"French Revolutionary Period - Miscellaneous ???" Topic

Any thoughts on the percentage of a French during the 1796-97 campaign that would have been wearing Casque (Tarleton-type) helmets?

During this Demi-Brigade period, would all Battalions carry a standard, or just the 1st?

Also, were French battalion commanders mounted?

Not sure on the casque. I'm planning on around 1/3, but that is probably high. All battallions should have standards. They had them issued in 1794, although Boney mentioned they were in tatters when he arrived on the scene in 1796.

Elting in "Sword around a Throne", if I remember correcty, mentions most battalion commanders were on foot during the revolution period, as most could not afford a horse.

If even Napoleon couldn't get a proper horse…

Battalion commanders were mounted, they were called chef de bataillon.
They needed to be mounted to command the batallion – they could afford horses during the Revolutionary period.

Each batallion did carry a colour – there were several changes during the French Revolution, the Armée d'Italie received after their successes under Bonaparte a unique design, different from others.

In the 1796 / 1767 period most soldiers would wear the hat.

How about # of Austrian flags per Bn during the early Italian campaign? Austrian btn officers mounted?

From Elting's Swords around a throne :

"Their pay (of officers) was in paper assignats, which had depreciated by 99% in 1795-96. An officer who received 500 francs in pay would find out that bread (when available) would cost 10 francs a loaf; a cup of coffee 20 francs, a horse 20 000. Colonels, lieutenant-colonels and majors often marched on foot, carrying their few posessions in packs"

I assumed Chef de Bataillon would often suffer the same fate as their commanders, no?

'They needed to be mounted to command the battalion-they could afford horses during the Revolutionary period.'

Do you have evidence for this? Do you know what the pay for a chef de bataillon was in, say, 1796? Have you seen records of the possessions of field grade infantry officers for the period? If not, or if you have and mounts were not listed, then I'll go with Col Elting.

Sincerely,
K

Elting is wrong on that

"Colonels, lieutenant-colonels and majors often marched on foot, carrying their few posessions in packs."

That statement has quite precise embellishments of mentioning the exact ranks concerned, and also what they did with their possessions.

This means Elting:

Read these exact facts and the embellishments somewhere – though of course what he read could have been secondary.

Or:

Made up the embellishments about the ranks and how they carried their possessions to embelish what he had read somewhere about officers often not having horses.

Or:

Made the whole statement and its embelishments up (not likely in my view, for a serious historian)

Or:

Did read the facts somewhere, but was mistaken in what context they referred to (also seems rather unlikely).

If he was a "serious historian" he would have given a source or reference for this statement. But, of course, he doesn't go in for such frivolities, so we, as ordinary historians, will find in nearly impossible to check his "facts".So,is his statement a "fact" or merely his opinion?
There are many contemporary paintings that show mounted officers, who aren't generals or staff officers.

It is an opinion – alas Elting very often fails to give a source so one cannot persue that topic.

I agree that there are many contemporary paintings – even showing poor officers (split seams of uniform coat on the sleeve) mounted.

As to say, I ignore usually Elting there I cannot see from where he deducted his statements.

Here a link – to a photo from a contemporary print by Seele.

picture

You have no idea if it is an opinion or not. I would suggest doing a little research and find out if the comment is correct or not. Having known Col Elting for over ten years, he didn't make anything up in his books and he was a serious historian. He didn't believe, and I don't either, that you have to footnote every phrase and clause.

One painting is not evidence. Is it an eyewitness painting? If not, and I don't think it is, then it is merely a secondary source with no references. You can believe what you like, but the French Revolutionary armies were neglected by the succession of French governments and horses were always in short supply. And if a field grade officer did have a horse during this period, how was he going to replace it if it was killed? The French cavalry was having problem with remounts during the period and the old Royal stud farms had been 'disbanded.'

The field grade infantry officers were supposed to be mounted, but undoubtedly many were not for a variety of reasons.

Lastly, I have researched into some of Col Elting's source material as I have quite a bit of it and have found his statements and conclusions to be right on the money. He is a reliable historian and Swords is still, after being in print for over twenty years, the best reference for the Grande Armee in English. If anyone doesn't realize that and doesn't realize it, then you are denying yourself access to excellent material. Col Elting has a very high reputation in the Napoleonic historian community and is deeply respected.

Sincerely,
K

Is it worth pointing out to Kevin that his own arguments against using period paintings as references (they are "merely secondary sources with no references") also apply verbatim to blind trust in Elting's works?

Or that, by definition, an unsupported statement in a written work is in fact a matter of opinion?

Or that it's really JUST FINE that Elting's work is a secondary source based on his own largely unsubstantiated opinion, since it was accurate for the most part, colorful, and aimed at promoting the period to the non-academic community?

Or that I'm sure he would have expected and indeed hoped for advancements in the field such has taken place over the past generation and which we might be seeing here in this very minor point?

Hmmm … probably not. ;)

Experience suggests that any definitive answer is clearly going to be some way off in the distance here if at all.

So if it was me I'd split the difference, and go ahead and have some mounted and others dismounted.

I agree with Stavka; I do not like absolutes (i.e. ALL officers were mounted). I think both would be seen.

Revolutionnary armies were short of everything, I would be surprised horses were plentiful.

Anyways, my

Experience is different to research comrade Stavka.

Elting of course should speak of Chef de Bataillons instead of aristo language – but I would mount all my chefs – at least for my wargaming units.

But as CATenWolde points out, Swords was for promoting and introducing the French Napoleonic Army and for that is is
adaequate.

By the way Seele is an acknowledged contemporary artist.

of course there is no absolute, in case a horse was killed the officers was dismounted for a while, otherwise – the majority would be mounted and had to be – otherwise they would not be able to controll their bataillon efficiently.

Revolutionary Armies were not usuall short of men – compared to aristo armies.

Sorry Cat, but you are in error. There are over 700 footnotes in Swords and it is a documented work and not based on 'opinion.'

Further if you read my posting, I stated that I've looked up much of the material in the Col's references which, if anyone is interested, found a lot of what he refers to in the text. I've also had the good fortune to be able to discuss the work at length with him in person.

As for the comment by Winterfeldt that Swords was 'for promoting and introducing theh French Napoleonic Army' that is an inaccurate summation of the book and the thirty years research that went into it.

I know that Seele was a contemporary artist. But was he in the field with the French armies of the Republic? Or was his material based on others' accounts. That is the crux of the issue.

Sincerely,
K

'Revolutionary Armies were not usuall short of men'

If that was so, then could you explain why the demi-brigades had to be continually reorganized during 1792-1799? One of the reasons was a shortage of manpower. And by 1799-1800 France was becoming desperately short of usable manpower. Much of that was due to wastage because the series of Revolutionary governments did not take care to either pay or attempt to provision the armies they put into the field.

Sincerely,
K

"Sorry Cat, but you are in error. There are over 700 footnotes in Swords and it is a documented work and not based on 'opinion.'"

I have the book right here (one of the first I read after Chandler, and still one of my favorites), and while it's true that there are many footnotes, the majority are either expanded comments or references to other secondary works. However, the issue is not merely one of attributions: the style of the book is one of description rather than building an academic case and proving it through the presentation of evidence. What I am trying to get through to you is that this is fine (in fact done very well!) for the intended market of the book, which was not that of academic history, but rather the curious and informed public. I certainly don't see that as a shortfall, as it achieved its intended purpose very admirably. However, Elting relied on his own considerable knowledge to present us with *his* picture of the Grande Armee, and asked us to trust him that it was generally accurate and representative. For the greater part of course it is, and we are right to trust him – however no historian (or archaeologist, as in my case) would contest the fact that the devil is in the details, and that differing views will be held of the same material, and furthermore that progress will be made and new evidence will come to light.

"Further if you read my posting, I stated that I've looked up much of the material in the Col's references which, if anyone is interested, found a lot of what he refers to in the text. I've also had the good fortune to be able to discuss the work at length with him in person."

You have twice-over made my point. You had to do extra research to verify the (well-founded) opinion presented in the book, which was presented without the bulk of supporting evidence precisely because doing so would have defeated the main purpose of the book – getting people to read about and understand the general reality of the Grande Armee. This sort of research is exactly what other people are also doing, however they may reasonably differ in their conclusions, and you will have to steel yourself to the reality that Elting may indeed have been wrong about some things. Such is the nature of the field – it is ever changing, or else it withers, and I'm very sure that Elting himself would have recognized this.

"I know that Seele was a contemporary artist. But was he in the field with the French armies of the Republic? Or was his material based on others' accounts. That is the crux of the issue."

One might ask in exactly the same manner: Did Elting march with Napoleon? Or was his material based on others' accounts? One can equally well use the written word or the painted picture to represent the historical reality of a subject.

You seem to forget that french revolutionary armies were, at the beginning, merely composed of 'volontaires'.
These men were very poor and came back to their home as soon as they could… That is the main reason of the shortage of manpower. Don't forget also that France had more than 20 millions inhabitants : the more important population in Europe.
About the 'chefs de bataillon', they were often sons of 'bourgeois' or from small aristocracy and so, have no big problems to get a horse from their family. Please don't think french republic could give a uniform or a horse to their officers : they have to pay for them and they did it because they prefered to pay for a horse (or to come in the army with it) than to walk at foot during a lot of hours. Sometimes, they even plunder the horse.
As you know, French revolutionary armies were very well known for plundering…
Frederic

The "voluntaires" were quite often men of moderate means rather than the poor. The poor wouldn't have volunteered! Some did desert, but many, at first, were ideologically motivated. I refer you to "Soldiers of the Revolution", by Alan Forrest. And "Conscripts and Deserters: The Army and French Society during the Revolution and Empire", and Napoleon's Men: The Soldiers of the Revolution and Empire, and his articles: "Conscription as Ideology: Revolutionary France and the Nation in Arms", "La patrie en danger. The French Revolution and the First Levée en masse", for example. A serious Historian. My tutor and supervisor at York.
See link

DukeWacoan

French 1796 colours:

link

link

Chouan,
You are absolutely right !
My poor english language didn't allow me to well explain it ;-)

They are really ideologically motivated but… came back to home for the harvests. At the beginning of the revolutionary wars, they followed their village chief who was "chef de bataillon" without, sometimes, any military skill for this commission. If something happened to their chief or their closed friends, they were inclined to desert very rapidly.
Don't you think so ?

My battalions are basically designed for the 1805/06 period in bicornes. What I thought I would do is swap out the voltigeur stands and replace them with fusiliers in casques and also do this with the command base so some have casques and the rest bicornes. Giving a small percentage of casques in each battalion so treated. As for officers I normally have only one officer mounted in each regiment/demi-brigade and the other battalion commanders on foot. This should let me use the battalions for the 1796 period.

Re horses for battalion commanders – there is also the matter of captured horses.

'The fact that they usually had to find money, food, clothing, and transportation for their troops, sometimes even in France, by requisition put temptation continuously in their way; service in foreign countries offered opportunities to collect souvenirs. Such temptations were sharpened by their own raggedness and hunger. Their pay was in paper assignats, which had depreciated 99 percent by 1795-96. An officer who received 500 francs in pay would find that bread (when available) cost 10 francs a loaf; a cup of coffee was 20 francs, a horse 20,000. Colonels, lieutennt colonels, and majors often marched on foot, carrying their few possessions in packs. In the armies of Italie and Alpes, mounted officers could find no forage for their horses.'

This is more of the quote that the ruckus over field grade officers and mounts during the Revolutionary Wars. Perhaps if this more complete quote being posted (though it is no one's fault) and the full meaning of the statement being shown, it could have staved off some of the more 'interesting' features of this thread.

Clearly here with more of the paragraph being read, it states and implies that some field grade officers were mounted and some, if there were problems with pay and inflation (which very clearly there were) some were not. Seems to me that is a fair evaluation of the subject at hand.

Sincerely,
K

A batallion commander would find it very difficult to command his batallion on foot – standing 20 paces behind the center of his battalion he would not be able to controll his unit well, therefore being mounted is a must.
The the French Revolutionares were not more stupid than the rest of all other military in Europe – they would see that battalion commanders would be mounted.

vW: I note that you say it is "very difficult to command a battalion on foot". But the quote says "marched" on foot … perhaps they sometimes walked on foot during marches to save their horses for battle??? Just a guess which, if true, would make both you and Elting correct!

By the way, is it always and definitely that to command a battalion, being mounted is a must? Does anyone know if there been any instances ever of battalions being successfully/easily commanded on foot in battle?

Experience is different to research comrade Stavka.

Heh, not the issue of whether officers were mounted. I was referring to the experience of trying to get some kind of definitive answer from a post on TMP once the debate, shall we say, "gets heated".

I would imagine that Duke Wacoan would want to get his units based and ready in a reasonable amount of time.

The helmet was a "Ancien Regime" item, issued as part of a very common revision of uniforms that was being practised throughout Europe. It was very unpopular! It was shoddily made even under the Ancien Regime, and even more so after the Revolution. Extent examples look both uncomfortable and, like I said, shoddy.
As far as Elting's work is concerned, it may be well researched, but the lack of edequate referencing devalues it because the reader can't tell the difference between opinion and fact. To me, this makes it not the work of a "serious Historian", but the work of a well-read amateur. To be taken seriously as a serious Historian, Elting needed to write "seriously". He didn't, but wrote, whether consciously and deliberately or not, as an amateur. There are conventions that are followed by "serious Historians" (adequate referencing is one of them) that identify them as serious Historians. If one rejects those conventions one cannot expect to be taken seriously. It is hard to accept 10th Marine's contentions that Elting is usually right, when to check you have to find his sources (if any) yourself.

That's the 'White Tower' viewpoint and one with which I definitely disagree. Col Elting has long been recognized as an authority on the Grande Armee and your picture of him and his work is incorrect. Clearly you don't know Col Elting nor understand his work. That is unfortunate.

Swords has about 840 footnotes, 340 or so reference cited works, about 190 of those are primary sources. That doesn't count the ones cited in the text. Further, many of the secondary sources are invaluable, such as Fabry's study on the Russian campaign and Morvan's Le Soldat Imperial. Those sources are outstanding and while not primary sources they contain much primary material that is invaluable. I'm quite satisfied with the documentation provided. You don't have to footnote every thought and nuance in a paper, book, or other publication. Needless to say, the book's biography is excellent and quite thorough.

I have gone the academic route and am a school-trained military historian. There is merit to what academic historians do and there is merit to non-academic military historians. Some of the 'professional' historians I came into contact with were not professional in many aspects, including being the master of their discipline. One presentation I sat through by a published author with a doctorate in history made ten errors in ten minutes on the subject he was pontificating about. Needless to say I was not impressed.

Col Elting taught military history at West Point for eleven years.

The history department at West Point is world class and does excellent work. The history instructors have been taught by some of the best historians in the country and the Napoleonic historians generally get their advanced degrees from the program that Don Horward established at Florida State. Horward also started the Consortium on the Revolutionary Era which holds its conference annually and is an excellent venue for Napoleonic history. I have been privileged to have had three papers accepted for presentation at the Consortium. Col Elting before his unfortunate passing in 2000 was a frequent contributor and the esteem he was held by his academic colleagues was quite high. His work has, and will continue, to stand the test of time.

I would suggest that some tend to denigrate his work, many in a petty and condescending manner, because he was an admirer both of Napoleon and the Grande Armee. That doesn't fit in with the general opinion of many accademic historians and others who still subscribe to the "Corsican Ogre' and 'John Bull' version of history that is greatly influenced by the British and allied propaganda of the period.

Are there errors in Swords? Sure-every historic work, especially ones with the length and breadth of Swords does. Interestingly, some years ago Col Elting publicly published an errata list for the book. He also corrected an issue in the book that was the subject of correction by other historians.

My suggestion if you or anyone else has issue with what is in the book, or in any other work for that matter, is to get busy and write your own. I started doing research on interests of mine over twenty years ago. It's a long process.

If you are really serious and interested in the period I would urge you to get to work. Being a critic is fine, but being a critic to just be a critic is also being a dilettante (SP?) and not a serious student of the period. There should be an overall purpose to being critical of others' work, whether you write wargame rules, articles for magazines, pursue an advanced degree, or to write and publish a book or books.

Another question that came up was whether or not Col Elting arranged the book to prompt readers to do their own research. I would agree that he did. I've done a lot of looking for the source material listed in his books and have been able to assemble a very good Napoleonic library in my home. I actually added on to the house to build a library to hold my books. I was very fortunate that years ago Col Elting gave me his twenty-five volumes of the old La Sabretache which has between 5-7,000 pages of Napoleonic material including letters, after action reports, data, and memoirs from the Napoleonic period. There is also articles from General Vanson on uniforms and Hollander on standards and felags as well as other first rate historians. Further, Mrs. Elting very graciously gave me a portion of the Col's library after his passing. The depth of his research was quite impressive. When he died he was starting work on Swords II. Unfortunately, now we'll never see it. As he said to me once, all any of us are doing is scraping the surface of the period.

Sincerely,
K

'One might ask in exactly the same manner: Did Elting march with Napoleon? Or was his material based on others' accounts? One can equally well use the written word or the painted picture to represent the historical reality of a subject.'

This 'interesting' statement is somewhat off-topic and is creating a strawman argument. No one is maintaining that Swords is a primary source. However, there is intimation that Seele is a primary source because it is contemporary to the Napoleonic period. That has not been established. While it is relatively simple to establish whether a written work is primary or not, it is less so with a painting unless the information comes with the picture. there can also be a problem with pictures dealing with uniforms (which by the way was brought up by Col Elting in his Napoleonic Uniforms) in that they could be embellished after the painting was completed, changing the original to conform with either later facts or ideas.

'…you will have to steel yourself to the reality that Elting may indeed have been wrong about some things.'

That is a very silly thing to say and is somewhat condescending, which shouldn't be employed in discussions to my mind. See the above posting where I mention Col Elting's errors.

Swords is not, thank heavens, an academic history. The argument, though, that the book employs to my mind is that the Grande Armee was one of the greatest armies in history. I do think that point was established/proven by Col Elting. It is the organizational history of the Grande Armee and part of a trilogy planned and executed by Col Elting. He wrote the operational history with the Atlas in the early 1960s; Swords came along in 1988, and the uniform study came in the early 1990s. The last two uniform volumes came in the late 90s as an added bonus.

Swords is written with wit, accuracy, insight into what the Grande Armee was, along with the people in it, and it was written by a professional soldier and combat veteran (interestingly Herbert Knotel was also a combat veteran and a cavalryman to boot-both he and Col Elting had in-depth knowledge of the military horse both having served in an army that still used them).

Lastly, if you don't agree with something that is there, then look it up and publish it. First Empire is always looking for good articles. Don't just sit and complain and then offer no solution but complaints. That isn't very helpful.

Sincerely,
K

Oi – I can't believe I let myself get sucked into that. Must have confused TMP with my office hours. ;)

Nice to know you haven't changed any. ;-)

Sincerely,
K

"I have gone the academic route and am a school-trained military historian. There is merit to what academic historians do and there is merit to non-academic military historians."
Good for you. I daresay there is. However, to be taken seriously, one needs to follow the conventions. For example, simply being able to drive isn't enough, being qualified to drive is what gets one accepted. If he chose not to adequately reference his work (not NOT reference, but adequately reference) then he takes the risk of not being taken seriously.
"Col Elting taught military history at West Point for eleven years. "
Good for him. That doesn't place him beyond the normal "rules" of Historians.
"Swords is not, thank heavens, an academic history."
Why "thank heavens"? Is there a problem with academic History?
"My suggestion if you or anyone else has issue with what is in the book, or in any other work for that matter, is to get busy and write your own. I started doing research on interests of mine over twenty years ago. It's a long process."
Yes. I've been researching my own area for 20 years. I've got an MA out of it, and presented a paper to the Society for the Study of French History (on the Vendee). However, teaching History full time, with a family to support, means that preparing work for publication takes a back seat. It doesn't mean that I can't criticise indisciplined, even potentially sloppy, work.
"Clearly you don't know Col Elting nor understand his work. That is unfortunate."
Clearly I don't understand his attitude. Of course I don't know him personally! That doesn't mean that I'm unfamiliar with his work!

Seems to have deviated a bit from the original questions of Duke Wacoan don't you think?

'…to be taken seriously, one needs to follow the conventions.'

What 'conventions' are those? And, who made them up? Seems to me good history is good history no matter who writes it and how it is done. We could probably get into a discussion of what good history actually is, but that would probably be a futile exercise. It is already obvious that our ideas on that subject necessarily diverge.

'If he chose not to adequately reference his work (not NOT reference, but adequately reference) then he takes the risk of not being taken seriously.'

Define 'adequately.' I believe that Swords is 'adequately' sourced. If you believe the opposite then that is your opinion. But it is exactly that-an opinion. Hopefully there are no 'reference' or 'sourcing' police to ban books that some self-proclaimed 'reference guru' might try to ban books. I ran into one of those in grad school. He was not only an idiot, but he was definitely not an historian even though he believed himself to be.

'Is there a problem with academic History?'

Yes. Academic historians tend purposely to ignore the necessary marching and fighting, along with the sweat, blood, and troops working their left ventricle off, that war entails. The study of history isn't about events, but really about people and the events they cause or are responsible for. Too much academic military history is two-dimensional and stale with the people left out. Further, in academia military history is largely looked down upon which is not good for the discipline. And, unfortunately, the proverbial 'White Tower' does exist and it isn't pretty. The egos are immense, the jealousy amazing. I've just glimpsed it and didn't care too much for it.

It doesn't mean that I can't criticise indisciplined, even potentially sloppy, work.

True. But Col Elting's work is neither indisciplines nor sloppy. He was once asked in an interview how many graduate students he had 'produced.' He answered 'Not guilty.' I thought it not only appropriate, but an excellent answer.

'Clearly I don't understand his attitude.'

To which 'attitude' are you referring. He relates accurate military history, clearly is the master of his discipline, and is fluent in more than one period of history. He was also an excellent uniformologist.

Sincerely,
K

Almost forgot. Interesting that you wrote on the Vendee. That must be an interesting paper. I understand on the time aspect as I too teach history full time and have a family. However, I do make time to write as it is enjoyable and it sparks more research.

Sincerely,
K

Skaran,

That usually does happen, but it does seem that the two questions that were asked were answered more or less completely.

Sincerely,
K

Well that is true and I have to admit that I found the discussion rather interesting.:)

"And, unfortunately, the proverbial 'White Tower' does exist and it isn't pretty. The egos are immense, the jealousy amazing. I've just glimpsed it and didn't care too much for it."

It's true. Ecthelion built the White Tower on the slopes of Mount Mindolluin when embattled Minas Tirith was still known as glorious Minas Anor, before doomed Minas Ithil fell and became horror haunted Minas Morgul. It's been a slippery slope of butchery and conspiracy ever since, even worse since the fall of the line of proud High Kings and the jealous reign of the Stewards. It must have been quit a journey for you to have glimpsed it, even from afar.

Of course, whereas Boromir lived in the White Tower, I have to make do with the off-white Ivory Tower of Academe, which is perhaps the landmark you were referring to …

Come on! I mean, if you're going to insist on blindly dismissing an entire ancient calling, at least get your pejoratives right! Next thing you know, you'll downgrade me from the Ivy League to the Green League, which sounds more like a football pool than the vacuous den of impotent intellectualism that you would have meant to conjure up.

Do I get to make high school teacher jokes now to even up the score?

;)

I stand corrected. Ivory Tower it is. Good catch. I'm just getting forgetful in my old age. ;-)

Be my guest on high school jokes. I don't teach high school, but middle. ;-)

Sincerely,
K

In that case, I can't joke. You deserve combat pay and all the psychological buffering you can get!

Personally I would much rather read a book by a historian that gave you enough facts to see how he came to his conclusions than one who spouts off all sorts of facts and sources and then comes to the wrong conclusions but tells you they are absolute.I'm pretty sure there is no historian in the world who knows all the facts so I guess none of them are "serious".
I have read Swords about five times and spend as much time reading the footnotes as the text.
The OP asked a question about mounting his wargame figures,I would think Elting could give you a good enough answer to that.

The middle school classroom is actually akin to a room full of lance corporals. The only real difference is that you don't have any NCOs. Also, I never smile. It is fun, though, and the challenge is to interest the students in history.

Sincerely,
K

I teach 11-18 year olds. I smile a lot. The kids enjoy history. One of mine (its a "bog standard comprehensive") is now reading History at Trinity. Cambridge rather than Dublin.

" But Col Elting's work is neither indisciplines nor sloppy. He was once asked in an interview how many graduate students he had 'produced.' He answered 'Not guilty.' I thought it not only appropriate, but an excellent answer.

'Clearly I don't understand his attitude.'"

That's exactly the attitude I mean. Why is it?
1) Appropriate
2) An excellent answer.
3) Why did he say "not guilty"?

I can't speak for him on that but if I had the wit to answer that type of question I would say that it isn't the number of graduate students a historian produces, if any at all, but the quality of the work a historian produces. And Col Elting's work is of the highest standard to my mind. He's produced some of the best work on the Napoleonic period in the last thirty years.

The best compliment I ever received from any of my students was about five years ago. On the last day of school two students told me that because of my class they could now talk about history with adults.

Sincerely,
K

As far as hats/casquettes, I thought most regiments during this period consisted of two blues and one white battalion, blues being volunteers with hats and blue uniforms and whites being regular army wioth white uniforms and casquettes.