they come to different conclusions, as already said before, I agree with Peter Hofschröer on this interpretation.

As to von Pflugk – Harttung, one must take into account that Pedlow bases his interpretation on:

Die Preußische Berichterstattung an Wellington vor der Schlacht bei Ligny, an article in Historische Jahrbücher, 1902

Peter Hofschröer takes further reference to

Pflugk – Harttung : Vorgeschichte der Schlacht bei Belle – Alliance – Wellington, Berlin 1903

So – one has to take this work into account – for bashing oder defending Peter Hofschröer as well.

I don't see why they should be hidden – or couldn't be veryfied in the past, there they are available in print, in case they were heavily ignored in the past by anglophone authors' and indeed they were, it is not the fault of Peter Hofschröer.

Also the article

The Age of Napoleon, nr.22,

Waterloo Myths – The Outbreak of Hostilities by Peter Hofschröer, p. 32 – 40 (more than one source listed)

is essential to understand Peter Hofschröer's conclusions.

happy reading

Richard, It was not one review – it was a whole series, nearly of which contain the "good, but handle with care" attack and it became a regular feature of various fora.

I do not mind sensible comments and some are actually quite helpful in seeing how a book comes across – one said that by "bigging up" the Austrian comamnders, I was actually building up the French, who defeated them.

However, when it is just a campaign against things that the keepers of the true flame do not want to hear, especially when you are accused of bad research by someone, whose own secondary sources are poor and understanding even worse, you get annoyed when reflecting on the malice behind it and the necessary implication that copying secondary claims will do. You aas a readerr cannot tell whether Kevin's claims are justified or not, but it is just designed to sow doubt. Kevin's review of the new artillery book is just a rather pathetic form of jealousy and like Bowden's infantile attack on Chandler just means that their own output will be brushed aside. His silly comment on DD&S was that there are other better modern works availabole – as he didn't think much of the Ospreys, that leaves his own book really – and he did not even have the decency to mention that "interest" in his review.

The other problem with trashing reviews on good original work or even well-written summaries based on secondary work is that it can damage sales and thus the possibility of other work we might all like.

Dave

Sure, using "bias" is biased… replace in my above with "opinion".

Dave Hollins wrote

"However, when it is just a campaign against things that the keepers of the true flame do not want to hear, especially when you are accused of bad research by someone, whose own secondary sources are poor and understanding even worse, you get annoyed when reflecting on the malice behind it and the necessary implication that copying secondary claims will do. You aas a readerr cannot tell whether Kevin's claims are justified or not, but it is just designed to sow doubt. Kevin's review of the new artillery book is just a rather pathetic form of jealousy "

I agree entirely

A while back there was a posting to the effect that when studying a nation's army, research of that nation's records is essential and paramount, and views from other nations might be interesting but not that important.

I agree fully with the first half of that, but not really with the second. One's own records will give a very good account of how one's army was supposed to operate (drillbooks and regulations), and one perspective on how it did operate (personal recollections, after action reports, staff histories).

But when properly attributed and caveated, the views of foreigners (enemies, allies, neutral observers) can provide important additional insights about how an army really did operate- especially in contact with the enemy.

In other words dave, people can write reviews of your booklets but just don't criticise? That mightn't be "helpful"?
As the Ignatius T. Reilly of this forum, I realise it's hard for you to recognise what a review is: an opinion and information.
People write reviews on movies, restaurants & books.
The "reader" of such reviews (a person you deride as not having the sense to determine their worth) seeks out reviews as a fast track to see whether a book is worth further attention.
Thus reviews cover the subject, slant, appearance & illustrations & maps etc: all interesting stuff in the realm of 'information'.
They also contain a judgement. In terms of Amazon reviews there are often several. Anyone, who's read the book can post. Thus for even someone of the meanest intelligence there is balance.
I could maintain that a "hatchet job" of a review is normally very apparent.
When will you stop this vendetta with Kiley? When will you bury your jealousy? It is past tiresome.
donald

Richard,

I appreciate very much your posting and agree with most, if not all of it. However, to stop writing reviews would be wrong for two reasons.

First, it would be succumbing to what I consider harassment and bullying, and that would be wrong. I've never cared for bullying of any kind, and there is a group of people on the internet who conduct themselves in that way and it just goes against the grain.

Second, if you come across material that is incorrect and you either know its wrong or suspect it in some way, it should be brought to light to my mind. That was the motivation for me to write the review of the Marengo Osprey in June 2000 and Napoleonic Artillery this month. There was a lot of discussion on the Marengo Osprey by the author on at least one of the Napoleonic forums before publication and my opinion on the action of the Consular Guard was quite obvious before the book came out. And, for all of the 'furor of the noncombatants' that resulted from the review, especially on the issue of the Consular Guard infantry, it resulted in at least two long debates on the Napoleonic forums where the information in the book was proven wrong regarding the Consular Guard. So, the material in the book is incorrect, and the painting done by the artist for the book with the Guard surrendering en masse is incorrect. That was the point of the review.

That the author cannot get over it is his problem, not mine. He needs to move on and pick up the shattered pieces of his life. I have reviewed his other booklets, three of which received favorable reviews and one was mediocre. I have also reviewed many of Rene Chartrand's Napoleonic Ospreys and all of them received good reviews because Chartrand is an excellent author and researcher and his work is scholarly. It is against his work that I generally judge all other Ospreys.

Regarding Napoleonic Artillery, before I posted a review I asked a very good friend of mine, whom I consider to have excellent judgment and is a lot smarter than I am, if he thought I should post it, understanding that there would be a backlash from the 'usual suspects' He convinced me to post it as it had just too many errors in it that could have been resolved through some careful research.

The accusations of trying to hurt sales, etc., are ridiculous. I hope all the books sell well, and I buy them myself to review them and use them. Most material has value and generally speaking is another 'arrow in the quiver' but some of serious errors in them that could mislead the reader and I believe those need to be pointed out. If someone is angered by the reviews, then so be it. Some people just look for a fight anyways. I teach teenagers and see that type of behavior every day.

Finally, a review is merely an opinion, though hopefully at least a knowledgeable one and one done with good intentions. All of mine have been done in good faith, and if someone cannot accept or believe that, then that is a personal problem on that person's plate. I have been both a book reviewer and a manuscript reviewer for Greenhill in the past six years from time to time, and still get review copies once in awhile. I also review for the Napoleon Series. I don't do as many as I used to as I now am writing my own books, two of which I am now writing. If people think reviews on Amazon are a little rough, they ought to take a look at reviews in professional publications such as Parameters, which is put out by the US Army at Fort Leavenworth. I once read a review on a book on military history in that magazine that stated the diagrams in the book were for the mentally underprivileged. It was an accurate appraisal of the work. I've also seen one review on Amazon where a book was badly panned and the reviewer stated that he hadn't read the book! Now that is really bad. At least I read the books that I review.

Again, thanks very much for your email. It is appreciated more than you know.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Bizarre – just bizarre.

Perhaps before you start pronouncing on others' work and telling lies about as above, you might start with your own.

This from Kevin's latest hatchet job sums him up very well: "it is not well-sourced (or on the surface appears not to be) and there are too many errors in fact in the text to be a reliable source of information for researchers." That from some, who has deliberately set out to mislead readeres about his own work with a large bibliography, did not read the key works and even made up the contents of G's 1762 report.

Like I said, his opinions are just jealousy – wrapped up in false claims.

David Hollins wrote :
"Phillipe, it does not help to try to deflect this process with accusation about "dismissing whole accounts" – there are about 70 primary accounts of Marengo of which all but 8 are French. I don't dismiss any account, but test it to see how it fits and whether some material is secondary."

I apologise to you on this topic, because, this is not what I meant. English is not my native language, and sometimes it shows.

Here is what I meant : there is not a single pre-1810 source that tells the story of a flight of the Grenadiers de la Garde des Consuls. All pre-1810 sources point to a unit fighting on the extreme right of the French line, in square, with no support (no artllery, no cavalry).

In my opinion, you bend recollections, reports, etc. to make them suit to the Stutterheim account that surfaced (only in Austrians circles) around 1810 and was only published around 1900.

David Hollins wrote :
"So, let us start with the Guard infantry. Hochenegg talks about "ein feindlicher Bataillon" (an enemy battalion), [snip]"

Where does Hochenegg say explicitly that the enemy bataillon is the Garde des Consuls Grenadiers ? According to Stutterheim this unit was easy to spot : bearskin and red plume…

This is just what bothers me. You imply that the text is about the Garde des Consuls Grenadiers, but nothing in the original text gives an hint of this. If I am not mistaken, the French line grenadiers did not wear bearskin in the era. One wonders why the Grenadiers are not recognised as such by Hochenegg.

Moreover, we know that the Dampierre command (44° Demi-brigade, 2° bataillon, about 300/400 men) had to surrender (with one gun) to Austrians including the Nauendorf Hussars. Why do you think that the prisoners Hochenegg sees are the Grenadiers rather than the 2° bataillon of the 44° Demi-brigade ?

David Hollins wrote :
"[snip] which supports the view we have all now reached that the main episode only involved the main Guard battalion and that the part-batt of 300 were handing out ammunition to Coignet and his chums."

Once again, this theory of two bataillons fighting independently is not supported by French source, nor Austrian ones. Even if some Grenadiers were sent to replenish the Coignet unit with ammunitions, no source states that the Grenadiers formed two independent units that did not fight together. All sources simply refer to Grenadiers de la Garde des Consuls.

All sources talk about a combined infantry unit formed with all the Grenadiers, and the few Chasseurs à pieds. Still we don't really know who led, at this moment, the unit. According to a text by Robert Ouvrard, the Grenadiers de la Garde des consuls were led by Général de Brigade Frère (I found no source for the information). If there was no general, then this should be Tortel (the senior officer), could be Soulès (that is what states the Citation of the Légion d'Honneur), or another officer. All we know is that the Grenadiers were led by Stabenrath at the end of the battle, but if we follow the Légion d'Honneur citation, then Soulès was still in command of the Grenadiers at this moment. So it is most likely that Soulès led his bataillon, and nothing else.

David Hollins wrote :
"It confirms that this one battalion is moving in isolation. So, we are talking about 5-600 men."

It confirms nothing, as the source you use (the Légion d'Honneur citation for Soulès) also states that Soulès led the counter-attack later in the day, while we know that it was Stabenrath that did led them at this moment. It is most likely that the citation embellished the role of Soulès.

David Hollins wrote :
"What else do we know? The only other French primary material tells us that 200 got out, so what has happened top 3-400 men? At the very least this is inconsistent with Petit's claim that the Guard got out in a square with all its wounded, but let us look at the key issue: where is the primary account from a participant?"

The "primary source" you invoke is, once again, the Soulès citation… It is not a report, it is an agiographical text destined to justify for an award. It is clearly secondary source : it was not written by Soulès himself, nor by an eye-witness of the battle.

Now, what about the Murat report (written a few days later) of only 121 casualties ? What about Brossier report of 260 casualties ? What about Lauriston (dated June 19) report of one third casualties ?

David Hollins wrote :
"Contrary to your "red herring" about the French being allowed "to get away with it", in fact Stutterheim B includes a direct challenge to produce the primary French account and in the intervening 185 years, none has surfaced."

This challenge was only published around 1900… Until then the only source known in France that told the story of the destruction of the Garde des Consuls Grenadiers was the Mras (1823) text. Why do you still use this argument ? You KNOW those facts ! We had this discussion before.

David Hollins wrote :
"Likewise, the French propaganda had triumphed on the subject of the continental battles for nearly two hundred years. You have to hand it to Nap's propaganda and in this case, accounts were given to Neue Bellona and (in Sept 1800) […] "

Can you prove that the "Neue Bellona" newspaper is French propaganda ? What are your evidences ?

David Hollins wrote :
" […] the British Military Library journal plus Petit was translated and published in New York in 1801. All this demonstrates along with the Bulletin is that propaganda is involved here."

What is the link between Petit's text and the Neue Bellona one ?

David Hollins wrote :
"N wasn't forced to fight a battle – he had partly believed a double-agent and only just got away with victory, when defeat would have been the end of everything."

I don't understand. Did Napoleon Bonaparte had the choice on the morning of the 13 of June 1800 but to fight ? I don't think so.

David Hollins wrote :
"Anyway, back to the Guard. So, there is no primary account – just 3-400 going missing. What happened – do tell us and produce your evidence."

All French reports (Brossier, Lauriston being the oldest ones) tell the same story : the Grenadiers de la Garde des Consuls fought in a square, suffered heavy casualties (about one third of their initial strength) from cavalry and artillery and withdrew in relatively good order.

Your 3-400 casualties derives from ONE secondary source : the Soulès citation. And the citation doesn't even give this number you had to deduce it from another number…

David Hollins wrote :
"Stutterheim A was independent from Mras as it was written in 1811, whereas Mras was written in the early 1820s (pub 1822-3) at a time when Stutterheim's account of hte first half of the Second Coalition campaign had also been written. There are contradictions in the texts and Mras goes vague, where S gives detail – eg: on the Guard, where A says "some Imperial cavalry, among which the Bussy distinguished themselves", but Mras is four squadrons of Hussars and Stutterheim B goes for two Bussy sqdns and two Nauendorff Hussar sqdns. Given where the Bussy/Nauendorff listing comes from and an episode involving some Austrian cavalry further
north around this time, I doubt the Bussy were involved (although petit includes an anecdote placing them there)."

I never said that Stutterheim account was based on Mras. But it seems very likely, to me at least, that Mras account is based on Stutterheim A account or on a common, older, source. You state that Mras goes vague when Stutterheim gives lots of details. To me, it is clear that Mras tries to rectify the blabant incoherence of Stutterheim text.

David Hollins wrote :
"Rauch says he clearly sees "part of our cavalry fall on the enemy rear" and about 1000 prisoners passed his position near the Marengo bridge."

Once again, Rauch does not give any hint that the prisoners belonged to a "grenadiers" (bearskins and red plumes) unit.

David Hollins wrote :
"The farm is just Nap's propaganda as most were not even moved from there after the place was taken just after Melas and Radetzky had ridden round the back – Coignet had seen them do it and this was some tome before he was back in the vines, which is when the Guard infantry showed up."

The trouble is that we have a letter of the officer in ommand of a French unit that surrendered : Dampierre. He clearly says that they were surrounded by Austrian infantry, cavalry (including Nauendorf hussars) and artillery and that they were taken to Alexandria. You can read the letter in the Revue de Paris (Volume III, Mai-Juin 1900), available on Gallica.

David Hollins wrote :
"DR1 were certainly the cavalry involved and the hand-written note is quoted verbatim in describing the event plus it lists the men, who received bravery medals (7 of the ten given to the regt went to these two sqdns). This cannot have ben created a century later as the author would not know and the method used is no different from the citations on French weapons d'honneur, which are among the accounts we have used."

This is secondary source, with not even the original text available. Moreover it is in a regimental history of a unit that was badly mauled during the battle at the hand of the Kellerman cavalrymen. Just as the Soulès citation, it is agiography, not historical evidence…

David Hollins wrote :
"Kellerman says that he saw the Guard being overwhelmed."

I have yet to read those very words in the "Histoire de la campagne de 1800" from Kellermann. In this text, published in 1854, the account of the fight of the Garde Consulaire is very close to the Mras version : same units (cited by their name), same course of events, except that the Grade des consuls is (simply) "forced to retreat, leaving a great number of deads behind them". We know that Kellermann was on another part of the battlefield, and all his account is secondary. In the book, he heavily relies on Petit's account, and even repeats the "withdrawal in square with the wounded" thing.

David Hollins wrote :
"What are we supposed to make of all then? We are invited to believe a story by a man, who did not see the events. Indeed, Quiot's account of "two squares" does point us to the origin of the tale – guard seem to have formed square briefly as they moved up to support the 28e anchoring Lannes' right, but by then, the Lobkowitz were being called off."

Who is the "man" who did not see the event ? Quiot was aide-de-camp to Victor, he could have seen the Garde des Consuls.

What source do you use to tell that the Grenadiers formed "briefly" into square ? All pre-1810 sources I know of say they fought in square.

David Hollins wrote :
"We read of the Guard having little ammo, no guns and no cavalry – well, except the Guard had full ammo pouches and Murat's cavalry waded in to support them. Then they withdraw in a square with their wounded, which is exactly what the 28e did, having been in square all day because they had little ammo."

Where did you read that the Garde des Consuls Grenadiers had little ammunition ?

David Hollins wrote :
"What about the final episode? The Guard are in column and turn left into line to fire on Schellenberg's column. Why form a square and when did they do it? Like the lack of guns, their task means that the fable makes no sense. 130 muskets? What will that do? You cannot say that what the accounts support is wrong and then provide no explanation yourself."

I don't have to provide explanation. All I do is scan through the documents. All the pre-1810 documents I know of say the same : the Grenadiers fought in square (sometimes two squares, sometimes one, sometimes an oblong one). They withdrew in relative good order, and participated in the final attack.

The "The Guard are in column and turn left into line to fire on Schellenberg's column." is unknown to any pre-1810 document that i know of.

David Hollins wrote :
"As to the guns, there is always a problem, but the allocation and reallocation of guns is something clearly going on here – and where were the French infantry when the Guard infantry arrived? in the vines, where an artillery position is useless. Stutterheim incidentally claims 4 guns were captured, but also notes that ten guns and two howitzers were captured overall. Crossard is more important as he is only talking about his sector – and he says 4 guns and 1 howitzer."

The Garde artillerymen lost guns (and won some) during the fight. There is ample information on that. BUT, there is also evidences that the artillerymen of the Garde des Consuls that fought in the first part of the battle were fighting alonside with Lannes and Victor (and were engaged very early), not with the Grenadiers.

David Hollins wrote :
"Whil he is usually adduced as proof of the guns taken from the Guard, I am only adding him in. You cannot say that the passage of time means something is wrong – I can tell you about key events in my own life almost exactly 20 years ago, but I cannot give you any detail on what I was doing this time last year. Brabant did exist, but the tale may be propaganda as it appears in the British Military Library journal. Don't forget also that Marmont's battery at the end was composed of what he could find."

It has nothing to do with forgetting or remembering, it's only that it is very striking that no account of the destruction of the Garde des Consuls existed before 1810, none was published before 1820+…

David Hollins wrote :
"It does not help to make assertions about only believing what I want to believe as I don't do it anywhere else. The whole battle account has to stand up against the material available and it must also make sense. No part of the Guard moved off from TdG until after 11 a.m., as it is only then that the recall messages went out. The Guard infantry cannot have arrived until Coignet was back in the vines (ie: the french left had collapsed). Soult and the "victory letter" plus all the prior events independently place this well after
2.30 p.m. It is 10km from Torre di garrofoli to the vines along a bad road."

All I have read in French, points out that the Grenadiers moved toward the battlefield just before the Monnier division. The Monnier report can be read in the Kellermann book (p.170). It states that Monnier arrived on the battlefield at 02h00 PM…

Anyway, I don't see why the Grenadiers would march any slower than the line fantassins of Monnier. Nor would I see why French generals would lie about the time of arrival of the Garde des Consuls Grenadiers.

David Hollins wrote :
"I'm afraid that your version relies on a supposed conspiracy taking place 12 years before anything was published and claims, which have no primary evidence to back them."

No conspiracy, just "local recieved wisdom" or a nice tale that could wound up national pride. Show us a source that is pre-1810 and tell the tale of the destruction of the Grenadiers…

Are after-battle report evidences ? If so, look at all that the French officers wrote before the Moniteur text : Quiot, Lauriston, Brossier. They all say that the Grenadiers fought, and died, in square and withdrew in relative good order. They even participated in the late counter-attack.

David Hollins wrote :
"the received wisdom has been published without the benefit of Soules and the Austrian accounts, yet it contains no primary account. Like most of the received wisdom on the battle, it does not make sense, which is why we went to look at what we could find – and still material turns up after that. 5-600 men went up and just 200 came back – what happened and how does this fit into Petit's account?"

You rely too much on the Soulès agiographical citation. Soulès was probably not leading more than his own bataillon, with Tortel leading the rest, and both under another officer (maybe Frère). Moreover the text of a citation is always "over the top".

In fact, for your tale to have a good chance of being true, you must stick to Stutterheim (primary ?)/Mras (100% secondary) and the Soulès citation (100% secondary) and *nothing else*. You must discard 100% of what was *written* before 1810 and everything *published* before 1820.

You also have to bend all Austrian sources written or published earlier (Neipperg, Hochenegg, Rauch, etc.) to have include the Grenadiers of the Garde des Consuls.

If you can provide a pre-1810 source telling the Stutterheim tale, I would gladly change my position.

Until then, I shall stick to a storyline such as : the Grenadiers move from Torre di Garofoli at about 11h00 AM, arrive on the battlefield at about 02h00 PM. They form in square(s), and stand, losing about one third their strength, and withdraw in relative good order. There were enough of them to fight back later and form a bivouac that Neipperg crossed at night.

Best regards.

Bravo Philippe, well said. It seems we have someone who knows what he is talking about.

Shane

Shane,

Agree, and Philippe has done an excellent job on the subject. The sad part is that he has done it all before, along with Evan Polley, and the irrefutable conclusion that both of them came to (and this is the third iteration unless I've missed one) will not be listened to (again). Shame, ent it?

Sincerely,
Kevin

Although knowing how chauvenistic the French can be- and how partial military accounts in general are- I'd still like a neutral view on that one.
"withdrew in relatively good order" sounds suspiciously like
'turned into a rabble and legged it' to me.

You can always checked the references which are not hard to get hold of and both Petit and du Cugnac's material are in English for ease of study on the issue.

The point of the argument is that it was maintained that 400 Guardsmen surrendered or were captured. There is no primary source evidence that happened. That the Guard infantry participated in the French counterattack is documented and a unit that supposedly was destroyed couldn't do that. They also didn't lose their color. It was brought back by its bearer, Lt. Aune.

The number of dead and wounded Guardsmen is not in dispute-they did lose heavily but withdrew and reformed. They didn't win, and I would suspect they were not expected to, but they stood their ground and withdrew when forced to and then reformed for a counterattack.

The unit that was captured was a line outfit, which has already been brought up and that is also mentioned in Coignet.

Sincerely,
Kevin

As we approach Page 6 of this thread, I was wondering what TMP topic has the record for most postings?

I try to keep an open mind and separate as much wheat from chaff as I can when reading some of the "historical" posts, but Kevin's comment, "The sad part is that he has done it all before, along with Evan Polley, and the irrefutable conclusion that both of them came to (and this is the third iteration unless I've missed one) will not be listened to (again). Shame, ent it?", again demonstrates that there are some major misunderstandings about historical research and method among some members.

Irrefutable defines as: incontrovertible or impossible to deny or disprove. Unless you are a deity, in which case being the skeptic that I am, I would ask you to perform a miracle to prove it, then you CANNOT claim any conclusion is irrefutable. Just making that bold, assertive claim now makes me doubt the conclusion (and wonder about your insincere diction).

Steve J wrote
"Although knowing how chauvenistic the French can be- and how partial military accounts in general are- I'd still like a neutral view on that one."

What source would you consider neutral ?

Can a primary source be neutral ?

Best regards.

No but a primary source can be untruthful

"What source would you consider neutral ?"
"Can a primary source be neutral ?"

You're implying that it can't with your first question of course- and I have some sympathy for that view. A primary source no more has the monopoly on truth than any subsequent source.
But to answer your question; Any source that wasn't either Austrian or French would at least be a start.

Steve.

You want a primary source, for a French-Austrian battle, that isn't French or Austrian!?!?!?

lol, well said hos…

Just to interrupt the laughter for a moment…
I was asked what I consider to be a neutral source- I don't expect there to be one…
Although thinking about it, why not? The battle was fought in Italy for a start- someone must have walked over to see what all the noise was about.
Set-piece battles of the 18th and nineteenth centuries were regularly watched by outsiders. Some made a day of it and brought a packed lunch.
'Observers' were queueing up to watch battles of the ACW- and quite a few were British. So why categorically rule out neutrals at Marengo?

Once upon a time, years ago on another forum, there was a complaint about a book on the Grande Armee in that the greater majority of references for the book were French or about the French.

hos' comment reminded me about that little bit of idiocy from long ago…

Sincerely,
K

If there is evidence on one side of an argument to support the argument, and none on the other to support the counterargument, then it seems to me that the evidence in incontrovertible/irrefutable. It has nothing to do with any deity, religion, mystics or anything else.

Philippe has given the primary evidence for the subject at hand dealing with the Consular Guard infantry at Marengo, of which there is quite a bit supporting the fact that the unit was not destroyed. None has been offered to refute it. Ergo, therefore, the evidence is irrefutable-and this evolution has been done three times on the forums that I know of in the past few years and the same conclusion has been reached. Nothing 'new' has been offered to refute Philippe's conclusions.

Now do you understand, Lest, or shall we go into philosophy and metaphysics to beat the dead horse?

Sincerely,
Kevin

Lest …,

Well said!

Steve

Wait a minute! I see light!!
Now dave has pursued his ridiculous & petty vendetta because Kevin Kiley doubted his Guard tale in his Marengo booklet.
This review was the start of the problem.
And Phillipe & Evan et al have shown that dave's tale is, to be charitable, doubtful.
So the cause of the vendetta is gone.
Peace should surely break out!!!
I can see in the future that old Nas gamers will gather & ask one another, "Where were you when dave apologised to Kevin?"
donald

Kevin wrote.
"You can always checked the references which are not hard to get hold of and both Petit and du Cugnac's material are in English for ease of study on the issue."
I wonder if you could give me the titles that these accounts might go under so i can Google them? I would be very interested to read them if i can find them.
And if anyone knows of any other accounts in English that may be posted on the internet I'd appreciate sharing any links you may have.
Regards
Max

Elting again, so we will see what KFK brings up as well, maybe Gribeauval?

KFK wrote

"Once upon a time, years ago on another forum, there was a complaint about a book on the Grande Armee in that the greater majority of references for the book were French or about the French."

No there wasn't – the critic was (please note, Elting also wrote about other armies as well, and commented on them) – that for those non French Army he did not use any valuable sources at all.

Also reading Elting, the book is poorly sourced and it is hard to find from what source – quote – the author draws his statements.

I am seldom deified. It is extremely nice of you to offer. Anyone wishing to propitiate my divine goodwill, let me know what you might have in the way of French heavy cavalry officer's sabres. Dispensations for your sins ARE available, after a donation.

Seriously ….

The summary goes like this:
Phillippe and I have (yes, over some years over and again) offered about 30 sources, naturally mostly French, on the subject of the French garde à pied at Marengo. To name a few : Brossier, Lauriston, Soult, Berthier (état-major draft report, before imperial editing), Marmont, the Soulès citiation in Fastes, Petit, Krettly, Eugène de Beauharnais, Quiot, Coignet, Murat, Kellerman, Neipperg (Austrian), the so-called Mémoires de Napoléon, articles in France Militaire (éditeur Abel Hugo), Monnier, Chrétien Gattlen (recently returned emigré), Dannican (emigré, on the Austrian side), Victor, Botta (Italian nationalist), Geschichte der KuK Uhlanen Regiments ERZ Ludwig
Most are memorialists. Some are "witnesses", some were at the battle but not proven to watching the garde à pied, a couple are secondary sources published before 1835 (in the lifetime of at least some of the participants), except the Geschichte … . I include this one only becasue of Dave has one of these regimentals on his list.
There were others, but this gives an idea of the breadth of this sourcing.

Dave attributes these sources :
Stutterheim A (1811) unpublished manuscript , another unpublished manuscript of ~1820 that appears to be a re-writing of Stutterheim A (and hence called Stutterheim B, although poor Stutterheim might have died before "writing" it), the staff historian Mras (1822-3).
Stutterheim was a staff officer at the battle.
Dave insists that Mras is somehow independent of Stutterheim. I don't see it – since one would think that it would be exactly such material as Stutterheim's manuscript(s) that Mras would be consulting.
Dave also adduces information from:
Crossard, Hochenegg and Rauch.
The problem here is that none of these identfy the French garde à pied, neither by name nor by description of their unique uniform elements. I see this as a huge problem, a huge leap of faith to think that these would describe events concerning the garde à pied and not make any identifcation.
Lastly, Dave adduces a truly embarrassing piece of non-scholarship.
In a 1900-era history of the unit which was the Austrian 1st Kaiser Dragoon Regiment, there is recorded the story of the then archivist finding a un-dated anonymous handwritten note about the regiment's participation at Marengo. Sorry, Dave, that's non-scholarship, that's at best a rumour or a "tradition", as it is even called by the regimental historian himself.

Now what are the points at issue ?
1. When did the garde à pied arrive on the battlefield ?
2. Did they put up a valiant defense on the French right flank for some remarkable period of time ?
3. Then what happened to them ?

The "Philippe and Evan sources" are not verbatim of each other (such as one sees among Fastes, the Mullie and Victoires, Conquêtes, …), far from it.
But the view that all of them support is :
1. The garde à pied arrived around mid-day
2. They resisted valiently numerous attacks on the French right, often notedly in a square
3a. They eventually retreated, after sustaining heavy losses. Some remark upon the regularity of their retreat, some do not. All relate that at least some of the gardes did group around their colors and retreat together. There is no mention of prisoners or surrenders, but also little mention of evacuating the wounded.
3b. Some gardes à pied did participate in the counter-attack at the end of the battle.

From the Dave source(s) that actually mention(s) the French garde, we get a great deal more emphasis on Item 3a, and more description of the damage done to the unit. This is not, to my view, actually at variance to the view of the battle given by the "Philippe and Evan sources". It is within the range of variation of reporting of the same event seen by different people and recorded at different times for different purposes.

But Dave goes further.

Dave estimates, based on his own reckoning of the times of various events, that the garde à pied arrived rather later on the battlefield (disagreeing with the view of the "Philippe and Evan sources" on Item 1.) This is not a directly sourced estimate (no Austrian says " they arrived late"). It is Dave's own calculation.

Becasue of the late arrival, Item 2. is a non-event for Dave. They were not yet there, hence they were not valiently resisting Austrian attacks for some time. This is again not sourced, it is the result of Dave's belief in the late arrival.

Then, adding to the comments of the "Dave source(s)" that mention the French garde, he attributes the other descriptions (Crossard, Hochenegg and Rauch) which do NOT mention the garde, to actually be about the garde nonetheless. These comments make the apparent losses for the garde much greater, and include live not-much-wounded prisoners. Unfortunately for this attribution, there are specific other French unts, non-garde, to which these descriptions could also apply.

Now, Dave is not a raving lunatic (I think). He does see the great weight of source material aligned against him and the slender source basis for his version of the events. He has postulated that the mass of "Philippe and Evan sources" are not at all independent, and that they are (variously) lying, mistaken, copying each other or repeating a Bonapartist propaganda line.
I have trouble with this view because of the variety of the sources, their varying degrees of friendship/hostility to the Bonapartist régime, the range of dates of their writing, and the degree of differences between them while still taking the same general view of the French garde à pied.

Is this reasoning "irrefutable" ? Well, with thanks to Kevin for the compliment, I will have to admit "no". But if anyone thinks the analysis is really that "divine", let me know and I will tell you where to send your votative sabres.

- Evan

And by the way (actually on-topic, what a surprise) ….

I don't know why anyone would even care what Hamilton-Williams nor Hofschröer wrote about Waterloo.

If you must have a quick-access easy reading summary, there is the incomparably more useful Adkins. If you want a quick overview of the issues of the campaign and battle, as opposed to the issues of personal reputations of generals and historians, there are the very thought-provoking and deeply sourced booklets of Bernard Coppens.

Otherwise, there is now Google books and you can read really everything that a historian can read for you and then twist up in the retelling.

Right then,…. I will now return to Mt. Olympus and await the customary devotional offerings.

:-))

- Evan

so dave is actually doing for Marango what PH has done for Waterloo? putting his opinions and interpretation of sources into his own speculation and passing it off as fact ?

Jackson. The Campaign of Notes and Reminiscences of a Staff Officer – Chiefly of a Staff officer…. 1903:

link

Here is(are) Dave's source(s) that mention(s) the French garde à pied.

Quellen zur Geschichte des Zeitalters der französischen Revolution.
2. T., 1. B. : Die Schlacht von Marengo und der italienische Feldzug des Jahres 1800.
Hermann Hüffer (1900)
Translation Bernard Voykowitsch
Teh book, in German:
link

"Stutterheim" unpublished manuscript A : Hüffer (1900) footnotes pages 79-81
"A few minutes before this deciding moment the Guard infantry came marching on the road from Sale to the center (i.e. that from Castel Ceriolo to Spinetta, BV). With these chosen men Bonaparte hoped if not to restore the battle to stop us for a while and to protect his other troops that were already on the verge of flight. In column with opened divisions the Guard marched across open field and had individual skirmishers accompany her march at a distance of some 60 paces. There could not have been a more desirable sight for our cavalry. Ott whom the Guard passed ordered Lobkowitz DR10 to blow rapel and to attack as soon as all were assembled. Alone there were circumstances – above all Oberst Fürst Taxis could not be found – such Ott ordered Oberst-Lieutenant Graf Harrach to lead the charge against the Guard; after time consuming preparations DR10 set into step, then into trott, finally into the gallop. The Consular Guard infantry seemed to be close to disaster when at a few musket shots from its skirmishers the whole DR10 turned about and ran away. Some French cavalry (Champeaux¹ brigade!, BV) that had been observing this from a position behind the Guard pursued our dragoons. The situation for Ott's infantry seemed desperate as inmidst of the coverless plains she had been deserted by her only cavalry. Alone the same as the Consular Guard had pursued its march without being scared by the Austrian cavalry deployed in line Spleny IR51 advanced now inmidst the plains headlong against the French cavalry which like ours some moments before turned about after a few shots and ran away.
The same battalion (regiment!, BV) Spleny IR51 supported by a battalion of Fröhlich IR28 then advanced against the Consular Guard. The Guard formed up by divisions into a line. Then under a continuous artillery and small arms fire and although many men fell on both sides these two lines marched against each other with so much order and vigour that it was difficult to say who would triumph. Then suddenly while behind the Guard the whole French army was on the retreat a swarm of Imperial cavalry came galloped from Marengo fell into its rear and let only a few escape. Also their 4 guns fell into our hands. Although the French hide this incident and try to highlight the prior deeds of the Guard Major Stutterheim has seen this whole incident which by any means does not dishonour the Guard; and a short time after the battle he received from several Guard officers the confession that but 100 of them returned who were increased to 500 only by those returning from Austrian captivity."

"Stutterheim" unpublished manuscript B : Hüffer (1900) maintext pages 79-83
" … when one discovered in a depression the march of a small column with big red plumes, the characteristic of the guard, which moved through a field of high standing corn to prolong the line of General Lannes. When FML Ott discovered her he hurried to order Lobkowitz DR10 to mount an attack against this column. Alone the forming up of the DR10 was delayed and a volley from the guard threw disorder in its ranks. French cavalry from the center tried to take advantage of the withdrawal of DR10 when a battalion of Spleny IR51 left the deploying Austrian column stormed headlong against this French cavalry which surprised and dispersed by the musket fire also turned back and took to its heels.
After these cavalry combats had ended without any result General Gottesheim was charged to attack with the other battalions of Spleny IR51 and one of Fröhlich IR28 the Guard infantry that strove to cover the right flank of the French army. Attack and defense changed here in peleton fire and whole volleys like on parade ground. … [In version B Stutterheim put in the description of the taking of Marengo farm here. As it is quite long I do not reproduce it here as it has absolutely no relevance for the Guard.]… Near Marengo the rolling musket fire had already decreased and drawn to the Austrian left wing where Gottesheim was still fighting the Guard and Vogelsang Carra Saint-Cyr when a few sqns of Nauendorf HR8 and Bussy JR came gallopped from the main road and fell into the rear of the Guard. This attack decided and ended all fighting. Many of the Guard were sabered down the bigger part and the four guns surrendered. The French totally conceal this incident in their reports and hardly mention their guard that defended itself with so much glory inmidst of the plains (? BV). The author witnessed this whole incident and summons all who have been present with the Consular Guard at Marengo if they could dispute this account."

In Der Feldzug 1800 in Italien
Vierte Abschnitt, S. 244-245
Hauptmann Karl Mras (1822)
Translation Robert Ouvrard
The same text, in French, as reproduced by de Cugnac:
link

"At this decisive moment, Bonaparte ordered the Foot Consular Guard to go through the retreating Lannes' corps and to go forward. He was hoping, using this elite troops, to gain time, and to avoid a nearby flight.
In a column with opened companies (note : geöffneten Abteilungen RO) the Guard went through the open field, against FML Ott. In front, a chain of flankers (note : Plänkler RO) at about 600 feet, in order to cover its march. Wenn Ott saw this, he ordered Lobkowitz dragons to form. In the same instant, the Guard closed its companies, and its 4 canons received the dragoons just at the moment they were whole in action, with cartridge volley. The Dragons went back. Part of the Champeau cavalry division followed them, and the Guard continued to advance.
At this moment, the general Gottesheim, with Spleny regiment, arrived against the cavalry helping the Guard. The first gun shoots send them back. Then Spleny, helped by one bataillon of Fröhlich, turned to the Guard, which was also deploying itself in the front, and received the Austrians with a lively fire. Nothing was, however, definitely decided on what side would win.
Ott had with him only the Lobkowitz cavalry regiment, which was still fighting against Champeaux brigade, and only cavalry could decide the battle.
Then, suddenly, arrived, from the main column, which was developing itself outside Marengo, colonel Frimont with 4 hussards squadrons, turning towards the back of the Guard and break through.
This quick attack was decisive. Only few Guards could escape, being either captured or killed. Their guns were also falling into the winner's hands.
When this brilliant Frimont action succeeded, it was 1 o'clock."

- Evan

SteveJ wrote :
"You're implying that it can't with your first question of course- and I have some sympathy for that view. A primary source no more has the monopoly on truth than any subsequent source.
But to answer your question; Any source that wasn't either Austrian or French would at least be a start."

There are two such sources. These are German newpapers, published around 1801.

I have mentioned the first one "Neue Bellona", edited by Heinrich von Porbeck and a group of Hessian officers.

There is also "Europäische Annalen" by von Posselt, published in Stuttgart or Tübingen (I found both).

I was able to read the "Europäische Annalen" (translated by Robert Ouvrard, as I can't read German), and the Garde des Consuls, according to this text fought in an oblong square, suffered heavy loss and retreated in good order.

I have yet to find the "Neue Bellona" text.

As far as I know, David Hollins did not mention those sources. But he must have read them as it dismisses them both as French propaganda. Still, I would like to know more about his arguments for that thesis.

There is also another source that might be of interest concerning the (so called) Stutterheim accounts : "Die Schlacht von Marengo und der italienische Feldzug des Jahres 1800" by Hermann Hüffer. It is the book that published first, as far as I know, the Stutterheim accounts and Hueffer made an analysis of thes accounts. Unfortunately, I was unable to put my eyes on this book.

I think this is a non-source, but for completeness ….

Geschichte der K.u. K. Uhlanen-Regiments Kaiser Joseph II. Nr. 6
S. 52-53
Cajetan Pizzighelli (1908)
Translation Robert Ouvrard
(in 1800, Dragoner-Regiments Nr. 1)

"Parts of our regiment, according to the regiment's tradition, took part to the destructive attack against Bonaparte's Consul Guard. The french divisions Gardanne and Chamberlac did go back up to Spinetta; the main Austrian column deployed victoriously, by which two squadrons of our regiment (3rd and 4th) were near the famous Fontano ditch, in order to complete the almost defeat of the fFrench army. Then, Bonaparte sent his Guard through the retreating Lannes corps, in order to make a barrage against the pursuing Austrian columns. An attack by the Lobkowitz's Dragoons did not succeed, the Splenyi infantry regiment Nr. 15 did attack, with "baionnette baissée" the French cavalry sent to help the Guard, drove it off, and faced to the Guard bataillons. The situation was critical; then, suddenly, jumped out of the main column, which was still outside Marengo in the process of developing, Oberst Frimont with 4 squadrons of Bussy' Chasseurs and some people from the regiment, turned in the back of the Guard and, the attack being now successful, switched the crisis into a success for the Austrians."

Yours in firm research,

- Evan

Evan,

this is telling me that the Guard were indeed the target and indeed the attack was against them. Dave has got is correct as far as I can see…

Cher Philippe,

Regardez, svp, le message immédiatement au-dessus de votre.

Voila!

Bien fort amicalement,

- Evan

If what Evan/Chasseur says is true (and how can I ever tell, not being willing or able to check every source he mentions for myself), Evan shows that Dave Hollins, like any other historian, should not consider his theory as the one and only way of seeing things.

"Ruling theory" is merely the last theory before the current revisionist one. What happened, happened … but a historian can only tell us what he believes happened (even a time machine won't help, as he'll still only see, hear or experience only what he can see, hear or experience).

A historian bases what he believes happened on the facts/sources he has at hand, and even these are affected by which he places ahead of others (even events of a few days or minutes ago will have conflicting stories of the facts), his competence in not forgetting any little thing he has ever found, and his thoroughness in finding as many of the facts/sources that are actually available and understanding their meaning.

His conclusion from these facts is the one he decides is the strongest (which can be coloured by bias or other necessities).

A theory (whether ruling or revisionist) is just a theory, and is certainly never irrefutable, as we will never know what other facts/sources lie waiting in some dusty attic to be discovered in the future and disprove the whole previous theory.

No historian can say "This is what REALLY happened". This in my view makes humbleness an important virtue of an historian – to be able to present his information as what he BELIEVES happened, but in the knowledge that he is just as likely to be proved wrong in the next swing of theories.

Hi Evan,

I was typing while you were… Cross-posting.

Do you have the complete Hüffer book ? If so, can you tell me what is the analysis the German historian about the (so-called) Stutterheim accounts ?

All I have read about it are raving reviews in French "revues" when the book was published.

Best regards

Salut Shane,

Please do read my summary. I never proposed that the French garde never retreated, nor never sufffered heavy losses. Actually, the "French" sources do say these things also.

Allowing for the normal puffery and difference in point-of-view, I really dont have a problem with the source(s) that Dave alludes to, to the extent that we limit that to ones reporting something about the garde !

I am sceptical that Mras was not just using Stutterheim, no matter how much Dave jumps up and down and declares them "independent". But it really does not matter, as the "story" of "Stutterheim A", "Stutterheim B" and Mras is about the same anyway. As you now can see by reading them.

The parts of Dave's version that I find troublesome are : (i) his "calculated" (and un-sourced) late arrival for the garde comparded to many sources giving a mid-day-ish arrival; (ii) the resulting skipping over the "valiant resistance" part that so very many sources remark upon; and (iii) adding in "facts" from sources that give descriptions that do not specify the garde as the unit being described (when there other non-garde units to which the comments could easily apply.

Methodologically, I dont even have a problem with his "calculations", I just find this completely un-convincing when there are many sources to the contrary.

Methodologically, I do have a big problem with his "cherry-picking " of sources. For a simple example, he quotes Mras, but ignrores the "early arrival" timing explicit in Mras' account. Actually, for him to use ANYTHING from the long list of "French" sources, he has to ignore that really all of them are full of praise for the "valiant resistance" part, and that most of them do give an explicit "early arrival" timing.

Now, …. about that votative sabre ….
:-))

- Evan

Salut encore, cher Philippe !

Voici, the link given above IS the book, in German ….

link

I do not have the book in English or French, only the passages as translated and posted above. And, I am sorry, I really don't trust my German to translate anything too complicated.

A+

- Evan

Salut Arteis

I suppose this means no donations of rare sabres to propitiate my divine wisdom ?

Rats !

Well yeah, you're right of course. I do not think that Philippe and I have ever claimed to be irrefutably "right".

That is why I like to point to the parts (the specific parts) of Dave's sources, methods and conclusions that I find "troublesome" or "problematic".

But, when you rack it all up, once Dave gets beyond the Sutterheim A/Sutterheim B/Mras material, he is on amazingly thin ice. You might not notice this until you do look at all the sources, including his, and see what they really say.

Dave likes to summarize and dish out snappy one-liners and asides. He likes to take a strong point-of-view and defend it acrimoniously on internet fora. I like to read everything I can find, twice, in the original language, and look for where there is a general agreement on the "events" of history among the sources, and NOT waste my time on acrimony on internet fora.

In any case, the Sutterheim A/Sutterheim B/Mras material is really not that conflicting (allowing for some puffery and point-of-view) with the mass of "French" sources, when you actually read them.

It is the "extras" from Dave himself that make the story come out substantively different from how you always thought these events at Marengo occurred.

- Evan

I agree with you entirely, Evan.

And your point-by-point rebuttal of Dave seems very solid to me (though I do again make the proviso that as a layman, I can't/won't check your quoted sources myself, so I have to take them at face value). But if I was a layman in a jury, the weight of the evidence would definitely be swinging your way rather than Dave's!

Continuing with the legal similes, I find Dave argues like a lawyer – repeat, repeat and repeat his conclusions as if they were the one-and-only possible conclusions. I'm talking here not only about Marengo, but all his other oft-repeated conclusions about artillery, Austrians, etc.

And my mention of "irrefutable" was aimed at Dave's nemesis, Kevin, who is every bit as certain as Dave that his conclusions are the only correct ones.

I'm afraid my own bias shows in this, as both Kevin and Dave (and their respective followers) have each so damaged their own cases, that I take both of them with an extreme dose of salt. So it is great to see a very fair rebuttal of one or other of them's methods and conclusions.

Ultimately though, Arteis, is that dave's certainty becomes downgraded to a possibility.
Your lawyer simile is apt but I would not lump dave in with the H-Ws or even the PHs.
He has overstated his case in his Marengo booklet but that's all.(his stubborness on this forum may well be something else).
At the risk of sounding glib, I think its the use of qualifiers that mark a great historian.
Rory Muir, for example, is a past-master at recognising that historical truth can be a matter of perspective, a matter of choosing the greater possibilty but still acknowledging other interpretations.
I certainly think an historian should be allowed leeway to judge his sources but so shall he be judged.
Evan & Phillipe: we are blessed in this thread. Seriously, both gentlemen would write wonderful history I have no doubt.
donald

BTW your point about the impossibilty of checking sources applies to most of us.
I am, therefore, willing to be savage if a writer lies about his sources & is exposed. Thus H-W is anathema.
donald

Arteis,

I was supporting Philippe's excellent posting with my comments. From the case he made I do believe it to be irrefutable. If you'd like to challenge it be my guest. Philippe put forth an excellent argument and supported it with primary source material. If you have material to refute what he stated, then please produce it. If not, then I would say this is endex (for the third time in as many years) for the exercise.

We can always go round with it again next year.

Evan,

Great to see you back. What have you been doing with yourself?

Sincerely,
Kevin

Hans-Karl,

The comment was made years before you showed up on the forums-it was in 1999, so maybe you'd better think before you comment on something you know little or nothing about. That was about the dumbest postingn I've seen in quite some time. You just cheap-shotted yourself-way to go.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Salut Kevin,

I am not "back", I am sorry to say. I just was told my name came up here, so I thought to look in.

There is this global war on terrorism (or violent extremists, or radical jihadis, or whatever they are calling it this week) still going. I understand that the Iraq part may last 100 years, according to a candidate for the US Presidency. I am impressed. That's what I call job security!

- Evan

Evan,

Still, it's good to hear from you. I'm still teaching and am presently in Alabama at the Consortium on the Revolutionary Era. It ought to be an interesting two days here.

Take care and don't be a stranger. If you can, drop me a line at home (Boulart198@yahoo.com).

Sincerely,
K

Salut Donald,

"impossibilty of checking sources"

Not with Dallica, Google books (and in the specific case the game company that OCR'd the de Cugnac).

If you want to see the "originals" I think a quick search on the name in above list French sources plus "Marengo" will give you most of them.

The problem may then be the foolishness of these foreigners in persisting in writing in their various local lingos, instead the Queen's (or the North Americans' or the Australia/NZ's) English.

What sods !

- Evan