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

Thank you von Winterfeldt,

Is there any information about the document that would tell wether it is the original version rather than the "italian" one ?

As I see it, if the text in the Kriegsarchiv is the original version, then what I asked for David Hollins to provide is clearly this document. Then the "destruction" of the Garde Consulaire is a viable hypothesis.

But if the original text is the "Litta" collection one, then the Kriegarchive one is a forgery, with the mention of the Grade Consulaire being defeated being added. Then my hypothesis of a sort of rumour floating in Austrian circles around 1810 gets more substance.

I wish I could see the Kreigarchive document myself and could unearth the Litta one too to compare them.

In 1905, the Neipperg report of the Litta collection belonged to Dr Antonio Galimberti, I fear that it will be very difficult to find where it is now (if it wasn't destroyed).

Hüffer is not mentioning the Litta collection (but books like Hüffer one has to read at least several times, to absorb all the information) – the Kriegsarchiv documents should be there, and one man can check them out, ask Dave Hollins, he knows the Kriegsarchiv.

But why should it be a forgery? Just to mention the destruction of the Guard – a forgery, it is difficult to believe, for me this is not at all an important detail of the battle, why forge such a thing?

At least Hüffer seems to convinced that the document he cites is not a fake but true. It is signed by von Neipperg, that is what Hüffer states.

Anyway I enjoyed the discussion so far, be it pro or con, seriuos research from both sides, which has to be respected.

von Winterfeldt wrote :

"But why should it be a forgery? Just to mention the destruction of the Guard – a forgery, it is difficult to believe, for me this is not at all an important detail of the battle, why forge such a thing?"

I agree entirely, it seems to make no sense. Nor does it make sense for the editor of the "Litta collection" to remove part of the text…

There is something here that I don't understand.

Dave,

Right then, well done. Wouldn't want to change the performance just because it is a new audinece, eh what ?

So we have all these nice sources all saying the same thing ("French" and "Austrian" – within the limits of typical puffery and point-of-view).

We have the ritual chanting from you of "lies ! propaganda ! Napolen is bad !"

I give the response chant "show us some sources !"

Then we have you waterboard the sources for a while, pick a line you like here and there, dismiss the parts you dont like out of hand or ignore them, weave a long and complicated tale of cover-up, declare that this "must be what REALLY happened", and thus present as usual the wholly unsourced invention which is your "view" of Marengo …. proving that "Napoleon is bad !"

[I note your dead silent non-response to the repeated early identification of Elsnitz/Nobili as the cause of the deeat – too bad, I thought this a little bit of a new angle we could add to the performance.]

A play in 4 acts, it appears. How modern.
When shall we give the perfomance again, one wonders.

OK, I have to go back to work soon, the jihadis are a-calling I am sure.

Are we done now ?

- Evan

Sorry, you are making no sense to me. The story has no basis in any of the unofficial sources and only materialises in the propaganda. The question is quite simple: Where is the eyewitness account, which would in itself resolve this question of how many were involved. The propaganda must be wrong – since it makes no sense. How can the Guard arrive at 1 pm if Monnier reaches the general area around 2 pm and still has to fight at Castel Ceriolo? Where is the fabled "square" – beyond Quiot's comment that there is one alongside the 28e in the early stage pof the action?

I do not see what Nobili and Elsnitz have to do with this as they were not involved. How can you say that because a number of people have copied the official output to make their accounts work, hence it must be true? it is just secondary information, which can be traced back to one origin. Judging from Phillipe's comments, the accounts cannot even tell us if it was 800 or 500 infantry involved.

Okay, let us go on a bit. The Guard, says Petit, used up its ammo (not low on ammo as I said above). How did they manage this in a square? 40 rounds a man is 20,000 rounds all together. If only about 130 men are firing, that is about 150 rounds per man – or 30 mins at 5 rounds a minute. How many casualties – the handful of Foudras or the 121 of Murat or the 258+ of Brossier? What about Soules? He has certainly mislaid 300 men – what happened to them?

Crossard, Stutterheim, Mras and several regimental histories, notably IR51 say the Guard was trashed – on your analysis, that combined statement must make that true. The difference is of course the independence of Stutterheim from LD1 from Rauch. Indeeed, here we have Hochenegg backing up the claim of Petit – namely that one battalion was involved.

There is a perfectly rational explanation, which allows every account to work. The Guard arrive around 3 p.m. (having left after N says things are serious and arriving when the French l;eft ahs collapsed). The part battalion break off and hand out cartridges, (Coignet) while the main battalion moves on to Lannes' right (Petit/Berthier) in a column and then seeing 28e and maybe with soem LD10 around, briefly forms square (Quiot). LD10 pulls off nto reform and as the Guard moves up to its final position (Nap himself, probably backed by Krettley) in column, they are attacked by LD 10 and driven off. Then LD10 are chased by Murat with Champeaux's troopers. The Guard's job is to stop Schellenberg's column, which has moved south from Castel Ceriolo, from reaching the gap in the vines. Murat's cavalry engage this column first, but are driven off – the Guard reaches its designated position behind the cavo to Fontanone and the head of the Austrian column, IR51 engages. Gottesheim's a/guard deploys a batt of IR28 obscuring Frimont to the south, who is taking a look at the gap in the vines. Engaged in a firefight with IR51, the Guard has simply turned left to form a line. Frimont sees the opportunity and jumps into the southern end of the line, wounding many Guard in the process. About 100 are gathered around the flag, which is at the north, and escape in a group, while about another 100 leg it as best they can. Soules in effect gets out with about 200 men, who then rejoin the 300 of the part battalion and fight as a formed unit in the evening.

The only account, which has a problem with this, is the official propaganda, which is itself contradictory in bigging up those units associated with N and does down the rest of the French army.

---------------

The reason why the ident is incorrect in Stutterheim and Mras is the first draft of the report to Vienna (also responsible for the 80-92 guns conundrum), called the Gedrangte Darstellung. This singles out for praise Frimont and Degenfeld (commander of the two Bussy squadrons) with the Bussy and 8. Nauendorff. These actually protected the flight of the army at the end, but Mras and Stutterheim assumed otherwise (Frimont was also a famous Hussar leader by the 1820s). While various people have placed the Bussy there, the Austrians are copying the GD error and the French are perhaps a little obsessed with this emigre unit, whose uniforms are very similar to the Dragoons. The nauendorff did engage Dampierre to the south, but he was attacked by O'Reilly, whose advance was down a side road, which forked off the main road about a mile before Marengo. henc ethey are no relevance to anything.

Dave,

I really think the readers here are not idiots. I think they can read a source and get an understanding of what is puffery, what is point-of-view, and what to make of a bunch of sources as a group.

I really think that they are smart enough to tell the difference between reading a source, and cherry-picking your way though it and "correcting" it to conform to a previously determined "conclusion".

Once you might claim that your "Austrian sources" said such-and-such and not provide the readers with a chance to come to their own conclusions. Thanks to the non-moderation of the old, "bad" Nap-Series, you were shamed and brow-beaten into actually providing some citations. Then, with the help of many people literally all over the world, we collected all these sources, established who were the authors and editors, translated them into English and, as I did a few posts ago, simply post them for everyone to read.

You then follow these actual sources with your "story", actaully quite a few times longer than sources themselves. Here you pick this piece, dismiss that one, correct the other one …. until the story fits what you wished had happened. Then you retail this as either "the truth" or "the correct view using critical methods".

It is a bravissimo performance each time.

But the bottom line is that the readers are not idiots. Your sources are here posted. You have nothing more or new to offer. As we say in NY : "It is what it is."

I think the summary I posted to debut on this forum is still a fair one (see page 5 of this thread). But I am sure that the readers here are smart enough to make up their own minds .

Wish me luck with the jihadis !
Adieu,

- Evan

"Where is the eyewitness account, which would in itself resolve this question of how many were involved."

Not finding an eye-witness after two hundred years is no proof something didn't happen … all it means is, if it did happen, no eye-witnesses ever recorded their tales, or, if they did, these memoires have never been located.

… and you should also be aware that even if you do find eye-witnesses, what they saw, or think they saw, may still not prove anything …

Hello Dave,
Wern't these some of the Garde citations for Marengo:
Avoine Citation reads: For his distinguished conduct at the Battle of Marengo
Boucer Citation reads: For his distinguished conduct at the Battle of Marengo.
Carlin Citation reads: For his brilliant conduct at the Battle of Marengo
Mirabel Citation reads: For his brilliant valour during the three days of Marengo.
Riter Citation reads: For his notable conduct during numerous Bayonet Charges at the Battle of Marengo
Sayer Citation reads: For his valorous conduct at the Battle of Marengo.
Am looking for the other two

Wagram

Hello Dave,
Managed to find one more
Noel Citation reads: For his distinguished conduct during numerous Bayonet charges at Marengo.

Wagram

Dave: "There is a perfectly rational explanation, which allows every account to work."

One can construe any number of perfectly rational explanantions around a selection of specific facts, documents etc, for any situation. Just because you point out one possible perfectly rational explanation does not make that the *only* perfectly rational situation.

This is a common problem with conspiracy theories – they weave their perfectly rational explanations round the known facts (though, sadly, they often use incorrect facts, but that's another story!). But other just as perfectly rational – and usually rather more mundane – explanations can be wound round the same facts.

Again, I say as always, I'm no historian, and this is therefore just my layman's perspective on 'perfectly rational explanations' …

One can also manipulate the information available to concur with what one is trying to prove. If you ignore other data, even individual lines you make something say what you like. We have seen other authors do this and get found out because someone else does the same research or even digs deeper. Now I am not saying Dave has done this but I am saying that if you dismiss other data or information (sources) because you don't trust them simply because they do not comply with what you feel is correct then you could be making a massive literary mistake.

I really hate it when I hear people dismiss any sources that are French or come directly from Napoleon simply out of hand because of where they come from. I do not think you can say every written word from the French can be taken as wrong, lies or distortions any more than you can say if the source was Austrian, German, Russian, English or from any other damned country for that matter…

You have to be careful yes it is true but the best authors are the unbiased ones who present the full data from "every" source they have and allow the readers to make up their own minds. If an author does not do this and feels that the reader is not intelligent enough to make up his/her own mind then the author is doing nothing other than showing arrogance and at worst manipulating the flow of information and data. Almost like censorship…

Shane

"To accuse me of never revealing the sourcing is just trying to smear me."

So reveal the sources Dave.

You are going to have to put up or shut up…

You claimed a few years ago that you were witting a full length book on Marengo, and that you did not want to revel your sources.

Well, that book deal is dead in the water, so now why cant you give us the sources?

Or as I stated a few years ago, are they on the level of David Hamilton-Williams?

As you may recall you started your talk of lawsuits from that comment.

Is it that hard to post them?

Fine we all understand that Osprey booklet's do not have room to list the sources.

So list them here and then maybe you can prove your version of Marengo.

?

My this has been a fascinating thread.
first H-W, then PH & now DH have been subject to strict analysis &, I'm afraid, found wanting.
My congratulations to dave for a performance that makes Ney's rearguard action in Russia look like a stroll in the park.
Indomitable is the word I'm looking for. Or something that means "I don't care how logical you get, I'll continue to repeat myself."
donald

Sault 11th ACR,
(d*** fine regiment, by the way)

OK, I just cant resist trying help here. I, too, used to think that Dave had "secret Austrain archival sources" or some such.

He doesnt.

What he has that mention the garde à pied are :
-- 2 manuscripts attributed to Stutterheim (one of 1811 vintage one of maybe ~ 1820 vintage), both never published until Hüffer's work about 100 years after the battle
-- 1 historical study by the staff captain Mras published in 1822/23 and then republished by de Cugnac about 100 years after the battle …. Dave claims Mras did not have access to the Stutterheim manuscript(s), although he was working on his study of the battle at the archive where these were located.
-- a "regimental tradition" of a regiment not mentioned otherwise, as found in their regimental history about 100 years after the battle.

Actually, untill the co-operation of many people actually provided these 4 items verbatim, Dave really didnt have them either ! He had his "notes" taken while looking at these works in a library. This made it hard for him to post the texts verbatim.

Anyway, it is just these four – no secret archival materials, nothing more for him to list no matter how much you ask about it.

The relevant full text of these 4, in English, I posted on this thread. That's all there is.

Because these 4 dont really get very far in "proving" Dave's predetermined "Napoleon is bad !" message, Dave has to flesh out the "analysis". He does this in two main ways :
-- he decides a source is actually talking about the garde à pied when in fact the original author made no such identification
-- he cherry-picks little pieces from sources, providing "corrections" whenever he needs to do so to "prove" what he knows "must have happened".

This little game was ALOT easier for Dave to play in Englsih before (i) the Internet and (ii) Google books and (iii) a sufficient number of people in sufficient locations speaking sufficient languages actually "outted" the sources.

Anyway, you have all there is that mentions the garde à pied from the "secret sources", right here on TMP.

"It is what it is."

- Evan

Yep, if your surname begins with 'H', you're in trouble here.

Regards

Arteis, more commonly known as Roly Hermans (oh … damn!)

"Yep, if your surname begins with 'H', you're in trouble here."

Oh man, where does that leave me….Daryl Hosking.!!!!!!!

Roly & Daryl,

Dont worry -- it is not the surnames' initial letter.

What the three have in common is that they are writing "revisionist" works, poking at Anglo-French sacred cows.
The PROBLEM is that they are British themselves. Their message does not come with the life-long depth of study and natural balance that a modern German-speaking researcher would bring to the topics. Indeed, the need to be "novel" or "new" presses and over-presses them to exaggerate their conclusions, just to gain a place in the very well-served English-language publications market.

Our "v. Winterfeld", "Oliver Schmidt", "Ulenspiegel" and "CAPT IGLO", at least one of whom may be H.-K. Weiss, are at this moment conducting at lively, but balanced and intelligent, discussion of the "Wellington Messages" on the TMP Nap. History channel. The difference is also noticable in the German-language fora, such as the one at napoleon-online.de (at least as far as I can easily follow along, as my German is alot worse than my English, French and Spanish).

And since there are some Anglo-French sacred cow defenders, including my friend and mentor Kevin Kiley and Professor Greg Pedlow, the level of acrimony can start rising really fast, as our "revisionists" are really out on thin ice, and the Internet lets everyone see this really easily. And since their self-esteem (and potentially their ability to find publishers) rests on not being shown to be so far out there on that thin ice, their defense mechanisms are often highly tuned.

For myself, I am more in the "Steven H Smith" mode. I just love the original details, as many as possible, as original as possible, in the original languages. And if you can stop retching at the tortured logic and waterboarded sources, the "revisionists" will at least give you some places to go for yourself to look at the stories more directly. So it cant be said that they are totally useless.

If you are careful, and dont retch exactly ON these books, you can also give them away to people new to the study of the era.

Yours in firm research,

- Evan

Perhaps one should open a new thread – Marengo :-)).

As to Hüffer, I just read the first 60 pages, which are discussing the sources available in French and German and the development of how Napoleon tried to shape the battle to his ideals.

Hüffer did not read De Cugnac, and seemingly vice versa – a parallel publication, but very often they mirror each other or come to identical conclusions:

Like about Kellermann, and his position and what flank he did attack, as well that he did attack from his own initiative.

Hüffer also makes a point that the firm stand of the grenadiers of the Conuslar Guard is legend and that the unit was broken.

Hüffners work is similiar to French works of that period, like Alembert and Colin, discussion of sources in general, then a discussion of the source, then the source itself and later in the book "pieces justificatives" as in Krebs – Morris or all other French general staff studies, bringing original documents, reports, eye witness accounts etc.

The good thing is, Hüffer also covers Hohenlinden as well.

Who would have checked Hüffer without Dave Hollins? And thanks to google books all can do it now easily.
I will see to get Mras – it should be on google books as well.

Happy reading and discussing.

De Cugnac : Il est certain qu'on est étonné que dans la suite, il n'ait pas fait Kellermann, ou Boudet, duc de Marengo

Nothing wrong, per se with books by authors with names beginning with the letter 'H'.
Take Homan for instance. And C. Handler. Or Hrothenberg (the H is silent in the original German).
donald (with nary an H to bless himself with)

Salut v. Winterfeldt,

Perhaps I am not enough "napoléonien". The Hüffer is a great find, and I had never have looked at it before Dave's "creative" re-writing of Marengo.

What I dont understand is why this whole question needs to be so acrimonious. We have plenty of reports of some firm standing followed by not too much detail about getting then really chopped in the "French" sources. We get the details of the story of the "chopping" from the "Austrian" sources. Looks overall pretty reasonable to me.

Let's face it, if one battalion of old men from the Parisian ceremonial guards could have defeated the Austrian army, the intervention of Desaix would not have been required. So the garde à pied had to get thrown back somehow. And now we know the "how".

Great stuff, really.

I think you might find the Mras in the de Cugnac (in French, sadly for you, easier for me.)
:-)

Bien amicalement,

- Evan

PS – If you are among the id's of HKW, I really have to thank you for many, many interesting posts and comments on various fora over many years. Me incline à vous.

"Noel Citation reads: For his distinguished conduct during numerous Bayonet charges at Marengo." And where exactly are bayonet charges involved in a square standing still? Don't forget the Guard fought in the evening, although we hear very little about it. Petit on p.57 says: "The foot grenadiers appeared again covered with renown and menacing with their terrible bayonets, those, who had a short time past bargained for their caps beforehand".

Petit incidentally concludes on p.74 with "In 500 men, there were 258 dead opr hors de combat … the light artillery was almost all dismounted and the train horses killed."

Compare that with the LD1, whose two sqdns involved win 7 of the 10 bravery awards and the men are named. Robert (copied by Evan) did not read the actual repetition of the note, which is actually quite important since no-one in the well-known accounts places LD1 there, yet they are the cavalry in the area (having just taken the farm). Contrary to what was written above, I just said that I had to find the notes and it takes time as I have two big files of them. Anyway, I have found my notes from Geschichte des kk Uhlanen-Regts Nr. 6 (Vol.2) by Cajetan Pizzighelli, so here goes again. On p.52, it describes the cavalry exchanges in the south by the other squadrons. It then goes on the say that the "great acts" performed by the 3rd and 4th sqdns are described on the basis of handwritten notes possessed by the regt. This chronicle records a brilliant attack on the 62e Demi-brigade, which was led by Radetzky, whose coat was shot through with 5 holes. the French divs under Gardanne and Chambarlhac had pulled back on Spinetta and he main Austrian column victoriously deployed in which were the two sqdns of our reg on the far side of the infamous Fontanone, ready to complete the defeat of the French. (N. sends the guard forward). (P.53) (Splenyi are attacking the guard and the situation is critical). "Then suddenly charged from the main column, which was still in the process of deploying outside Marengo, Oberst frimont with four sqdns of Bussy and our men, turned into the back of the Guard and by the now successful attack decided the critical moment in favour of the Austrians". At the end of the description of the battle, it lists the 7 men from 3rd and 4th sqdns who received medals along with three from 1st sqdn.

Aside from being rather more than Evan mentioned above, this is independent of Stutterheim (and Mras) and Rauch, as they do not mention the presence of LD1, so there are three acounts of cavalry getting round the back of the Guard and turning them over. Hopw does the "Guard in square" tale explain this or indeed its 121 casualties (contra the early propaganda about a handful). Rauch and Hochenegg were on the Fontanone at this time about 3/4 km away and so cannot identify the units, but what they say is consistent with other accounts, including the Petit point about 500 men being involved.

I think before a few people get excited about conspiracies and only quoting half of the material used, it is worth bearing in mind two things – 1) the story must run coherently (the first thing you notice about Furse is that his account makes no sense) and ultimately when writing something, it has to work, otherwise you get "ah, but"; 2) while the smears are all very easy, I have said several times, that all stories have to be explained and the explanation for the story of the Guard in square, which certainly appears no earlier than Sept 1800 and it may even be Petit in 1801, is quite simple – it is the 28e, who fade from the reports as the Guard grows bigger. The Bulletin only says that the Guard did well as you might expect from the unit most closely connected to N and only says that they stood like a "block of granite". All the rest comes steadily much later and the final story really only appears in the 1803 "official account". The other accounts are not some kind of conspiracy – their secondary material is just copied from a common origin, which can be identified.

The idea that something happened – yet nobody saw it or took part in it is absurd in itself and goes against all standards of historical discussion. Likewise, claims about what happeend must in themselves stand up. What has happened to these 300+ people, whom Soules has mislaid. How can the Guard arrive in one place less than an hour and a half after it left a place 3 hours' march away. How can they be ahead of a unit, which must march and fight for about 90 mins?

So, what are we left with? A bulletin that does not actually say much beyond bigging up the Guard (much as N did to Kellerman that night), which over time develops into a story about a unit in square (which makes no sense given their task), but which either a) gets out with all its wounded or b) mislays at least 300 men. There is nothing consistent to it at all, as might be expected where there ius no actual account of what happened by an eyewitness or participant.

in contrast, there are Kellerman and Victor saying the Guiard are getting swamped, Quiot and the general task putting the Guard initially alongside 28e, who were in square for hours before marching up and with Murat's cavalry support (contra Petit) driving off the Austrian cavalkry and then engaging IR51 before three independnet accounts tell us that Austrian cavalry under Frimont jumped them and only 200 get out.

If anyone wants to put up a contrary explanation, can they please explain the accounts and produce a story, which makes sense.

I'm afraid that's already been done three or four times on this forum and on Max Sewell's old forum. Where have you been all these years?

The bottom line is, the idea of the Consular Guard infantry being destroyed at Marengo with 400 of its men being taken by the Austrians as prisoners is incorrect, as you were informed before the book came out.

You really ought to admit you are in error and let it go. Rehashing this every year or two is really getting old.

And I really would like to see a list of the 80 sources you used as I might actually have some of them in my library and could look it up.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Ha, ha! Why should anyone listen to you – you are merely trying to cover up the fact that you got all your facts about Gribeauval wrong and haven't used Franco-German sources because you cannot read them. There would be no point listinng the sources because even if you them (which I doubt), you would not be able to read them. This constant assertion about the Guard and the NSF is about as good as your 5-times assertion in your book that Gribeauval invented the bricole – and you know what, he didn't!

No, I am asking anyone sensible to tell me on the basis of the accounts what actually happened.

Hello Dave,
Unfortunately I do not know where the bayonet charge comes from I only gave the citation.As numerous people have stated you seem very reluctant to reveal your sources and this as been the case since the book was published. I could understand this when the hardback edition was in the pipeline but since this as gone to the wall what's the harm. Does Terry Cowdrey feel the same about revealing your sources? You left one forum due to one member asking the same question and presumably causing you offence. Evan and 11th ACR have also asked the same question. BTW didn't the 28e recieve all there awards a long time after Marengo, do you have a list of these and there citations?
Probably the bottom line should be put up or shut up which would be a shame.
Wagram

You can read the complete Mras account in French, in the De Castres text. The Maréchal de camp de Castres published, in 1828 several accounts of the battle of Marengo, and compared them. He comes to the conclusion that the Grenadiers de la Garde des consuls were destroyed, as Mras told.

Unfortunately, the text of de Castres is, in my opinion, a piece of Royalist propagand as it portrays Napoleon as a lunatic and a madman.

You can make your own opinion by reading in : it is available on Google Books, under the title "Journal des sciences militaires" (1828).

'Ha, ha! Why should anyone listen to you…'

No one has to 'listen' to anyone else. However, there is the simple fact that I listed the sources that I used and fottnoted where I though necessary.

Where are your sources and footnotes?

Sincerely,
Kevin

"Ha, ha! Why should anyone listen to you…"
Be careful, Kevin.
He has a dummy & he's not afraid to spit it.
donald

(for our American friends: "he has a pacifier…")

lol a good old dummy spit, love it ochoin!!

von Winterfeldt wrote :
"Who would have checked Hüffer without Dave Hollins? And thanks to google books all can do it now easily."

I don't think so… I asked David Hollins about his reading of Hüffer last year, I don't recall any positive answer. I stumbled upon Hüffer while searching on Gallica (the digital project of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France), and I contacted Robert Ouvrard to see if he could take some of his time to read a copy in Vienna. Unfortunately Robert Ouvrard was much too busy…

But, let's face it we are all amateur historians here. It is clear from the sources we cite and use, and the way we use them.

If I had to write an account of the Marengo battle, I would have to read the following sources, at the very least :

I. Documents compilations, analysis :

There are several important works one should start with, all published about 1900 :

1. Capitaine de Cugnac : Campagne de l'armée de réserve en 1800 (chapelot 1900)
2. Hermann Hüffer : Quellen zur Gueschichte des Zeitaters der Französischen Revolution
3. Vottorio Emanuele Pittaluga : La battaglia di Marengo (14 giugho 1800 (Allessandria 1898)
4. Centenario della battaglia di Marengo. Memorie storiche del periodico napoleonico publicate a spese del municipio di Alessandria per cura della Sociietà di storia della provincia (Allessandrai 1900)

I have yet to see the Italian sources mentioned…

II. Newspapers of the time :

If one simply reads de Cugnac works, there are sources mentionned that one should be read :

Newspapers (in German), published in 1801 :
1. von Posselt newspaper "Europäische Annalen"
2. von Porbeck (or Venturini ?) "Neue Bellona"

Ideally, one should seek other such documents in French or Italian.
Moreover, one should search for academic level works analysing the newspapers of the time, especially the German ones.

III. After-battle reports from field-commanding officers

1. French commanding officers reports
2. Austrian commanding officers reports

IV. Afterbattle reports for authorities

1. French after-battle report sent to the French government (other Consuls, war miinster) or Senate.
2. Same for Austrians

V. Memories from participants in the Battle

When using those sources, one should be extra-careful to note :
1. The real name of the one involved in the redaction
2. The role of the eye-witness in the battle
3. The date of redaction
4. The public aimed at with the text
5. The context of publication

VI. Regimental histories

Once again there are things to bear in mind with such sources.
1. They are agiographical by nature
2. Date of redaction is important
3. Context of redaction is important

VII. Award citations

Here again those are agiographical texts, and date is important.

Best regards.

Concerning awards:

The letter by the First Consul to carnot of 18th July 1800 distributes the following awards [fusils d'honneur]:

15 for:

6e and 24e demi-brigade légère, 22e, 28e, 40e, 43e and 96e de ligne

10 for:
9e légère, 44e and 59e de ligne

5 for:
the batallions of the 101e and the 30e

20 carabines d'honneur to the cavalry

As we have seen, this list may be incomplete, at least it is concerning the guards.

Donald and Shane,

When I was an artillery battery executive officer way back in ancient time, I kept a pacifier in my desk for anyone who came in whining. When that happened, I just took it out and tossed it on the desk. It ended conversations abruptly. It was most effective on 2d lieutenants. ;-)

Sincerely,
Kevin

hehehehehe,

I could imagine the embarrassment and indignation on the whingers faces, love it Kevin.

I am sure this forum could use that pacifier a few times Kevin…

Well Kevin we are very close in these maters.

As a Platoon Sergeant in a Scout Platoon I kept a tube of Vagacile in my desk for the same reason (For enlisted only).

And I kept an extra first Aid bandage for my new lieutenants for the first time they had to get there butt chewed out. As they would leave the office, I would say "here your going to need this.

I did just finish reading most of the Mras article in german.
Can be found here at google books.

link

the article is actually quite long and covers the whole campaign and battle.
I´m no Marengo expert, not at all , have not even looked at a map.

At least at first sight the article is quite excellent, no bias, no pathos, the author has no problems to mention austrian failures and french successes even on a smaller level, the guard issue is reported quite laconically in not more than one page.
All description of tactical encounters contain the necessary minimum of information, the units involved from both sides, often the formations and movements, and an explanation of the outcome.
overall quite solid , quite convincing, good solid staff historian work, gives at least the impression of a well rearched study.

If there is something in french of that quality I would be happy if someone can provide a link.

What I have seen so far from french sources on this thread is impressive by its sheer volume, but not so convincing en detail, the descriptions are all quite pale,even if they cover what must have been a few hours of action.

Mras description of the guard action is quite short, but contains the maneuvering and formation changes of two opposing infantry formations plus three cavalry charges of named units from both sides, their outcome and an explanation for their failure/success, plus naturally the shredding of the guard as the logic outcome of what happened before.

I have begun reading the Mras account (French translation by Capitaine Himly, in Journal des Sciences Militaires, 1828). There are several things that seem rather odd at the very beginning.

1. Mras states that Bonaparte knew that the Austrians would attack from the bridgehead at the point of dawn.

2. Mras goes on to tell that Bonaparte already recieved a report from Desaix stating that there was no enemy as far as Acqui and before Novi.

3. According to Mras, Bonaparte had sent an order to Desaix to join with the rest of the army at San Guiliano.

Is my translation reliable ? Does the German original text give sources for these pieces of information ?

Still reading Mras…

His timing is very strange… According to him, Bonaparte left San Giuliano around 11AM with the Garde des Consuls cavalry (seems in line with all I know with the movements of Napoleon Bonaparte at that moment). But, Mras also says that at that moment Bonaparte had already sent ahead Monnier division, one hour ago (10 AM). The text is not very clear because, it states that Monnier recieved, when he arrived on the field, orders from Bonaparte to move on the right flank of Lannes, and that the Garde Consulaire infantry was under his command.

Is the German text any clearer ?

Another question, Mras says that the Garde des Consuls Grenadiers are destroyed around 01PM.

It seems very early to me…

philippe,
the very beginning of Mras writing is actually in the 1822 issue of the ÖMZ, it starts with Suvorov leaving the theater.
the 4th chapter starts with Marengo, indeed Mras writes on page 233 that Napoleon had received through "Kundschafter"(thats eclaireurs) news about the intended attack during the night and did call back Desaix directly at dawn.
So, as Mras states the Austrian plan was uncovered already from the beginning.

link

He gives no sources, perhaps Berthier?.

Mras reasoning on the command decisions of the other side
might be debatable, sufficient to say that at least the Austrians in the aftermath did have the impression that their plan was uncovered at the beginning.

Its difficult to find out when the study was actually written.
The only reference to later events is a short mentioning of the next war(1805) and a discussion of Berthiers writing in 1805 and, quite surprising for me , a rant against the prussian military philosopher Bülow, who was quite popular at the beginning of the century, but nearly forgotten and his reputation completely ruined in 1822.
Nothing about "the beast" finally defeated and on St.Helena .

The whole study could have been written in 1807 or 1808 too.

The timing,
I didn´t know how the timing was handled in that era, if the french did act on say Paris time and the Austrians on say vienna time there should be 2 hours difference.

Cpt Iglo, I think Mras would use Vienna time, and French Paris time. Right ?

Then 01:00PM Vienna time would be how much in Paris time ? 11:00AM ?

Philippe I don´t know this.
It was just a speculation, perhaps they did use "rome time" or "battlefield time", each army their own.
Perhaps one army was on summer time, the other on winter time.
Perhaps Mras did use the wrong time tables.

I´m not so much into time tables, what did convince me about Mras writing is the fact that he´s precise on maneuvers and tactical evolutions, it all fits.
There is no place in Mras writing for a granite redoubt.
According to Mras after the melting away of the granite formation all organized resistance on the french side did end, they did retreat.
Melas did ride home and did leve the pursuit to a subordinate.
Then the army did march off in columns to seize the field.
They would never have done this if there had been the slightest form of organized resistance in front of them.
The tactical formations used by the Austrians in this battle were still open zugkolonnen formed on brigade or "column" level, these formations had to do their line evolutions in a safe enviroment by parallelmarching. Nobody did advance head on against an still active opponent in these formations.

The battle was finished, the french were defeated and retreating at this time. otherwise the Austrians would never have pursued the french in these formations.
It does indeed all fit perfectly.

Hüffer is discussing Mras, and also states that Mras is not stating his sources other then generally – the Feldakten.

According to Hüffer Mras must have used the "Stutterheim" , amongst else – account there he takes some of it word for word.

I just read the Stutterheim report, as we all know thanks to Dave Hollins, there exists two reports, an older one, and a newer one, the older seemingly written not too distant from the time of the battle.

In this report Stutterheim is very precise about the destruction of the Grenadiers of the Consular Garde (after a hard fighting)

After Stutterheim – after this defeat the French retreat was in general.

There are some interesting points which are different to Neipperg, especially how the Austrians conducted the persuit.

After reading this report or account I believe it is quite sincere there a lot of other interesting details are included, like how one of the Austrian generals was very much concerned after the defeat to save all this bagge waggons which were his most concern.

I tried to download the OMZ 1822 and 1823 but gave up, my lines are too bad.

I cannot find as Cptn Iglo did any information about the tactical formation of the Austrians persuing the beaten French.

According to Stutterheim they deployed to fight against Boudet and beat the first attack off when they were attacked by Kellermann's cavalry attack (one of the most sueccessfull cavalry charges in the world, which turned a defeat into a victory) and caused the panick in the Austrian ranks.

@von Winterfeldt,

How does Hüffer identify the auhor of the Stutterheim account ? How does he give it a date ?

Where's Dave gone he seems to have disapeared I and a few others are waiting for his replies to our questions. Hopefully he will return to the debate soon.

Wagram

@Philippe Aube

Hüffer identifies him – because it is written in 3rd perosn and Stutterheim is used in the text, however Hüffer is also not that clear and thinks it could be another person than Stutterheim, a bit confusing for me.
I have to read Hüffer several times on some passages to get his interpretation right. The Stutterheim text is really a good read in my opinion and backs up also Neipperg – also about the days after the battle.

About the date, I have to re – read, difficult – I would need two screens or two ordinateurs

@von Winterfeldt

Thank you very much for taking some of your time to comment Hüffer for us.

There is something I don't understand.

As far as I know, David Hollins used the "Stutterheim" name for this account. It seems to imply that he read it in Hüffer (the one that attributed this account to Stutterheim), or, at least, that he read Stutterheim (the original document) and Hüffer.

But David Hollins always maintained that Mras account was independant from Stutterheim. It doesn't match.

I have reread the translation (see above) of both so-called Stutterheim account and noticed there is no mention of guns until the end. The four guns that should be with the Garde des Consuls à pieds are taken when the Grenadiers are put to flight, but they are not mentionned before…

Is the translation incomplete ?