"Marengo 1800 - Is it biased?" Topic

AaronT, I wouldn't buy any of Shane's [LOL!] books either – too many errors.

Sincerely,

Steve

One more PS.

Remeber one thing, Marengo was a French Victory, and you cant change that Dave!

Well you could but you would have to list your SOURCES.

Yea sure, never happen.

sorry, I made an error, I think .

let me see….

Ahh, this steve is full of sophisticated intelligent conversation that is worthy of a literary award worthy of a knighthood.

Shane

Well done Steven. I'm not related to either author and I choose not to buy works by either of them based on their forum behavior. Your attacking me does not change that in the least.

And I find it funny that a "Steven H. Smith" would accuse me of being afraid to use my real name!

This is getting real nasty. Is it really necessary?.

We can hold a lively debate without all these personal attacks.

Carnot, an excellent precis that puts into exact words how I feel about both H and K as well.

In my book, both are as bad as, and as good as, each other.

But at least their arguments show some intelligence. The Smith – de Vries argument on this thread, on the other hand, has no redeeeming feature at all from either party … and is fast destroying what respect I had for both of them.

It is a shame and a black eye for Napoleonic scholarship Palafox.

I know Steven H. Smith personally. I know he is older than I am. It is sometimes hard to judge the age of someone by their posts. I'm surprised to be told the emo-kid has a teenage son…

I rather doubt "Sparker" is all that new to the forum…

NSN

Arteis, in truth i have had many many discussions on various fora for many years with both parties, and there is a glaring difference in that one will concede a point or reinterpret to a compromise position in the face of evidence (after much debate) while the other will typically offer to "agree to disagree" if he finds himself in an unsupportable position. One is focused more on unearthing new material and re-interpreting, the other on preserving established interpretations. Both have interesting material to bring to the table, but succumb too easily to playing the man and not the ball, not just with each other but with others as well. I do have an opinion as to which would do better in a PhD program, though.

And then there are the other posters who just hang around and talk about what's wrong with other posters. Don't you hate them?

NSN, yes i had guessed that "sparker" might have a hidden agenda coded in his name. Whose sockpuppet might he be? lets see, someone Dave has ed off … now that narrows it down, eh?

That was never the full 5 minutes just now…..

Gee Sparker….now you realize why I made the comment I did.

OK Thanks guys, I think the consensus from 'sensible' posting seems to be that the book is perfectly is a perfectly acceptable source for my amateurish needs, I just need to take the episode about the Consular Guard with apinch of salt. For the record, I am not a 'sock Puppet', the term 'Sparker' I use with pride as the nicknmae of my original trade in the navy, Radio Op (General), I don't wish to link it to my real name as I am still a serving officer. But anyway thanks for taking the time to answer my original question, I am pleased that Marengo 1800 can still adorn my bookshelves!

Sorry Sparker, but I think you get the idea that you wandered into a minefield and we're all a bit paranoid, with all the talk of cabals and undercover therapists and the like. No offense intended about the sockpuppet thing. Nice to know you really exist and are not just an alter ego with the intention of stirring the pot.

As far as the guard, I don't even think Dave's descripiton of the action needs to be taken with a grain of salt, just the bit about the battalion being destroyed with the loss of 400 or so prisoners. I think it is safe to say they took a heavy hit and were forced back in something much less than perfect order – perhaps not "destroyed" but at a minimum severely "roughed up" and quite possibly "broken" which may have been sufficiently rough handling to have "destroyed" morale for a time. Losses seem to have been in the neighborhood of 25%, heavy for a brief action. Check the latter part of the recent thread on Hamilton-Williams for the details on this. Oh, and the number of prisoners the Austrians took from the guard was a number between 1 and 400, of this we can be certain. Like I said, the number of prisoners and the definition of "destroyed" are the parts that cause the main concern.

Carnot

I can name that 1!

still looking for the other 399

Looks like Shane, Dave & Steven are all eating doggy biscuits at the moment but otherwise a delightfully informative thread.:¬p

ahaa Marengo 1800 by Robert Goetz – when can i order it?

Hi guys – sorry I'm late. Did I miss anything?

Not a lot really, just read 2 posts by Carnot then move on to another thread (the Hamilton-Williams has some quality discussions amongst the flotsam)

Yep, Graf. The Hamiltion-Williams thread is were the brainy kids hang out. This thread is for the Napoleonic version of the Crips & the Bloods.
Lots of sound & fury, not much substance.

Thank you Carnot93 for a very informative summary. I've often wandered by, seen the Nappy threads with 200+ posts, and new right away what happened. I admit never to having the stomach to read any one in it's entirety, and not getting in on the ground floor, never quit new who did what to who at the beginning, though the term "plague on both your houses" did come to mind. That, and ROTFLMAO.

I've played and enjoyed Napoleonics, I love the history, and there are some gems to be found here, as long as you dodge the train wrecks.

Sparker said.
"OK Thanks guys, I think the consensus from 'sensible' posting seems to be that the book is perfectly is a perfectly acceptable source for my amateurish needs, I just need to take the episode about the Consular Guard with a pinch of salt."
Thanks Sparker and Carnot93. That's the conclusion I was reaching too but with so many posts and accusations going on I needed some else's opinion to help confirm it. :o)
Btw. Has anyone else found themselves reading the "snip" posts and trying to work out what the bad words are?
Regards
Max

I've been reading the book today and seems fine to me. As Carnot says the part of the consular guard destroyed seems exagerated. In overall I'd say the book is very good and can serve as a basis for good wargames (as PH books are good if you know the errors and forget the personal jugdements).

About the sources, I agree it would help Dave Hollins listing them. Being secret for commercial reasons seems odd, it's the first time I hear that.

To those who are keen to learn more about Marengo read

De Cugnac – avaiable on the net
Hüffer – available on the net
Mras – available on the net

The time invested is much better than just in Dave Hollins bashing.

"The Smith – de Vries argument on this thread, on the other hand, has no redeeeming feature at all from either party … and is fast destroying what respect I had for both of them."

Arteis, you are not alone in that.

Being secret for commercial reasons seems odd, it's the first time I hear that.

Me too!

Actually I fear that I can't accept none of Mr Hollins conclusions without knowing his sources. It's a standard in any serious research: you say which your sources are for your peers to check the accuracy of your interpretation. Otherwise, your investigation is worthless from an academic point of view.

And mind I have not a position in this debate. Not in favour of Mr Hollins, nor Mr Kiley.

Estoy de acuerdo, Bas.

Something that puzzles me in the Osprey Marengo book (I think this is the one we are talking about) is that there is a chapter called Bibliography and Further reading. Usually the bibliography on a book list the sources used but this one seems to have just recommended books.

On the acknowledgements seems the sources come from the Austrian National Library and the Kriegsarchiv, both from Vienna, and the British Library. Other sources listed appears as sources of illustrations.

In Osprey books usually the space is restricted to list all your sources, but Dave Hollins listed his sources again and again, on different fora, how otherwise did the rest of us discover Mras or Hüffer?

So read Hüffer and Mras and you will learn a lot about Dave Hollins conclusions.

Salut Carnot,

"As far as I can tell, the sum total of "thumping error" and "egregious bias" in the book is with regard to two things: the number of prisoners taken from the consular guard, and the definition of the word "destroyed". The sound and fury of the … is it 8 years now? of animated "discussion" revolves around these two points. On the rest, there are any number of points that can be discussed or debated, usually quite amicably, but these have been the hot-button issues. Everything else is perfectly within the usual range of interpretation giving allowance for the odd slips in detail here and there that appear in everything written. There are some variations in timing and locations and specifics, but that's normal ambiguity resulting from imprecise sources."

I concur completely, but might add that the "Hollins" version does negate quite a lot of "valiant resistance" noted in many sources. The Hollins version, following Stutterheim, give one sucessful resitance by the garde à pied to Austrian cavalry. The various sources mention as many as 5 charges, and specify in two or three cases that these were made by Elnitz/Nobili (who Dave seeems to place permanently trapped on the wrong side of the river).

Actually, I do think Dave has "backed off" his prior, higher unwounded prisoner estmates, after this topic was aired in some detail on the old "bad" Nap. Series. This back-off stems in part from his adoption of the view that only a "bataillon" (some 500 gardes à pied) was detached under Soulès to the French right. So with fewer to start, there were fewer possibly un-accounted for to be the prisoners, and so on.

Similary, he has never stood too firmly on what "destroyed" means, nor for how long "destoyed" might last.

The question of timing, senso strictu, is not too relevant to the story of the garde à pied. But the Hollins versions adopts a very late timing for the arrival of Bonaparte and the garde. This aligns with an overall negative viwe of the actions of the First Consul, and that the battle was a great victory due first to the skillful defense of the sub-commanders present (Lannes, Victor) and then the grand counter-attack (Kellerman, Desaix). The victory is cast as one of the "revolutionary army" not of the "Bonaprtistes". To get to this requires a very careful hand in cherry-picking the various details for the sources, "correcting" a few here and there. The methdology strikes me as a little rank, but the resulting view of the battle is not "impossible" nor "unreasonable", although (as a matter of opinion) I would not adopt it myself.

In summary, I would not have written the story as Hollins does, nor do I think that the most carefully "source-intensive" authors (such as the modern Robert Goetz or the venerable de Cugnac, for examples) have or would have done so.

"some have apparently decided that Kiley's peculiar brand of insult and condescension, stubborn refusal to re-evaluate positions and overt pro-Napoleon bias is admirable and far preferable to Hollins' brand of insult and condescension, stubborn refusal to re-evaluate positions and overt pro-Austrian bias. Others have reached the opposite conclusion. …
karma is such a bitch"

Quite so.

Perhaps the greatest shame is that Bernard Vokowitsch has never published his Marengo research. I fear he may now think the well to have been too much poisoned.

- Evan

Evan,
you said 5 charges, some of the sources you did cite on the other thread mention three (petit, berthier) and 5(Soules).
And how about contact with infantry?, some say yes, some say no. In which formation ? square or line? which opponents?
In which succession? was it cav-cav-inf or cav-inf-inf-cav or whatever?

Salut CPTN IGLO,

I think you are asking for an opinion, based on the sources, from me. Clearly, for these most minute details, there is not a perfect consensus from the sources, and we are left with interpretation and hence opinion. So, here is my opinion….

To form such an opinion, I would first start with what seems most agreed among the sources, or where they do not ocntradict each other (allowing for puffery of language and point-of-view).

The best agreement seems to be about the END of the story of the garde's stand on the right.
Even the most "Bonapartiste" propaganda has them eventually retreating, after suffering heavy losses. I see no reason not to adopt the details from Stutterheim here. Clearly Mras did so, Hüffer and de Cugnac did not gainsay this version later either (again allowing for more or less puffery in the language).

The Stutterheim gives:
- one successful defense agianst horse (DR No.10)
- a firefight with 2-3 b'ons Spleny & Frölich, while formed in ligne
- the attack on this line by Frimont (Bussy-Jägers + husaren) very successful for the Austrians, leading to the end of the resistance on the French right.
- these event occurring in the mid-afternoon

The remaining question is how much other "valiant resisting" did the garde à pied experience beforehand.

The timing may be instructive. UNLESS one creates a late time of arrival for the garde à pied, which I find UN-SOURCED, we will have to admit of an arrival at around mid-day. I think it is ill-advised to try to measure this timing as other than "mid-day" and "mid-afternoon". More precision is not really there in the sources, and keeping the chronology less specific leaves it within the physically observable differences in time (sun overhead, sun past overhead). From this we have "some time" (maybe 2-ish hours) between the arrival of the garde à pied and the events related by Stutterheim.

In those two hours, it is possible that the garde à pied did nothing. But I discount this possibility based on the repeated references to the garde resisting cavalry, acting valiantly, etc. These are from many sources, including ones within days of the battle. If we have successful resistance against cavalry, then we can assume a square or some colonne serré that was much the same. And, indeed, some sources do explicitly mention the garde in square.

Next, we have two rather cryptic references to critical failures by Elsnitz and Nobili (the only brigade of Elsnitz on the field), one in the Botta historical article written soon after the battle and the other in the early reports of the battle recounted by Lord Paget in Naples. Additionally, it is this formation that is identified in the Berthier maps as active in front of the French right.

Taking these various elements together, I do not see any reason to dismiss, as does the Hollins version, some valiant resisitance to Austrian horse (most likely Nobili's dragoons) prior to the events as described by Stutterheim. We can bracket the claims for this defense at something around 2-4 charges, received in a close formation, most possibly a square.
As the Austrian cavalry tactics were not really based on massed charges, but rather echelons and charges by squadron, "2-4" might be counting 2 charges of 2 echelons, 4 separate charges, etc., etc. The sources don't really say.

The question remaining is why is this not in Stutterheim (and hence Mras) ? I think clearly because Stutterheim, a junior staff officer variously reported as on Melas' staff or seconded to Ott, just didnt see this part, being elsewhere performing his duties. Which makes his desciprtion of soemthing he claimed to see actually MORE attractive to me, not less.

In summary
cav, cav, cav (Nobili, square or colonne serré)
cav (DR 10 while moving, supported by Champeaux, per Stutterheim)
inf (Spleny & Frölich, ligne, per Stutterheim)
cav (Frimont, while in ligne fighting the infantry --> formation "broken"/"destroyed"/"your-word-of-choice" --> retreat*, per Stutterheim)

* I think the nature of this retreat is pretty clear in the sources, and it was not pretty.
-- There were some grouped around the colors and the moving wounded
-- There were some legging it out of formation (completely typical for French infantry)
-- There were some dead or wounded and not moving.
I would think that these three categories were each on the order of 1/3 of the total, and that the non-moving wounded did all become prisoners.

- Evan

By the way, I fully adopt (in my opinion) BOTH that the garde à pied was forced to retreat AND that they were so ordered.

Having held their position for a while, they would have been increasingly isolated. When they went into ligne to have the fight with the infantry, the possibility (or even the preparation) of a cavalry attack from the center would have been visible to the First Consul.

I actually think he DID order them back and that as the order was being delivered, they were "forced" back.

Thus both the "they were forced" and "they were ordered" sources could be "right".

Also, one might add that the French legging it would look alot worse to Austrians than to French, who habitually did sauve qui peut and then reform a little later. Lots of running away for an Austrian formation might be thought as "case closed – unit destroyed" while for the French it could be more of "a really fast way to retreat".

This is an example of the difference in sources accountable under the heading of differing "point-of-view".

- Evan

It seems that Dave Hollins is not just in the doghouse, but ALSO "locked". I feel bad posting here on Marengo if he cant respond (no matter how he tortures the sources in the porcess).
Please, please, note that above I have written my OPINION. To the extent that Dave disagrees with what I wrote, I wish that he had the possibility of so stating, so that the readers could make their own decisions.
I really prefer the un-moderat3ed idea of the old "bad" Nap. Series, but then again, it is dead and the new "nice" Nap. Series and TMP are going strong, and I have yet to see TMP moderator acctions that anyone could complain about (with exception of the moderated, naturally).

- Evan

About David Hollins sources, I would like to know which sources he really used back in 2000 when he wrote his Marengo.

Let's talk about the oldest sources stating that large numbers of Grenadiers de la Garde des Consuls were taken prisoners : Stutterheim account (written around 1810 ?) and Mras account (published in 1823).

Mister Hollins stated several times that Mras and Stutterheim were independant… CLEARLY independant.

There is something odd here : the first historian to quote Stutterheim as the author of the account that now bears his name is Hermann Hüffer (around 1900). In his book professor Hüffer CLEARLY says that Mras CLEARLY used Stutterheim. His reason is that you can find passages in Mras that are word for word from Stutterheim.

So where did David Hollins read of Stutterheim account first ? Directly in the Kreigarchives ? Then why calling it Stutterheim account then ? Was it in Hüffer's work ? Then why did he said that Mras was CLEARLY independant from Stutterheim, when Hüffer proved that it was false ?

There are also lots of problems with the Stutterheim/Mras narrative.
All the informations below come from after-battle reports, and none from the Bulletin.

1. The Garde des Consuls Grenadiers never had guns attached during the battle. In fact, there were only three guns manned by Garde des Consuls artillery : they were attached to the Lannes division as early as the battle of Montebello. They were led by Lieutenant Marin. You can find trace of them in the after-battle report of Lannes, Watrin and Sénarmont (Pernety in fact).

2. There were enough Grenadiers at the end of the day to fight alongside with the Monnier division (see Monnier afterbattle report). There were enough of them to be led by a General (Stabenrath).

3. In the after-battle report from Murat (dated 16 of June), he states that the Grenadiers de la Garde des Consuls lost 121 men, dead and wounded. It seems rather light, but it may only count the dead and disabled wounded and not the ones that were able to join the ranks.

We miss the most crucial reports : the one from Champeaux (he was wounded) and the one from the Grenadiers commander… I have yet to find who led the Grenadiers in the first part of the fight.

thank you Evan, Iglo, Philippe & Winterfeld Carnot (& anyone i missed)for reasoned informative debate, just shows not everyone is mad on this forum.

As for Marengo, we do have Dave to thank for its introduction to a lot of the English speakers, alas the destructive arguments have put off quite a few from looking at this most interesting battle, I really would recommend it for study/wargame, have a look at the simmons game site, almost tempted me to wargame myself, try and read some of the accounts mentioned on the net (German or french)or get the 2 english accounts (Daves & Arnolds Marengo books)have fun trying to work out what happened.

very sad about the loss of documents in a fire, reminds me of the great library at Alexandria, all that history lost for ever!

as for Daves sources, I think most are now known & available, so don't bother asking, and there isn't a great amount anyway

maybe one day the Quintins will do a book on Marengo (hey or even Waterloo), one way of finding more on what happened to the garde would be servie records in the French archivs

the only down side to Marengo is lack of artillerie or cavalerie on the French side, but they do have lots of infanterie in those neat bicornes!

A Marengo fan

Sorry Philippe my mention of sources wasn't aimed at you, yours & Evans last post were not there when i wrote mine

Cher Philippe,

I will bet you a VERY nice bottle of Côte-du-Rhône that Dave was just reading the Hüffer and the de Cugnac. The "many hours pouring over the archivs" I dont think happened too much, or didnt add anything.

You would expect this. Hüffer and the de Cugnac DID pour over the archivs, before two world wars. And, as we say in the USA "what you see is what you get".

Are the Mras annd Stutterheim independent ? Slearly, as you read them, "no", the words themselves tell us this. Further, it is exactly in the archivs that the Stutterheim manuscript was located that Mras did his research. It would have een very dull of him not to notice the Stutterheim sitting ther like poached egg.
The chant of "idependent" from Dave is just puffery. There are sooooo many French sources, he really can not resist the idea of "multiplying" the Austrian sources. He does the same when he claims "original independent source" for a passage in a 1900-vintage regimental history that explicitly says "according to regimaent's tradition", a unit not otherwise mentioned was involved in Frimont's attack.
In summary, the chanting of "independent" is just poor methodology, and gives the "anti-revisionists" purchase upon which to criticize the Austrian sources. And, in the nature of these things, the "anti-revisionists" ALSO go too far !

"1. The Garde des Consuls Grenadiers never had guns attached during the battle."
I am NOT sure at all. In addition to garde artillerie with Lannes, we do have also them noted with Marmont in the counter-attack.
I have tried to count the number of garde artillerie pièces in the Correspondence (where it is mentioned often).

25 avril 1800 – A l'heure qu'il est, six pièces d'artillerie de la garde, avec 500 chevaux d'artillerie, doivent être arrivées [à Dijon].
26 avril 1800 – au reste de la compagnie d'artillerie a cheval (hormis une escouade) avec six pièces de canon, de partir [de Paris].
4 juin 1800 – Donnez l'ordre qu'on remplace l'escouade de canonniers de la garde qui sert deux pièces de 4 devant la citadelle [de Milan]
That TWELVE guns being moved with the garde artillerie. That's (i) more than it appears to be men to work them and (ii) no guarantee that these all made it to the battlefield of Marengo.
However, it gives alot of acope for assuminng some "garde" guns with Lannes, and 4 more "garde" guns with the garde à pied, even if all these nominal "garde" guns were not manned by garde canonniers.
I dont have a problem of a failure to make a specific mention of these guns in the French accounts, especially as they were all taken per Stutterheim.

"2. There were enough Grenadiers at the end of the day to fight alongside with the Monnier division (see Monnier afterbattle report). There were enough of them to be led by a General (Stabenrath)."
Yes, I make this (i) the remainder of men who had stood on the French right (perhaps about 1/2 to 2/3 of the initial 500 under Soulès, depending on how many that scattered at the time of Frimnt's charge had come back to the ranks) plus about 300 who did not. Chef de bataillon Tortel is noted in a revue of 3 mai at Dijon as marching with a total of 305 members of the garde à pied. Chef de brigade Frère is not cited as making the campaign.It would be natural to place a senior officier, such as Stabenrath, in command of both (especially if Soulès was a little "shakey" at that point).

"3. In the after-battle report from Murat (dated 16 of June), he states that the Grenadiers de la Garde des Consuls lost 121 men, dead and wounded."
This appears to be the dead and seriously (not moving, not back in the ranks by 16 juin) wounded. Presumably many of these wounded were repatriated from the Austrians. For comparison, Lauriston mentions "one-third" (which could be intepreted as 1/3 of 500 = 167 or 1/3 of 800 = 267). Brossier gives a total of 260 losses.
For me, this racks up to (i) 120-odd dead or badly wounded (all prisoners) and 120-odd lightly wounded from the "stand" of the garde à pied and (ii) and 20-odd casualties in the counterattack.
If one likes to estimate Austrian prisoners, then take the badly wounded (maybe 60) and maybe some of the lightly wounded (another 40 maybe?), total estimate 100. Something like that, for an order of magnitude.

Just my OPINION !!

- Evan

Oh, and if we like estiamtes, we have some views of the number that grouped around the colors and retreated with Soulès:
-- 100 per Stutterheim A (not numbered in Stutterheim B or Mras)
-- 200 in Soulès Fastes entry (likely taken from his reccomendation for the sabre d'honneur, then lying in the Légion archivs).

I net that out of the puffery as "about 1/3". And hence make the following summary (as above) :

--- about 1/3 dead or wounded and not moving (these last becoming prisoners and the bearskins of the both adorningnthe sabres fo the Bussey-Jägers)
--- about 1/3 around the colors, including here some lighter wounded
--- about 1/3 legging it on their own (looking "destroyed" to Austrians, making a more or less normal "pressured retreat" for the French).

All OPINION, naturally.

- Evan

And on the subject of puffery …..

OK, lets assume we have trained, drilled, older infantrymen, 500 of them, in square with ammunition (at least at first) Maybe add a light gun (a 4-lber) at each corner of the square.

Let's have about 2000 horse attack them, light-ish line dragoons, not cuiraasiers, not garde de corps. Let them come on without artillery support. Let them attack in 2-4 echelons, or waves or a squadron at a time or whatever. They cant really come in any bigger group : the sides of the square with our fantassins are only 42 fils long (assuming that the fantassins are moving in a 8-peloton bataillon). How many out of the 2000 dragoons can hit 42 fils at one time ?

Now if this was Mont-Saint-Jean or Spain and fantassins British, we can set back and watch the failure of the horse and not think too much about it.

So, if the horse are Austrian, and the fantassins French, should there too much difference ?

Rock of granite ? Yeah, sure, OK, puff it up to that if you like the French so much. But if they had broken, then they would really have been the non-heros of the day.

- Evan

evan,
You speculate that additional charges were made by Nobili´s cavalry brigade, all based on Berthiers map.

Mras deals with this problem, he states that Berthier was completely wrong with the positioning of the Austrian cavalry.
Berthier did claim that the french right was outflanked by
Elsnitz cavalry(only Nobilis brigade from Elsnitz force was on the field).
But the french right was actually outflanked by Ott´s column.
Ott´s cavalry formation were the Lobkowitz dragoons.

Elsnitz´s/ Nobily´s forces(thats the Erzherzog Johann and the Liechtenstein dragoons) were positioned as tactical reserve behind the center column.

The only available cavalry force to deal initially with the guard was the Lobkowitz dragoons, who did charge once without establishing contact.

Then 4 squadrons from the advance guard of the center column did move over from center column to make what Mras and Stutterheim describe as the decisive charge.

The "criptical remarks" to failures by Elsnitz/Nobily might be a reference to the Liechtenstein dragoons who later with their flight from Kellermann created a snowball effect which did lead to the defeat of the center column against Kellermann´s cavalry.
The Liechtenstein dragoons were half of Elsnitz/Nobily´s force on the field.

I don´t know detailed Stutterheim is overall, but Mras covers the whole action on the field. Mras has nothing good to say about Berthiers 1805 work on Marengo, which according to him carries some essential lies/mistakes.

for german readers link below shows the passages of Mras dealing with this issue.

link

Here´s the link to the austrian ordre de bataille according to Mras

link

there is the 1. mittlere or hauptkolonne, thats the main column under Melas.
and there´s the 2. or linke Kolonne, thats the left column under Ott.
both column have a "Vortrab" which is the advance guard of cavalry and infantry.

It was Ott´s column which did outflank Lannes, the guard was sent forward to halt this.

Berthier did have it completly wrong.

Salut CPTN IGLO,

"Berthier did have it completly wrong."
I do not think that we can be so sure.
But please, first note that I do NOT insist that you are wrong, nor that I am right (or for that matter that Mras was wrong and Berthier correct).

I find it "reasonable" that over some hours (lets say 2-ish hours), that the "reserve cavalry" might have been brought forward to make a charge or series of charges on the French right, and that these did fail to have an effect, and that then Ott attempted to move more to turn that flank through the garde bataillon himself.

It is also reasonable to me that Stutterheim (nor any other report writer whose manuscript lay in the archives 20 years later) did not see or know of this, and that thus Mras does not include it.
I say it is reasonable, but by no means assured.

I do not think Mras' positioning is wrong, nor his order of battle. In this he actually differs from the "Hollins version", which places Nobili forever stuck on the wrong side of the river, as Dave cherry-picks his way through Mras.

I doubt that the performance of Nobili's dragoons after the Kellerman attack would be re-told about Italy as "a" or even "the" critical failure of the battle immediately thereafter. It is possible, but I would think that some greater failure would be needed.

If one would propose that the failed charges were not Nobili's, but some more by DR Lobkowitz Nr. 10, that took place before Stutterheim arrived as a witness, I would not argue.

I do not see that there is enough explicit detail in the Stutterheim (nor the Mras) to discount the repeated comments about "valiant resisitance" found over and again in the "French" sources (therein NOT to include Bulletins nor re-written reports).

So, I do look about to see who could have been sent in to charge a lone bataillon some time between mid-day and mid-afternoon. There is this brigade of the cavalry reserve sitting there, behind Ott. It seems quite natural to launch them at the batailon in question. At least so it seems to me.

But, again and again, I mark this as only OPINION. Although the "French" sources are clear that valiant resistance by the garde à pted did occur, and the Stutterheim/Mras does not explicitly gainsay this claim, neither provide the detail of exactly who they were valiantly resisting.

- Evan

Salut Mark,

"thank you Evan, Iglo, Philippe & Winterfeld Carnot"

Thanks for your good opinion. But now, really, which one is HKW ??? I am not. I do not think Robert is either. Phillippe is not likley, but possible. That leaves ….

Anyway, I am not sure how much the well-poisoning of effect of Dave's "presentation" of his version of Marengo has really helped.

The thing is that this started before the internet was as broadly available as now, and before google books.

Now, if Dave never wrote anything, I think Phillippe and I would have stumbled on the de Cugnac on-line (I did certainly know it existed) and Iglo and v. Winterfeld (assuming "or" is the correct conjunction) would have found the Hüffer. Any of us could have given the view of the respective work for English language readers, such as here on TMP.

In the meantime, Bernard Vokowitsch may have found a publisher, or Robert may have decided to try a Marengo book.

But instead, we have this acrimony, this insistence on what "must have been" from both the revisionists and anti-revisionists, until everyone is just sick of the whole thing, or just watching to see who will act the greater fool.

And at that point, trying to drag Marengo back into a reasoned and reasonable debate or discussion becomes very very hard – perhaps only possible when there is a moderator muzzeling the acrimonious (which is really abhorent, even if it is convenient).

Poor Steven H Smith, his cynical and satiric sense of humor seems to have not been understood either. Which goes to show that niceness should be the FIRST priority in a forum discussion, no matter how much you think the other side is "wrong" or whatever. Too bad, we could really skip that part on the old , "bad" Nap. Series.

- Evan

About Hüffer, it is really thanks to Steven Smith and the initiative of Philippe that I did download it.

About Berthier, well de Cugnac states very clearly how often this poor man had to re – write the story due to the first consul and later French emperors request.

This is the whole problem of the Marengo story, it took years, in fact (my opinion only) de Cugnac to make this realy very much public and to discuss this in full.

Even later Dave Hollins pops up and makes us aware of the Austrian accounts he unearthed (it doesn't matter for me if he found the sources directly in the Kiregsarchiv or in the British libary). Neither Hüffer nor Mras were unknown or not in print but – let's say forgotten and left dormant.

I like such works as de Cugnac – or Hüffer – because they also discuss sources – and how to exploit them.

Otherwise I think Dave Hollins is too much victimized, it seems to be en vogue to bash him.

Now that, as von Winrefeldt said it, Hüffer is not dormant anymore, it would be nice to have Pittaluga (an Italian work) awaken.

If an italian poster could trace this document, I would be eternally grateful.

Salut v. Winterfedlt,

I hope you do not think that I "bash" Dave Hollins. Indeed he has been extrememly cordial to me and I have provided enough interest and support of his works to have been included among the "acknowledgements" in at least one of these.

I refer you to my first post here :
TMP link

My "problems" or areas that I find "troublesome" in Dave's treatment of Marengo are there stated. These issues have a strong weighting toward methodological and stylistic critiques, and do nowhere exclaim "I am right and you are wrong" or some such acrimonious or disrespectful comment.

Indeed I do also agree he is "too much victimized", but might add that he does himself act as the victimizer on occasion, with regard to Kevin Kiley.

"About Berthier, well de Cugnac states very clearly how often this poor man had to re – write the story due to the first consul and later French emperors request."

Yes, indeed. The only account of Berthier that I make any use of is the first report, and even that we must see as a senior officer's summary – and these do typically have the least detail and accuracy.

- Evan

I take no pleasure in saying this but I honestly feel that Dave Hollins will find his return to the forum more difficult than he has before – he will probably go silent now and be represented surrogatively by his 'bitches'.
I feel that this is a great shame because I have purchased and thoroughly enjoyed his books but judging from his performance recently (accusations against others that he is guilty of himself), I believe that he has put himself beyond credibility.
However do not hold your breath.
Gerry McGinty

Well I don't know what Dave did this time to deserve getting locked out, what I saw seemed quite mild by Daves standards, guess its going to get all quiet & peaceful again for a while zzzzzzzzzz.

Does someone have to complain for another member to get dogged (& for the complaint to be upheld), I can't imagine the moderator reading every post on this massive forum?

Hi all,

Is David Hollins unable to answer our questions because he's banned or something ?

Anyway, I would like to know if there are any after-battle records from Austrian officers, just like the ones from Lannes, Victor, Monnier and the like ?

I have yet to read references to such documents.

Now, I would also like to read the complete Sénarmont report (there are only part of it in the de Cugnac book).

Is there any such report from Marmont ?

To Evan,

I don't trust award citations nor regimental histories, as they are agiographical by nature. They tend to give a lot of importance to the individual or unit cited.

Moreover, I don't believe in the two independant bataillons of Grenadiers thing. There is NO reference to it in anay after-battle report, nor "mémoires".

I much prefer after-battle reports.

To von Winterfeldt and Cptn Iglo,

I don't trust Stutterheim because I don't know when it was written (can you tell me which conclusions professor Hüffer gives about the date of writing).

Best regards.

Philippe,
regimental histories are indeed sort of a problem, but after action reports are too.
The bulletin was issued the day after the battle.
I doubt if anyone of the french commanders who was interested in good relations with the first consul could produce things contradicting the bulletin.
And one might even ask if under Napoleon there was even a neutral objective pre Bulletin phase.

There were certain things the maximo lider just didn´t like.

As a nappy general you didn´t gain points by complaining about unrealistic, unexecutable orders, by badmouthing about his beloved guard or even by questioning the abilities of the french soldier as such (for example if your division of recruits did run away).
These were all holy cows, so failure was either a result of overwhelming numbers, some completely unexpected events, or if unavoidable, mistakes of colleagues, the endless infighting of Nappy´s generalship was perhaps a result uf this, they were, even among each other, the only available scapegoats for failure.

Napoleons army was not open for a critical mindset, because the leader was not.
in a good authorian hyrarchy the propaganda department doesn´t produce lies, it just finetunes the tales which come up from the lover level.

The boss did see his guard as a granite formation directly after the battle, so his hossianah chanting subordinates did all produce their little granite tales, all a bit different naturally, after all its not so easy to produce a lie.

Its difficult to see such an effect on the austrian side.
I don´t know the Stutterheim account, at least Mras writing deals with the whole battle and seems to be based on a number of accounts.
I can´t see bias, leaderships gets its fair share of critisizm, failures in combat are described openly, successes are not hyped into the sky, its all quite rational, lakonic and very modest.
At least I can´t find a hidden agenda.
And most important the story fits.

A single bataillon in the open resisting multiple charges and infantry attacks of a whole army for hours, all with a 30 meter musketry frontage, is a bit much.

Even Leonidas 400 spartans at the Thermopylaes fought in a very strong defensive formation and were finally destroyed.

@ Cpth Iglo,

I think you got it wrong about Boanparte (not Napoleon) era. There was bodmouthing of the Consular Garde cavalry from Lannes. He complainted about Bessières lack of support to Napoleon. Bessières was much closer to Bonaparte that any leader of the Grenadiers de la Garde des consuls.

You seem to imply that all French generals of this era were liars, chauvinistic cowards that feared the wrath of Napoleon. It is simply false. Those people were not all liars, not all cowards. If you believe that tale, then, there is no point even reading a single French account, and just read Austrian accounts.

The after-battle reports were written before the Bulletin, and used to write the Bulletin. Monnier had no reason to lie, nor did Victor, nor did Lannes.

Every Napoleon attempt at bending the truth was uncovered by FRENCH sources : Kellerman, de Castres, etc. Why would a lie about te Grenadiers de la Garde des Consuls would go unnoticed ?

Now, where are the Austrian after-battle records ? The primary sources !!!

Stutterheim (we don't even know if he was the writer) account was written years later. We don't know if it was primary, secondary. We don't know which sources were used. Just because there is no background, you give credit to this source. For a REAL historian, the lack of background, information about author, date, context, is a serious flaw.

There are lots of details in this account. ONE witness could not see that much with this amount of detail. Where do the details come from ? Simple question… No answer.

If a French source of this kind was brought up, it would be waved off in a second. No author, no date, too much details : propaganda !

Best regards.

Just as an aside, Melas' after action report does not mention the Consular Guard at all.

Sincerely,
Kevin