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

@Philippe Aube

I don't know what Stutterheim account you read, there are two, the old one A – and a newer one B.

Mras is not a copy of Stutterheim but using this account as source.

In Stutterheim A, he is very precise about the Grenadiers of the Garde Consulaire, you can find it in Hüffer, pages 79 – 83

Here a brief summary of Stutterheim – by no means a translation, just to let you know about the content of Stutterheim.

He is giving no time but stating that about or shortly before the fall of Marengo the garde consulaire came on the way from Sale towards the center in column of open section covered with Tirailleurs about 60 paces distance from the column and 4 guns.

Ott ordered the regiment Lobkowitz to form up and attack, Lt – colonel Harrach but it zook a long time to get this attack under way and it was repelled by the fire of the Tirailleurs, a unit of French cavalry persued this fleeing Austrians.

The infantry of Ott was faced now without cavalry the French cavalry but also the regiment Spleny mad front against the French cavalry and beat it back.

Meanwhile the consular guard continued their advance – against it the battalion Spleny – supported by a battalion Frehlich faced them and advanced against it.

The guard fomred by wheeling sections to form a front and both opponents adavanced against each other and the outcome seemed to be not sure when all of a sudden a "Schwarm" cloud of imperial (here Austrian) cavalry amongst which where the oustanding Busy – Jäger came galloping form Marengo and attacked the guard from the rear and only a few escaped, also the 4 guns were captured.

OK – Stutterheim B is more precise about the time, he says about 3 o'clock in the afternoon.

I would really recommend all to read these pages and compare the two Stutterheim versions, for me – my opinion, amateur researcher – not being fully informed as other Marengo enthusiasts (Chasseur à Cheval, Dave Hollins, Philippe Aube), both Neipperg and Stutterheim sound very plausible.

I have to read Mras, but so far what I can see, Hüffer seems to provide more interesting details.

@von Winterfeldt,

I used the two translations that can be read on the page 6 of this topic. In both, the artillery of the Garde des Consuls (at least the four guns that are supposed to have marched with the Grenadiers) is said to be lost at the end, but plays almost no part in the action.

Each and every tactical move is described in details for the Grenadiers and the Austrians infantry, but there is not a mention of the deployment of the guns on any side. With the new depiction, there is not even a single mention of artillery use…

As you may know, I am convinced that the Garde des Consuls artillery was already in action with other commands when the Grenadiers were engaged (following de Cugnac).

There are also very strange features to the story. The strangest thing is the fact that cavalry on both sides is very vulnerable to infantry fire. A simple skirmishers volley is enough to drive away the DR10 charge (commanding such a thing should have been very difficult indeed). Then, a single volley breaks the French cavalry…

I never thoght that Mras copied Stutterheim. I am convinced that Mras used Stutterheim and tried to patch it up with other informations he had. Anyway, David Hollins repeated the very same thing to me : Mras and Stutterheim are "clearly" independant.

What is striking is that Mras never seems to use French sources, even the least disputed. For example stating, at the beginning of his account, that Napoleon Bonaparte knew of the incoming attack seems more than odd. Even the worst of agiograph never thought of this one. Why, then, would the Premier Consul delay the march of his reserve until 11:00AM ? Paraphrasing David Hollins "It makes no sense"…

Anyway, I thank you very much for the time you took to answer my questions.

If you have some time left, can you give us the method Hüffer uses to decide which text is the older one. How does he give them a date ?

Best regards.

Mras tells at least a story which has some content and inherent logic.

He describes within a time frame of about 60 minutes exactly what happened(or might have happened for those who don´t trust him), he names the participating units on both sides, their moves, the formation they are in, plus the way they engage, and the outcome naturally.
this includes 3 cavalry charges and an infantry firefight.
altogether 4 cavalry and 3 infantry units from both sides are clearly identified, essentially all participants.
the outcome has some logic in itsself.

Again, exists something like this for the "granite redoubt" view of things ?, has anybody ever tried to describe what might have been one of the most heroic infantry performances of all times in more than mere platitudes, or simply just in a way tactical actions on the field are described by serious historians?

The sources for the "granite" version actually have a lot of variations, the number of cavalry charges varies from 1 to 5 , sometimes infantry is involved, sometimes not, sometimes artillery plays a role, sometimes not. Sometimes they´re exclusively in square, sometimes they´re "en bataille" too, which means as far as I know in line.

The opponents always stay in the dark.

And the opponents themselves somehow didn´t take notice of all this.
Mras or Stutterheim aside, there should have been something on this from the austrian perspective. Just imagine no one would have taken notice from the guards stand at Waterloo.

If someone says this stinks, he might have some reason to say so.

Another thing to consider is that times given are relative, as there was no standard of time for the combatants.

I will again look at Hüffer at this time.

For sure – also Stutterheim gives credit to the fighting capabilities of the Guard.

The rocher story is – in my view – propaganda – how could one battalion stop the entire Austrian Army in the plain at Marengo – this is not the famous Leonidas story.

One has only read de Cugnac (who could not be accused to be anti Napoleon / Bonaparte) – to see how N made a masterpiece of propaganda about this battle, so there is true bias and interest from his side in there.

@Cptn Iglo

About the "Redoute de granit", you have to consider that this was the style of the era, in France at least. It may seem ridiculous to our XXIst Century eyes. Essentially, if you dub it ridiculous, why study such an era ? One finds this kind of "formules" in most French reports, accounts in those times (not only "Bulletins".

Now, there is almost nothing about it in French because there was no debate on it. The French participants and historians all agree on the fact that the Garde des Consuls infantry arrived, almost simultaneously with Monnier) when Lannes was in dire position. They formed in square, fought in square, died in square and finally retreated (in square).

Most "polémiques" involved :

1. Did Bonaparte know of the bridges ?

2. Did Bonaparte send an order to Desaix to come back or did Desaix come back "to the sound of guns" ?

3. Did Monnier leave Castel-Ceriolo at one point of the battle, contrary to later official accounts ?

4. Did Kellermann charge the Austrian Grenadiers on his own initiative ?

The destruction of the Garde des Consuls Grenadiers can be found in certain French texts. BUT, all the French sources, as far as I know, that tell of this event refer to the Mras account (word for word).

In a nutshell, you will find no detailed French account of the fight of the Garde des Consuls Grenadiers because :

1. Bonaparte had lots of the documents (gathered for the writing of the official account) destroyed to cover his lie about the Castel-Ceriolo "pivot" story. Unfortunately, the Grade des Consuls infantry acted not too far away from Monnier…

2. In 1871, the "cartons" concerning those events (including the Garde des Consuls participation), where burnt in the destruction of the Tuileries Palace during the "Commune de Paris".

3. When the Mras account was published (1823), France was under the "Restauration" regime. Only some participants (such as Victor, Kellerman, Savary) could, and would, voice their opinion. The Mras account was translated in 1828 (under Charles X, the most reactionary king of the era) in a piece of royalist propaganda (I gave the source above, read for yourself to see what kind of text it was).

4. There was no debate in France about the course of events for the fight of the Grenadiers de la Garde des Consuls (see above), not even after Mras was known in France (see de Cugnac).

Let's see the Stutterheim (older A/newer B) and Mras accounts :

My knowledge about the Napoleonic wars may be incomplete, but I have yet to find any reference about a company of skimishers able to repel a cavalry charge, as told in the older Stutterheim account. In the new Stutterheim version, the event is changed to a volley (more believable, but still unlikely as Grenadiers were in column). Mras replaces the volley by artillery canister. Don't you notice a trend here ?

Then some French cavalry charged the retiring Austrian Light-Dragoons Lobkowitz (DR10). No more detail in the older account, then the French cavalry is put to flight by a few shots from the Spleny (IR51) that was deployed in line and rushing forward. In the newer version, no change. In Mras, once again, there is some additional artillery involved.

No French source says anything about cavalry support for the Garde des Consuls infantry, they even make it clear that there was NO such support. But, we have no report from Champeaux (he was wounded). Murat says nothing about it.

Then all three Austrian accounts tell the same story about a lengthy firefight between the French and the Austrian. (involving two units : Spleny (IR51) and Fröhlich (IR48). Both sides deployed in line. In Stutterheim A, there are only two bataillons : one from IR51, one from IR48. Stutterheim B and Mras have three : two from IR51, one from IR48.

Now comes the Austrian cavalry from around Marengo. The older account says a swarm of cavalry. Then the newer account adds some detail Nauendorf Hussars (HR8) and de Bussy (mounted) Jägers. Mras only speaks of the Colonel de Frimont. If I am not mistaken, de Frimont was leading the de Bussy Jägers.

My analysis is this : the original Stutterheim account was the basis of both the later Stutterheim and (even later) Mras account. The Stutterheim account is the vaguest of all.

Both later account add details. For the French side, they add the most logical details (for example they add the name of Champeaux to the French cavalry as it was the name of the leader of the cavalry supporting Lannes on this part of the battlefield). They also added details obtained from "traditions" of some Austrian units involved or added in the the later texts.

Both Stutterheim cleaned up the first account, removing the most unbeleivable details (skirmishers repelling a cavalry charge, adding use of artillery, etc.) and replace them with more logical ones.

The fact that they seem so full of details, so logical is a feature that comes from the fact that are, in my opinion, made to be *that* logical.

In my opinion, all accounts are sincere, but mistaken. I bet all the people Mras met and texts he read gave him the impression of sincerity, and he patched them up together. For me, Mras made an account that represent "recieved wisdom" of the Austrian as it was in the 1807/1820 era. He did not try to compare his account with anything else (the fact that he beieves that Bonaparte was aware of the Melas plan is, in my opinion, a hint).

There is only one thing that makes me doubt : the Neipperg report. The fact that there is a mention about the Frimont "victory" in the Kreigarchive version of the text would be enough to shake my belief. Because I have another version (manuscript) of this report without the note about the Frimont fight.

If the correct text is the "Litta collection" one, then my theory is correct (at 99% to allow for some doubt), if this text was forged to erase the Frimont reference, then Mras has a very good chance of being close to the truth…

Best regards.

In my view, why the French sources are so rare about the Guard is percisly because it was wanted by Bonaparte / Napoleon, the world should know his story and not the true story about Marengo, de Cugnac – a Frenchman – is pointing that out very precisily.

Not only the lie of the pivot of the Castel – Ceriolo pivot – but also the downplay of one of the most successfull cavalry charges in the world, comparable with the Hohenfriedberg attack of the Ansbach – Bayreuth dragoons, are a proove how Napoleon changed deliberatly the change of action, the destroying of more reports as well, the re – writing of the history of the battle.

The French sources, who may have eixsted were either destroyed or voiced later (and some where, Kellermann for example) and by that some legends of the battle did survive, other example are the lakes at Austerlitz in which thousands of Russians should have been drowned, you will find this legend in a lot of eye witness accounts as well as in write ups of the battle.

I agree with Philippe Aube that it sounds very strange that Tirailleurs would beat off a cavalry attack, on the other hand it was not rare that infantry in line could beat off attacking cavalry.

But precisily such points, as Tirailleurs repelling cavalry might include the truth, a story which the author is inclined to change later into a more plausible story because nobody would believe the "truth" or that what he has witnessed anyway.

From what I can read from Neipperg and Stutterheim, what happened before and after the battle, both sources seem to be very sincere, maybe of course not without fault.

So, the hypothesis that the Guard was colbuté at Marengo is as good as the invincible last stand.

@von Winterfeldt

Can I ask you how does Hüffer give a date to both Stutterheim account ?

What does he say abouth the link between the two texts ? Does he believe the author is the same ?

Why does he give the older one just as a note ?

At least Stutterheim and Mras can be discussed because they offer some description of the event.
I have no problem with the description on the charges. only in bulletin style writings charges end always heroicly in the bayonets.
In Stutterheim 1 he states that the Lobkowitz dragoons did turn around after a few skirmisher shots.
What he wrote was not a charge driven off by mere skirmishers, but just a failed cavalry charge.
There were countless cases in which charges did fail,and those who did discuss the topic nore sensibly (thats not Murat or Napoleon)did often adress the problems.
Cavalry was to a large degree a mental thing, if the blood pressure in men and horses didn´t go up or terrain did produce exhaustions ,attacks were bound to fail, if additionally the target(thats the column behind the skirmishers)stood firm , just the sight of them would halt the charge.
There are numerous descriptions of events like these in austrian and prussian period writings, only for the napoleonic french the charge was a path to glory.

There are some modifications in Stutterheim 2 and Mras, thats just quite natural.
perhaps they were indeed interested to make the Lobkowitz men look not so bad, but what remains is still a definite failure, a charge which was unable to establish contact.

Perhaps the Lobkowitz guys did give their explanation for the failure, things which Stutterheim as an eyewitness couldn´t see.
Perhaps The Lobkowitz guys did even lie with their excuses, what still remains is a quite unheroic failure, nothing is made up, no covering up, no propaganda lies.

The Lobkowitz dragoons didn´t win a place in the austrian Pantheon with this one and a biased author might just have left out this unpleasent event completly.

Its difficult to find a propaganda agenda in Stutterheim or Mras writings, by the standards of others they were incredible modest and self critical.

Napoleon's rewrite of the Battle of Marengo supplanted the largely accurate version done by Col Vallongue of the Depot de la Guerre. That first version was ordered destroyed by Napoleon, but one survived. It wasn't a big secret that there was a rewrite.

However, the short fight of the Guard infantry was not in contention in the rewrite as it wasn't an issue. The rewrite of the battle is gone into in some detail in David Chandler's On the Napoleonic Wars. As I said, the Guard's fight is not an issue, nor is it in du Cugnac/Lanza.

Sincerely,
Kevin

@Cpth Iglo

You state that the Grenadiers de la Garde Consulaire are referred as fighting "en bataille" in some French accounts, can you point me to one such account please ?

As far as I know, the French source all point at Grenadiers fighting in square (except some later -1825 or after- ones that repeat Mras word for word).

Philippe,
here´s the what Cougnet wrote( I took in from Evan´s post on page 5 of this thread)

Coignet Version 1851 – Duranton (first published) :
"Ils passérent derriére les rangs et nous firent la distribution. Alors le feu redoubla. Dans ce moment, nous avions déjà beaucoup rétrogradé. Nous étions au beau milieu de la plaine. Plus de saules, plus de ravins : un buisson de place en place. Nous apercevions une grande partie de l'armée, et surtout nous voyions parfaitement la garde consulaire. Bonaparte ne tarda pas à paraÓtre. Sa présence était un gage de sécurité, un motif de confiance, une occasion d'enthousiasme inouÔ. Il fit mettre sa garde en ligne au centre de l'armée et la fit marcher en avant. Tantôt elle se formait en carré, tantôt elle se déployait en bataille : et de suite elle arrêta l'ennemi."
Coignet Version 1968 – Mistler (reconstructed manuscript):
"Chargés de cartouches dans leurs sarraux de toile, ils passérent derriére les rangs et nous donnérent des cartouches. Cela nous sauva la vie. Alors le feu redoubla et le Consul parut. Nous fuimes une fois plus forts. Il fit mettre sa Garde en ligne au centre de l'armée, et la fit marcher en avant. Ils arrêtérent l'ennemi de suite, formérent le carré et marchérent en bataille."

@Cpth Iglo

Thank you, I always forget Coignet when I think about French accounts of the battle. I never could trust him in the least.

When you talk about reconstruction of "souvenirs" Coignet is paradygmal…

@Cptn Iglo

You wrote :
"And the opponents themselves somehow didn´t take notice of all this.
Mras or Stutterheim aside, there should have been something on this from the austrian perspective. Just imagine no one would have taken notice from the guards stand at Waterloo."

David Holins did the same kind of error. He mistook the 1800 Garde des consuls with the 1815 Garde Impériale. This unit was only partly elite (or seasoned veterans at least), the other half was ceremonial. There was no mystique to it at that moment.

Moreover it was a unit of the size of a small demi-brigade. They only got important after the battle, and the Bulletin.

The French used it as a reserve because there was nothing else. I guess, they did not expect much form this unit because it was recent and incomplete. As far as I know, both bataillons did not have the intented number of companies.

What they did was, if French accounts don't lie, quite good, but not better than other French Demi-brigades. They arrived at about 02:30 and were withdrawn around 04:00, losing one third of their men. One may simply say that they lasted long enough to allow a safer retreat for Lannes. The fact that they were fresh troops as opposed to some tiring Austrains would be a factor. I would say they fought gallantly, and the style of the era gave them praises that seem ridiculous to us. Now, I shall repeat myself : that's the tone of the day, especially in military circles.

It seems that the "Redoute de granit" makes you want to believe the Stutterheim account. There is no amount of proof that can dispel that. You can't seen the incoherences in this account, as I am blind to the ones in some French accounts I am sure…

Then again, I would love to know what Hüffer says about the Stutterheim accounts : how he came to date them, to attribute BOTH to Stutterheim, and how he etablished a relation between the two versions.

Moreover I would like to understand why there are two different texts for the Neipperg report. I would like to know which is the correct one. I think it would settle the question, for me at least.

Best regard.