"Anatomy of a lie" Topic

Une colonne de quatre ou six mille Russes s'était égarée de son côté pendant l'obscurité, avait filé sur le flanc de la colonne du maréchal Augereau, et se présenta devant le cimetière, pour enlever ce village [d'Eylau] par ce côté. L'Empereur ordonna au général Dorsenne de se porter en avant avec un bataillon de sa garde. Ce bataillon s'avança l'arme au bras ; la colonne russe s'arrêta court : ce fut l'effet de la tête de Méduse.
Il est à remarquer que les grenadiers de la garde ne voulurent jamais tirer, déclarant qu'ils ne devaient aller qu'à la baïonnette, et demandant à avancer.
L'escadron de la garde qui se trouvait près de I'Empereur, chargea ensuite cette colonne avec une indicible intrépidité; et le duc de Berg, au milieu de la plus forte mêlée du champ de bataille, ayant aperçu la fausse direction de cette colonne déjà poursuivie, détacha le général de brigade Bruyère avec deux régimens de chasseurs, qui la chargèrent en queue. De ces quatre mille hommes, peu se sauvèrent.

A column of 4 or 6,000 Russians had also wandered during the obscurity, had filed towards the flank of marshal Augereau, and presented itself before the churchyard, to carry the village from that point. The Emperor ordered general Dorsenne to advance forward with a battalion of his guard. This battalion advanced with shouldered arms. The Russian column stopped short, the French force had the effect of the head of Medusa.
It is remarkable that the guard grenadiers never wanted to fire, declaring that they should not go on except with the bayonet, and demanding to advance.
The squadron of the horse guard, which was near the Emperor, charged afterwards this column, with an astonishing intrepidity, and the duke of Berg, during the greatest heat of the action, having discovered the false direction of this column, already pursued, detached brigadier-general Bruyère with two regiments of chasseurs, which charged its rear; few of those 4,000 Russians escaped.

"Relation de la bataille d'Eylau, par un témoin oculaire, traduite de l'allemand"
Bataille de Preussisch-Eylau, gagnée par la Grande-Armée, commandée en personne par S. M. Napoléon Ier, Empereur des Français, Roi d'Italie, sur les armées combinées de Prusse et de Russie, le 8 février 1807 : avec trois plans et deux cartes.
Anon.
Paris : [Journal de Paris], [3 avril] 1807
link
The "relation", published as a story told by a secret German witness, was actually dictated before leaving Eylau on 17 February by Napoléon himself, to his loyal aide-de-camp Bertrand. There was to be immediate printing in Paris and Berlin to make sure that the "official" version of Eylau was the one everyone heard. The "Journal de Paris" was in 1807 a major daily newspaper under government control.
link
PDF link

The "relation" was also to be available in English as soon as possible, published in the USA :
Campaigns of the armies of France, in Prussia, Saxony, and Poland, under the command of His Majesty the emperor and king, in MDCCCVI and VII : a work destined to record the great events of that memorable era, and the brilliant achievements of the generals, officers, and soldiers : accompanied with biographical notices upon those who fell during that memorable campaign : also, with historical and military details of the sieges and battles which have signalized the different countries, through which the French have just marched their armies.
Jacques Peuchet and Samuel Mackay
Boston : Published by Farrand, Mallory, and Co., 1808
link
Jacques Peuchet (1758-1830) was at that time working as a publicist and archivist for the Ministry of Police. His career started under the ancien régime, then the Révolution, then into hiding working with (against?) the royalists, then into the service of Napoléon's police, and finally the Paris police under the Restoration. Famously, his publication of his Mémoires of some of the more interesting poltical cases in the police archives provided the inspiration for The Count of Monte Cristo.

The tale of the brave grenadiers who wanted to use their bayonets makes its way into "Victoires, conquêtes, …." in 1820, Dumas' "Précis des événemens militaires …" in 1826, then Thiers (1848) and so on for about 200 years. But in the retelling, the garde à cheval and the line chasseurs tend to gradually disappear – these being the ones who actually were first reported as fighting with the Russian column. Instead, we have the grenadiers à pied going in with the bayonet – when the grenadiers were orignally reported as only standing between the rather lost Russians and Napoléon.

But in general, the Emperor's wish was granted. Even today, on this forum, we read about Eylau with many elements based on Napoléon's original propaganda. Two colleagues mentioned this little tale of the brave grenadiers recently.

The commander of the line cavalry in Napoléon's story, Jean-Pierre-Joseph Bruguière (dit "Bruyère[s]") had been promoted général de brigade and given command of a brigade in Lasalle's division on 31 December 1806, some months before his 34th birthday. A loyal member of the headquarters circle, he was soon to marry Berthier's niece. He had been serving on Berthier's staff prior to his promotion.
Bruyères' brigade was actually composed of the 13e chasseurs and 1er hussards at Eylau.
His legs were taken off by a Russian cannonball at Reichenbach, and he died on 5 June 1813.

Chuvak

Just the same was done with Marengo…

Interesting how the word 'lie' is so easily employed on the forums from time to time, especially when some people want to prove their 'point of view' or are trying to denigrate others on the forums. All that usage does to my mind is lessen the ability of the user of the term to prove his point. Further, it is an historical fallacy in that it is also a virtual ad hominem attack which is nonsense and it generally, but not always, nothing but a futile attempt by the ignorant to get a point across that usually isn't accurate.

That the action at Eylau happened is beyond doubt. Too many were there to see it and it would have come out if it hadn't happened.

Mathieu Dumas' Precis des Evenements Militaires, 1799-1814, from 1826, Volume xviii, 20 is used as one of the references in Petre's account, as well as the Temoin Oculaire, Paris 1807 (supposedly authored by Napoleon himself), and Larrey's account of the Russian attack into Eylau that reached the French hospitals is also referenced.

'The triumphant Russians, following on the heels of Augereau's ruined corps, were breaking into Eylau. Even they, with the snowstorm at their backs, had partly lost their way. One 'colonne perdu' as Napoleon described it, which he estimates at 4,000-6,000 men, had wandered into the western street of Eylau, and had approached close to the position of the Emperor. Behind him, the guard was moving forward to his rescue. Beyond the Russian column, Brutere's cavalry, by direction of Murat, was preparing to charge it in rear. The Russians were actually amongst the French hospitals in the barns in rear of Eylau. The terrified wounded who could walk were endeavoring to escape. Even the others, trying vainly to follow them, were only induced, by Larrey and his assistants expressing loudly their intention of remaining where they were, to desist from the vain attempt.'

'The Emperor was in the most imminent danger of death or capture. A stray bullet, a little more hurry by the Russian column, might have changed the whole history of Europe. Napoleon alone, in the midst of all this confusion, standing on the mound with only his staff and a single squadron, his personal guard, maintained his calm and his presence of mind.'

'Before the Guard infantry could reach the spot, the Russians would be upon him. The Guard refused to fire; they considered it was their duty to charge with the bayonet without firing; they were blind to the consequences of delay. EVery instant gained was of vital importance to their Emperor. He employed the only means he had to gain a few moments. The squadron of his personal guard was ordered to charge. Rushing upon almost certain death, with loud shouts of 'Vive l'Empereur,' this little band of heroes fell furiously on the head of the Russian column. It was the attack of the pygmy upon the giant, but it gained the necessary time. Before this squadron was exterminated, the Guard had reached with the bayonet the front, Bruyere with the sabre the rear of the Russians. Their destruction was inevitable and was as complete as had been that of Augereau's larger force…'
-Petre, Napoleon's Campaign in Poland, 1806-1807, 183-184.

A more recent account, Crisis in the Snows by James Arnold confirms the action, and is better documented than Petre. He uses Les Souvenirs du General Bon Paulin by Jules Bon Paulin, 45; Charles Parquin 'Souvenirs', 97 and notes that Parquin did not witness the action and was later told about it as Parquin was in the 20th Chasseurs, part of Augereau's corps cavalry which were stationed on the left flank; the memoires of Armand de Bonneville, Memoirs Anecdotiques du General de Bonneval, 26. He was not present but later became ADC to Dorsenne, undoubtedly where he got the story; Edward Ryan's biography of General Daumesnil, Napoleon's Shield and Guardian, 150-151. Unfortunately, Arnold also used Jomini's La Bataille d'Eylau, 79. Jomini is an inaccurate 'historian' and cannot be relied upon. He was a military incompetent and had a very bad habit of taking credit for things he didn't do. I would suggest that the portion of the following regarding Jomini's involvement is either exaggerated or didn't happen at all.

'…Meanwhile, the Russian cavalry counterattack achieved its high water mark, reaching the French gunline along the Bartenstein road where troopers even managed to hack down some gunners. Around the same time one of the counterattacking infantry columns emerged from a snow squall to present Napoleon with his gravest personal threat yet.'

'The French cavalry had not yet reformed when Napoleon and his staff saw the columns appear. Twenty-six-year-old Major General Karl Mecklenburg commanded them. His columns came 'calmly marching as if on exercise' toward Cemetery Knoll. Visibility was so poor in the blowing snow that initially no one could identify the soldiers. Napoleon sent Jomini to investigate whether the column was retreating French or advancing Russians. Jomini rode until he saw Russian shakos and returned to report his discovery. Napoleon contemptuopusly dismissed him: 'Bah, you see Russians everywhere.' Jomini protested and insisted that the troops he saw were also wearing distinctive Russian greatcoats.'

'Napoleon dispatched a second aide to investigate. That officer returned at the gallop, his horse dripping blood from a canister wound. He confirmed Jomini's claim. The Emperor ordered the artillery of the Imperial Guard to attack the Russians. He personally checked the gunners' aim before they opened fire. The Guard artillery pounded Mecklenburg's column but the Russians resolutely closed ranks and pressed forward. Napleon, now watching intently through his telescope, murmured: 'What audacity! What audacity!' 'Yes,' replied his chief of staff, 'But perhaps your Majesty has not noticed that such audacity has brought the range down to one hundred yards.' Some Imperial staff officers urged Napoleon to abandon the position. INstead, he calmly orchestrated the destruction of Mecklenburg's column.'

'Daumesnil's depleted squadron of Guard Chasseurs a Cheval had returned to occupy again its station as one of the Emperor's service squadrons. The Emperor ordered Daumesnil to charge to buy time. Simultaneously he ordered Brigadier General Jean Dorsenne to confront the Russians with the 2d Battalion of the 2d Grenadiers a Pied of the Imperial Guard. Napoleon watched Dorsenne set off. To his anger he saw the entire regiment start to advance. He recalled Dorsenne and demanded an explanation. Dorsenne sheepishly realted tha the regiment's 1st Battalion had advanced on its own due to its zeal to engage. The explanation did not soothe Napoleon. No one was going to commit his ultimate reserve without his express order. He sent Dorsenne on his way, recalled the errant battalion, and delivered a blistering rebuke to his overzealous grognards.'

'Dorsenne eagerly led his Guard Grenadiers toward the front of the Russian column. He took advantage of uneven ground to deploy the battalion in a ravine where the Russians could not see them. During their approach march, the grenadiers had observed that the Russians badly outnumbered them. Apparently some of his old Soldiers complained because Dorsenne turned to them, laughed, and said, 'It is nothing but a ptrol!' Dorsenne thought it beneath his veterans' dignity even to fire their muskets. Instead, when the Russians appeared at the top of the rise, he ordered the battalion to charge with cold steel.'

'Meanwhile, Murat, who had rejoined the headquarters staff, perceeved that Dorsenne would benefit from additional cavalry support. He ordered Brigadier-General Jean Bruyere, whose brigade had not participated in the grand charge and occupied ground just north of Eylau, to 'take your brigade and follow me!' Bruyere instantly ordered his 1st Hussars and 13th Chasseurs a Cheval to move forward in a lone of squadrons behind the marshal. As they galloped toward the Russians, Murat pointed at the Russian column and said, 'Charge that for me!' As the French light cavalry charged the column's flank, those Russians who could wield their muskets fired a volley at close range. Bruyere and the colonel commanding the 13th Chasseurs a Cheval both went down with wounds. But the musketry failed to arrest the cavalry's momentum. The French light horse pitilessly tore into the Russians while the Guard infantry engaged them frontally. The Russians recoiled from this double shock and the survivors retreated back to the main Russian battle line. The Russians had indeed been a'a lost coloumn' as Napoleon later described them.'

'The repulse of Mecklenburg's column terminated the important action in the center of the battlefield…'

The Russian Officer Corps by Alexander Mikaberidze states that Karl August Christian Mecklenburg, who became a Russian general at age 18, was present at Eylau and was 'seriously wounded in the left hand', 246. He was another of the assorted Germans and foreigners that were ubiquitous in the Russian service (see Lieven, Russia Against Napoleon for his comments on foreigners in the Russian Army).

Lachouque, in The Anatomy of Glory mentions the Guard's attack on pages 88-89, 'Towards the close of the cavalry fight a Russian column of 4,000 men stormed the cemetery. The Emperor sent Dorsenne against them with a battalion of grenadiers. Without firing a shot the Grumblers hurled them back with bayonets while the service squadrons attacked their flanks. Major Lonchamp and Captain Rogery were wounded. Two lieutenants of the grenadiers and chasseurs were killed and three officers wounded. The artillery of the Guard lost few gunners, but left a lieutenant in the snow.'

Lastly, Coignet makes mention of the action, stating that 'As the peril was great, he [Napoleon] decided to send forward the 2d Regiment of Grenadiers and the Chasseurs, commanded by General Dorsenne.' Coignet also quotes Napoleon the evening of the action speaking to Dorsenne, 'Dorsenne, that was no joke for you and my gousers; I am very much pleased with you.' noting that Napoleon was 'delighted with his Guard.' -Coignet, 144-145.

What we can conclude from these accounts is that (1) the Russian counterattack after Augereau's repulse reached Napoleon's command post and the French field hospitals; (2) that Napoleon ordered the Russian column to be attacked by both the Guard infantry and Bruyere's brigade; (3) that Dorsenne's battalion was outnumbered by the Russians; (4) that the Russians were hit by Dorsenne head on and in the flank by Bruyere's brigade; and (5) that the column was defeated, suffered very heavy casualties and that the survivors withdrew.

Sincerely,
K

'Just the same was done with Marengo…'

Maybe. The original history/after action report of the action was written by Col Vallongue and was based on eyewitness testimony and after action reports. Napoleon, who wanted the battle depicted as having gone exactly as planned, ordered it rewritten as such and also ordered all copies of Vallongue's original study destroyed. One copy was saved and later discovered in the War Ministry. David Chandler goes into some detail on this in On the Napoleonic Wars. De Cugnac's account, based on primary source material, and translated into English by LtCol Lanza of the Command and General Staff College, is one of the base documents for any study of the Marengo Campaign. Du Cugnac is on line if I'm not mistaken.

If you're referring to the Consular Guard's action (actually there were two, not one as the Guard infantry also participated in the general counterattack at the end of the day), then the following might be helpful. The Consular Guard infantry suffered very heavy casualties at Marengo but were not, as has sometimes been maintained, destroyed in the action.

'The thirty-minute fight of the Consular Guard infantry is an interesting microcosm of the Battle of Marengo. Some accounts have the entire Guard infantry going into action, 800 strong, losing a third of their number fighting outnumbered, and withdrawing with the rest of the French army. Austrian accounts from 1823 have the Guard infantry being destroyed by Austrian cavalry commanded by Frimont. Neither account is probably accurate. While there were undoubtedly about 800 Guard infantrymen on the field, the action for which they are famous was probably fought by only 500-600 Guardsmen, and their losses were probably about fifty percent of the unit engaged. The rest, either in formation as Petit states, or in groups withdrawing as best they could, disengaged and made it back to friendly lines. Their color was saved by Lt. Aune, the color bearer. The unit was engaged in the French counterattack led by Desaix's newly arrived division, so the Austrian secondary claim that they had been destroyed is inaccurate. That they were involved in the counterattack was stated by Generals Monnier, Dupont, and Berthier, and was noted in the Journal of the Army of the Reserve by Major Broussier. During the fight, they either formed square as noted in the Bulletin of the Army of the Reserve, or they fought in line, and they very well could have been hit in the rear by Frimont, as the Austrian account states. They are not mentioned at all in General Melas' account of the battle. Also worth noting is that Coignet in his account of Marengo states that a battalion of the 43d ligne was hit in the rear by Austrian dragoons, and was destroyed. That happening twice in the same action in the same way is much too coincidental. Probably there were at least 200 survivors from the Guard's thirty-minute delaying action and they very well have been reinforced with the other 300 Guard infantry that were on the field, which would account for the total of 800. What those other 300 Guardsmen were doing is unknown, but they may have been those that were taking ammunition up to the firing line that Coignet talks about. The commander of the Guard infantry in their thirty-minute fight was Soules, and the other battalion commander was Tortel. They may have been placed under the command of Stabenrath, who was an officer on Berthier's staff and who is mentioned being employed in that capacity in one of the French after action reports. Finally, from the awards list for the Consular Guard at Marengo, it is clearly indicated that the Guard infantry distinguished themselves, in this their first fight as a unit. Napoleon was not in the habit of granting awards for valor for a unit that was destroyed, and his remark after the action that a unit of 500 could fight its way out of a difficult situation may have been referring to the Guard infantry, as that is what they did.'

Sincerely,
K

Yawn, here we go again………

K gets all upset about calling the long dead Napoleon a "liar" then goes and disses Jomini. Hey Kevin, I happen to know the Jomini is alive and well and participates on this forum as "The Swiss miss". How rude of you!

I keep forgetting which Napoleonic board was set up for serious debate, and which one was abandoned to the flame war goobers.

It would also be nice if somewhere in the title or THE FIRST TEN WORDS, we who are not as well versed in Napoleonic Scandal were given a clue as to just what the you are talking about.
Don't make us wade through pages that scroll off the bottom of the monitor to guess.

Sometimes I think that our Napoleonic "scholars" air their dirty laundry on TMP because no reputable history journal will publish them.

…A column of 4 or 6,000 Russians had also wandered during the obscurity…

English translations like that do not exactly encourage further browsing either.

John the OFM,

I think this thread is a spin-off from this one:
TMP link

The question (I think): Did the Old Guard Infantry destroy a column of Russian Grenadiers at Eylau? Or, perhaps more realistically, are the French sources which claim this reliable or not?

Regards

I think this thread is a spin-off from this one:
TMP link

I would not be surprised. However, that changes none of what I said above.

John the OFM – agreed.

For anyone new who wanted to know how Marengo got pulled into this, there is/was a similar dispute about various aspects of that battle, particularly the performance of/destruction of the French Guards, which again sort of reduces to whether you view some of the sources as reliable or not. If you really want to know more, try typing in Kevin Kiley, Dave Hollins, Consular Guard and Marengo into your search engine.

Regards

"…A column of 4 or 6,000 Russians had also wandered during the obscurity…"

That was the Great Obscurity of 1807. Don't tell me you hadn't heard of that important historic event, John?

The Great Obscurity … er … obscured observors from being able to make a definite count of wandering Russians, but some say they saw just four solitary Russians going walkabout in column, and others say they saw 6,000 of them.

'K gets all upset about calling the long dead Napoleon a "liar" then goes and disses Jomini. Hey Kevin, I happen to know the Jomini is alive and well and participates on this forum as "The Swiss miss". How rude of you!'

No. Chuvak termed the incident 'fantasy' which it isn't. That was the issue.

And Jomini has been taken to task for the material that he wrote that was 'remembered with advantages.' Further, he was an incompetent corps chief of staff and military governor.

Sincerely,
K

All right, Kevin, if you don't want to laugh it off, I'll be serious. Once again you seem extremely confused and beligerantly obnoxious about it. Chuvak appears to be complaining that in Napoleon's own story, the Imperial Guard without firing, confronts the column, which is then routed by cavalry, and that story is changed to the Guard overwhelming the column with bayonet in subsequent retellings. Your extract from Petre seems to conform to that, really. Arnold gives a different summation. But Arnold's sources are easy enough to get from Google:
link

Can't you just calmly cite alternative sources, and not personalize this discussion yet again??

NSN,

I could guess where this was going to go. I was not unprepared …

==============================

Kevin,

The "lie" in the title here was Napoléon's, not yours.

Thank you for shedding more light on the way the original lie was copied by later writers.

I mentioned Dumas (1826), who copied the original propaganda piece almost verbatim in the French original. Petre (1901) footnoted the passage to Dumas and the original propaganda piece.

Let's look at the other sources you have mentioned ….

- "Les Souvenirs du General Bon Paulin" were actually published in 1895 by his grand-nephew, based on manuscript notes found among the family papers. In early 1807, the future général baron Paulin was a 23 year old capitaine du génie aide de camp to maréchal Augereau. His promotion had been rapid, as his uncle was the général du génie Nicolas Sanson, directeur du dépôt de la guerre (responsible for maps and geographic, fortification and troop location intelligence), with whom he had previously served as an aide. As the battle of Eylau started, he was sent to the join the engineers at army headquarters. He reports Lépic's famous charge as he saw it from the clocktower at the village, where he was posted to observe the enemy. He does not mention anything like the tale of the grenadiers à pied and their bayonets.
link

- "Charles Parquin Souvenirs" indeed does rest for information about what happened near Napoléon at Eylau on a later second-hand report of an aide with Berthier's staff. Parquin reports Lépic's famous charge as part of Murat's grand charge. He does not mention anything like the tale of the grenadiers à pied and their bayonets.
link

- "Armand de Bonneville [sic], Memoirs Anecdotiques du General de Bonneval" was actually published in 1900, some 27 years after the demise of the author – who indeed was not at Eylau. In early 1807, the future général marquise de Bonneval was a 19 year old newly made sous-lieutenant on his way to the Strasland garrison. He does however note what he was told about Dorsenne at Eylau, though without saying where he got the story :
« He [Dorsenne] was the colonel of the grenadiers of Imperial guard and had been posted by the Emperor at an important point with only his regiment. Seeing a Russian column approaching him, he profited by the layout of the terrain, which was rolling, by placing his troops in a single rank in such a fashion that, from afar, one could see nothing but a line of bearskins. Then, he placed himself at the highest point and awaited the Russians. D'Orsenne turned to this impressive group of old grenadiers and laughed – "It is nothing but a patrol." he told them. So, the Russians arrived within long musket shot – but, figuring that there should be an army behind that first rank, they spontaneously retreated. »
He does not mention anything much like the tale of the grenadiers à pied and their bayonets. He reports a good bluff played with the help of the terrain, and the bad visibility. I think this was actually a different incident, if it occurred at all.
link

- "Edward Ryan's biography of General Daumesnil" – This is a modern biography. In early 1807 Daumesnil was a chef d'escadron in the chasseurs à cheval. He did not leave memoirs – and I do not have this modern biography. If someone has it, can they look and see if any additional original sources are used with regard to Eylau ? Thanks.

- "Jomini's La Bataille d'Eylau" – The baron de Jomini was a colonel aide de camp at the army headquaters at Eylau. Here's what Jomini saw :
« A Russian column of 10 to 12 battalions from General Doctorof's reserve, which had been launched into the snow-squalls after the debris of Augereau's corps, advanced menacingly toward the point where it no doubt would find Napoleon, who no doubt was not expecting such a visit.
Only a few skirmishers covered the front of this deep column, formed on the frontage of a battalion.
The Emperor noticed this movement, but still doubted that is was a Russian formation.
[Napoléon sends first Jomini and then another officer to confirm the identity of the column.]
Napoleon then ordered the squadron of horse chasseurs which formed his escort that day, which was commanded by the intrepid Daumesnil, to strike this column.
It was edifying to see the zeal with which these 100 brave men threw themselves at a mass of 5 to 6 thousand infantry, and stop their march for at least a few moments.
[Napoléon sends the 2e battalion of the 1er grenadiers à pied forward – the first battalion tries to follow and are held back.]
The 2nd battalion advanced with shouldered arms, without firing, came to the front of the Russian column, and then fell upon them with lowered bayonets.
Since only the first battalion of the column could take part in this shock, the fight was in favor of the elite formation. The result was soon decided when general Brugère's divison of light cavalry, detached by Murat, came and threw themselves on the left flank of the column that was already pressed from the front.
The column was pierced, part being sabered or turned back toward their line. »
link

- "Lachouque's The Anatomy of Glory" – This a modern secondary work. No additional original sources are adduced for the tale of the grenadiers à pied. This is no more than another of the many re-tellings of the original propaganda.

- "Coignet's Recollections" – Here we have a grenadier in the 1er grenadiers à pied in early 1807. He wrote his memoirs decades later, some say with so much assistance and fantasy as rob them of any use. I actually think they should be consulted for events that he might have seen. Unfortunately, he must not have seen anything of his regiment's other battalion's actions.
He does not mention anything like the tale of the grenadiers à pied and their bayonets.
link

==============================
On the other side of the table ….

The 25 year old commander of the Russian colomn was General-Major Prince v. Mecklenburg-Schwerin, and not any "of the assorted Germans and foreigners". His father was the ruling Grand-Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, then an ally of Russia and Prussia. His brother was married to Alexander's sister. His sister was married to the heir ot the throne of Denmark and Norway. And so on. Maybe compare Joseph in command of the armée d'Espagne or Jérôme in command of three corps in 1812.
His hand was actually wounded at Heilsburg and there he won the St.-George Order III for bravery. Did well in 1812-1814 also.

I can find nothing very special about him or his brigade – the Moscovskiy grenadiers and Vyborgskiy musketeers – at Eylau. The Moscovskiy grenadiers had fought in the delaying actions in the previous days, and the Vyborgskiy musketeers had detached 250 men on the morning of the battle to occupy a village.
So, it really looks like the famous column was really nothing more than 6 battalions and maybe 2500 men.

Try it as a gaming scenario :
Line up six battalions in a column.
Put 1 elite enemy battalion and 1 enemy elite squadron in front of them, with large positive command modifiers.
Attack them with 6 squadrons or more of fresh light horse on their left flank.

==============================

I think Kevin's 5-point conclusion is generally reasonable, noting : (i) that the odds for the grenadiers were equal at the front of the Russian column and (ii) no original source, except the official propaganda, describes the Russian casualties as heavy.
However, Kevin's generally reasonable concusion should be compared to the more evocative version as found in the official propaganda or his recent little bombastic admonishment "You might also find out about the 'quick bayonet work' that one of the Old Guard battalions got in at Eylau in 1807, led by Dorsenne, as they annihilated a Russian column of grenadiers."

Chuvak

P.S. – John,
I thought this board was for "academic" topics : sources, histiography, etc. Otherwise, how is it different from the "Discussion" board ?
As for the translation, that is how it was published in 1808 under the aupices of the French Ministry of Police. I linked the full text. It may have been a rush job, as the translator (named as co-author) was Samuel MacKay (1764-1831), a former professor of French literature at Williams College whose more "literary" works seem rather better to me.

And yet we are presented with one sided view of events. I do not see any recollections of any Russians on the event. So I tend to treat this as nothing more than French propaganda- until I see Russian description of events and by hopefully comparing two can come up with some adequate conclusion.
I would be especially suspicious of anything that came out from under Buonaparte's crooked pen…
Reminds me of my recent spat with designers of FoG lists who claim that Neva river battle and Chudskoe lake battle was nothing more than "Minor skirmishes- without any significance" by Alexander Nevsky. Basing ones interpretation on- say, Livonian chronicle, that says that "Nothing happened that year"- rather than any other account- Western or Russian- that state that Teutonics and Swedes were soundly defeated and abandoned any hope of conquest in Novgorod lands…
Typical of the West…
Why one wonders then why nothing is translated from Russian- although a plephora of books exists on all periods and subjects.
NOT WORTHY!

Sergey,

I was looking at what I have in Russian. The whole episode is not mentioned that I could find. I think it was a total non-event when viewed from the Russian side.

A small brigade advances, it is maybe a little lost, it is stopped and attacked a little. It losses some men and goes back. While at the same moment nearby Murat launches 80 squadrons at the Russian center and Davout is looming on the left …. this little thing is just not enough to get noticed, I am thinking.

[Actually, the report of the captain of the detachment from Vyborgskiy musk. p. was published ! He was awarded the St.-George Orden IV and a sword with diamonds for Eylau.]

Lots of French would have seen it too. The capitaine du génie in the clocktower, the soldat in the 1er grenadiers, etc. They didn't remark on this either.

The interesting thing, to me, is that Napoléon made a pretty good propaganda effort with this : published really quickly in 3 languages on 2 continents. Also, the way it gets re-told and re-told over 200 years, with more "glory" added to the French Guard at almost each step. And lastly, the way such stories based in lies are used as truths beyond doubt, without even checking them – even today, even here.

Чувак

Here here!
AND especially TODAY and Particularly HERE- since this forum is a prime example of history misinterpreted…
Best way- is to address regimental histories with accounts of casualties in certain battle. Usually those will list names and ranks of KIAs MIAs and WIAs. Some are available at Ann K Brown Library in Brown University, Providence RI

From the Russian journal "Император" № 11 (2007) – an order of battle for Eylau by Aleksey Anatol'evich Vasil'ev. No sources, looks maybe like from a work-in-progress.

For general-major prince v. Mecklenburg-Schwerin, he gives the following information:
-- He was the junior regimental commander in his brigade, and was given nominal brigade command only the day before Eylau, after the shef of the Vyborgskiy musketeers had been wounded.
-- The Vyborgskiy musketeers were detached at that time with L'Estocq, under their colonel (same in other sources)
-- This left prince v. Mecklenburg-Schwerin with only his own regiment, the Moscovskiy grenadiers (commander : polkovnik Filisov Pavel Andreevich)
-- the regiment was assigned with the 8th division to the rear guard, where it had been for some days
-- they would have had only three depleted battalions, maybe something like 1200 men or a bit more

This is the regimental history for the Moscovskiy grenadiers – does anyone have a copy to hand ?
Шмаров Е. Краткая история 8-го Гренадерского Московского Великого Герцога Мекленбург-Шверинского Фридриха-Франца IV полка. 1790-1890г. Тверь, 1890г. 8"". 4 н., 138, XVI с., 4 л. карт. Списки: командиров полка, офицеров и чиновников с 1790 по 1890г., офицеров, убитых и раненных в сражениях в 1794, 1799, 1807, 1809, 1810, 1812-1814 и 1877г.

======================================

Checking Höpfner's "Kreig …." (1855) and v. Lettow-Vorbeck (1896) :
-- one sentence about "a column" being turned back by the French garde à cheval and Bruyère's brigade. No exact mention of which Russian unit(s). No mention of the grenadiers à pied.
-- it is possible to read these texts (the later one follows the first closely) to imply that the column was from the Russian 4th division. None of the 3 brigade commanders has a name similar to "Mecklenburg".
link
link

======================================

So, where did Arnold come up with the identification of the column that met the grenadiers à pied with "Mecklenburg" ?

The Russian 4th division was missing quite a few general officers for various reasons. With only one regiment left from his brigade, perhaps prince v. Mecklenburg-Schwerin was re-assigned for the day ?

Chuvak

As I go through some of the recent threads and posts, I had come to a few conclusions:

- The Old Guard was not as elite as we thought. picture
- Most French sources are not reliable. British, Russian and Prussian sources are almost always reliable.

Finally, I would like to see some specific members posting something, anything good about the French Imperial Guard (especially the Old Guard). I also would like to see some specific members writing about British or Russian "lies". Oh, I almost forgot… they never lied. Only the French. picture

Cuirassier, where have you been?? There have been books written and a huge debate for many years about "British lies". There is an obvious reason we don't discuss "Russian lies" very much – until recently we hardly had an opportunity to discuss Russian truths. Napoleon has always got most of the attention, so naturally that mythos permeates our hobby.

As for the Old Guard foot, it's frequently been noted in the past by any number of observers that they did not see a lot of crucial action.

There is an interesting exploration of a historical incident in this thread. Let's not turn it into a personality litmus test.

Yes… I know, nvrsaynvr. I'm well aware of those books.

However, some members here only talk about the "French lies". The same members… every time.

But you are right. I will not hijack this thread anymore.

Take care.

There is an interesting exploration of a historical incident in this thread. Let's not turn it into a personality litmus test.

Yes, after all, that could never happen here, could it?

Curassier,

I have NEVER once questioned the elite state of the French Old Guard.

French sources vary. Amazing, no ? Also Russian, British, Prussian, Austrian and so on.
[Montenegrin sources are always beyond reproach, of course.]

Original sources are better than later re-hashes filled with conclusions and comments and summaries.

"I would like to see some specific members posting something, anything good about the French Imperial Guard (especially the Old Guard)"

You clearly have not read my analysis of the sources for the French Guard at Marengo – or did not know it was mine (I forget passwords and change usernames alot). Happily, Dave Hollins finally saw that he had gone farther than his sources led him, and revised his position on the topic.

Actually, Kevin's summary (above) would likely be mostly shared now by Mr. Hollins, and I will take some credit for at least helping that process.

I have also put up a strong defense of the French carabiniers à cheval on a few occasions. Not quite Guard, but close-ish.

Please, let's follow NSN's idea – stay on the topic and not go on and on about ourselves. We are boring. History is interesting.

Chuvak

'The 25 year old commander of the Russian colomn was General-Major Prince v. Mecklenburg-Schwerin, and not any "of the assorted Germans and foreigners".'

This is a partial bibliographical entry for Mecklenberg in Alexander Mikaberidze's The Russian Officer Corps in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars 1792-1815:

'Mecklenberg, Karl August Christian (1782-1833) was born to a prominent German family of dukes of Mecklenburg. He entered the Russian service as a captain in the Life Guard Preobrazhensk Regiment on 11 October 1798, rising to a colonel on 27 January 1798. Two years later, he became major general and chef of the Moscow Grenadier Regiment on 20 June 1800…After the war he left the Russian service on 18 May 1814, and returned to Mecklenberg.'

Seems to me he was a German and born in a German principality. You might also want to consider that Catherine the Great also started life as a German princess.
That is probably where the German relations of Tsar Alexander came from?

As for foreigners in the Russian army, Peter the Great began to rebuild his army after repeated defeats by the Swedes by importing European, principally German, professionals and many settled in the Baltics. Both Barclay and Bennigsen were descended from Germans and Barclay was mistrusted and hated because he was not from native Russian stock, but from Baltic Germans. Of the 800 doctors in the Russian army in 1812, most of them were descended from immigating Germans. The two senior Russian engineers in 1812 were Dutch and German-Peter van Suchtelen and Karl Oppermann, respectively. Lastly, about 20% of the Russian staff officers were foreigners at Borodino and were not assimilated Russians (Lieven, 24).

'However, Kevin's generally reasonable concusion should be compared to the more evocative version as found in the official propaganda or his recent little bombastic admonishment "You might also find out about the 'quick bayonet work' that one of the Old Guard battalions got in at Eylau in 1807, led by Dorsenne, as they annihilated a Russian column of grenadiers."'

The action didn't last long, and the Guard infantry attacked with the bayonet, hence 'quick bayonet work.' There was no reason to use a pejorative in your response, though I have to admit you're getting good at it. It does, however, demean your material and offerings which is too bad.

And the two French carabinier regiments did not belong to the Guard, though that mistake has been made before. The only regiment that came even close to that category was the Lancers of Berg which had quasi-Guard status in some accounts. The Carabiniers never did. They were elite units, as were the cuirassiers, but not Guard.

Sincerely,
K

Well, Chuvak, we can post here all sorts of arguments that will seem to be logical- yet some "participants" will be still tooting their tin horn. One thing to add- "Several defeats by Swedes, Barclay- of German decent--???" God help us…
10th Marines-Горбатого могила исправит
I am outta here…

Kevin,

-- You just posted 264 words about Prinz v. Mecklenburg-Schwerin being German. His birth is not in doubt. What point are you trying to make ?
-- You just posted 110 words about how you don't like having any negative comments made about what you write. I am so sorry.
-- You concluded with 58 words about the carabiniers à cheval not being in the Guard – another point that is not in dispute.

Is this all you can offer ?

Now, since you brought up Arnold, and since Mecklenburg is named in Arnold, will you please tell us where Arnold got the idea to name Mecklenburg ?

See, if Arnold (or you, or somebody that Arnold relied on) didn't mangle something, there should be an additional original source that we have not yet considered. Right now, other than Napléon's propaganda, the only original description of the incident we have here is Jomini's. It would sure be nice to have another.

That would be a nice contribution for you to offer here, wouldn't it?

Chuvak

Chuvak you need –

Alexander Mikaberidze
Ralph Reinertsen
Robert Goetz
Steven H Smith
Mark Webb (ha)

Graf,

Before any of those leading lights complains that we are not trying manfully in their absence ….

I do know that Mikhailovskiy-Danilevskiy (1846) says that ony one battalion – that's 1 – of an unrecorded regiment was involved in the incident with the French Old Guard.
Not too specific. Not an original source. So I didn't mention it before.

Mikhailovskiy-Danilevskiy is generally considered "reliable" or some such expression of unquestioning approbation. He worked under Imperial patronage in the State archives, had a good staff, etc., etc. His work, linked below, is considered a classic and authoritative in Russia. Like Oman on the Peninsula in English.

But, I am not so convinced by "reliable" seondary sources.

If one is convinced by Mikhailovskiy-Danilevskiy, then the real story is that a regiment of French Old Guard infantry plus unspecified cavalry caused a single lost battalion of Russians to retreat, and Napolón's Person was thus rescued – and some really good propaganda was thus born.
link

Chuvak

The old system of defense, when one is unable to contribute anything usefull is – to attack an author – or to try to victimize him – like in the past Dave Hollins.

Cuirassier come up with some "Prussian" lies then – then you could show your willingness to discuss a subject – instead of attacking the same persons who always are critical of sources regarding Napoleon and the French Army.

Read Morvan for a change – it may help to get a more balanced view about the French Army.

I enjoy discussions on the level Chuvak is bringing forward – one is able to learn something usefull from them.

Thank you Chuvak

Chuvak,

I read over and over what you stated above and I must confess you confused me. First you say Mikhailovskiy-Danilevskiy states one battalion "only" that,s one unrecorded Regiment was involved, not to specific, not original source.

Then you state Mikhailovskiy-Danilevskiy is considered reliable, how can that be considered reliable if its unrecorded, not specific and not original source.

That to me is unreliable and I have seen it stated on other sites as unreliable.

But I'm not convinced by this as you state at the end. So why even bother mentioning it, it only confuses the issue.

Regards
James

James,

The idea of a Russian source downplaying an ass-whipping at any level is not original either.

I wouldn't count Jomini as an original source either as he is too unreliable. Some folks don't like sources being rated, but it is one thing you have to do in historical inquiry, or so they say.

I don't have a problem with using Paulin's, Bonneville's, and Parquin's memoirs for the relation of the incident. They have usually been seen as reliable and it is quite likely that the physical evidence of the fight was seen by more than one or two people, including Larrey. Neither Larrey nor Parquin are known for telling 'tall tales' on the level of Marbot.

Sincerely,
Kevin

But I'm not convinced by this as you state at the end. So why even bother mentioning it, it only confuses the issue.

It is very likely you have just answered your own question.

'The old system of defense, when one is unable to contribute anything usefull is – to attack an author – or to try to victimize him – like in the past Dave Hollins.'

VW,

Are you trying to characterize your own actions on the forums? You've been doing this for years. Maybe you should climb down from your high horse and actually try to conribute something useful instead of attacking (for lack of a better word) others. All you are doing here is projecting, which isn't a very good thing.

Sincerely,
K

James,

Wilson in his memoir of Eylau does not mention the incident and he wouldn't be in a position to witness the action anyways.

Bennigsen in his after action report proclaims Eylau as a Russian victory (he did the same at Heilsberg). The more detailed report by Bennigsen mentions nothing of the Russian column that penetrated to Napoleon's headquarters.

Bennigsen's after-action reports, as were Kutusov's, were very inaccurate and generally trumped up for the benefit of the Tsar. Bennigsne's after-action report on Friedland generally paints it as a successful withdrawal, not the disaster that it actually was.

Sincerely,
K

James,

Well, I didn't mention it at first, right ?
I added it later mostly for completeness.

Also, because I got thinking (looking at the list of people that our Graf posted) that some people are really rather well-read. Maybe they know of a Cossak officer's memoirs that say something like "I was scouting near Eylau village and saw the Nth battalion of the Blahblahskiy musketeers wandering lost in the snow come by me and march on alone toword the village". Or maybe they know an infantry officer's memoirs that has something like "we stood with Eylau village to our left front, and advanced – but our left flank battalion got lost in the snow and we did not see them again until the evening."
Pieces sometimes can be fit together.

-- Please explain in greater detail why you would think the Mikhailovskiy-Danilevskiy is especially "unreliable" – more than any other similar detailed secondary source.
-- Have you read the work, or academic critiques of it?

I don't think it is too confusing to have a look at this version of the incident. Not directly very helpful, but not so confusing that we should delete it. At the least it shows how whatever happened did not look like much of a big deal to the Russians. This we can compare to the instant publication of Napoléon's propaganda in 3 languages on 2 continents – and the later inclusion of this propaganda in many, many accounts of the battle.

Chuvak

Kevin,

"I don't have a problem with using Paulin's, Bonneville's, and Parquin's memoirs for the relation of the incident."

That's a bit problemmatic, then, is it not ?
None of these authors describe the incident.
That includes capitaine du génie Paulin in an observation post in the Eylau church clocktower!
From this, should we conclude that the incident did not happen at all ?

Chuvak

P.S. – These three accounts are linked above, if anyone wants to read them.

Kevin,

"The idea of a Russian source downplaying an ass-whipping at any level is not original"

Other than Napoléon's propaganda, please provide an original source that states that the Russian experienced in this incident an "ass-whipping" or similar.

So far, I don't see any original evidence of heavy casulaties to the Russians.

Chuvak

'Now, since you brought up Arnold, and since Mecklenburg is named in Arnold, will you please tell us where Arnold got the idea to name Mecklenburg?'

Chuvak,

Why don't you get in contact with him and ask him? He's very approachable and a gentleman. I've talked to him by email before and there is no reason to doubt his version of what happened in this incident. If you doubt it, then ask him. Seems to me that he looked at different sources and came to a conclusion and pieced together from these sources a sequence of events and how the Russian column was defeated/destroyed (by the way, that's an ass-whipping-it's also an excellent example of infantry/artillery/cavalry cooperation by the French).

And don't forget Coignet's input, minor as it may be.

What Arnold has done is called historical inquiry. Parquin does mention the action on pages 69-70 of his memoir, though he mentions only the cavalry and artillery participation.

Now, if you don't contact Arnold and it appears that you don't accept his version of the action, then what exactly are you saying? That it didn't occur or that Arnold is wrong, or do you have your own 'theory' on what happened. Larrey is certainly definite on Russian infantry in the French rear. How do you think the French handled the problem?

Sincerely,
K

'…Jomini was a colonel aide de camp at the army headquaters at Eylau'

As a minor point, Jomini was never a colonel, which was a rank in the French army that denoted service with troops. Jomini was an adjutant-commandant, a staff rank equivalent in grade to a colonel in the line. Jomini never commanded troops in the field.

Sincerely,
K

Now that Kevin points it out, yes get in touch with J. Arnold he has his own website and I believe a place where you can send inquires to. I'll see if I can find a link.

Edit – Here is the link; link

Regards
James

Kevin,

Parquin does not describe the incident with the grenadiers à pied, Daumesnil's squadron of Guard chasseurs à cheval and Bruyères's line cavalry brigade. He describes a completely different incident – Murat's famous cavalry charge:
« At precisely 3 pm, it was clear that the enemy wanted to cut our ligne of battle in two; and so, a column of 15,000 Russian grenadiers, bayonets fixed, without firing a shot, advanced on the center of our army, at the charge, despite a terrible blasting by 40 pieces of Guard artillery positioned on the Eylau plateau. The Emperor, surrounded by his headquarters, said to Prince Neufchâtel {Berthier], wihtout breaking his view through his telescope of this forest of bayonets:
- "Such audacity! Such audacity"
- "Yes," responded Prince Berthier, "but Your Majesty does not see that with such audacity, you may be within 100 paces of being shot at."
- "Murat", cried the Emperor, "take all the cavalry that you have here (there were almost 70 squadrons, of which 20 of the Guard, under the orders of Marshall Bessières, who led thier charge) and crush that colum for me!"
The order was executed at once, and that whole mass of infantry was layed low to the ground like a field of grain devasted by a terrible storm. »

The Parquin text was linked above. Surely you took a lot at it. Why are you posting about it with regard to the incident in quesion in this thread ?

===============================

The questions in this thread were (i) comparison of Napoléon's propaganda to what could be found in original sources and (ii) the effect of Napoléon's propaganda on later authors' secondary works, and our understanding of the event.

So far, we have found 1 – exactly one – original account of the incident : Jomini's. As for the effect the attack in which the grenadiers à pied participated, he writes :
"Elle fut enfoncée, en partie sabrée ou rejectée sur sa ligne."
"It [the column] was pierced [by Bruyères' brigade], part being sabered or turned back toward their lines."

Anything else about annihilated/destroyed/heavy casualties and so on – it all comes from Napoléon's propaganda – as far as we can tell from the sources we have seen here. Arnold seems to repeat the propaganda, as do you. If you are not repeating the propaganda, and can offer additional original sources, please do so.

I think most people would like to know the difference between what the original source(s) reported and what Napoléon's propaganda machine broadcast.

Chuvak

P.S. – I have no quarrel with Arnold and don't seek to "correct" his book. All I want to see are original sources. Later secondary works can make all the conclusions, summaries, hypotheses, guesses, inferences, deductions, inquiries or whatever they want.
I would rather think for myself, and come to my own conclusions.

Kevin,

As a minor point, in the French service "adjudant-commandant" referred to a particular assignment or function, not a grade or rank. It means "colonel on staff duty".
This is on page 677 of "Swords Around a Throne". It must be true, right ?

The Bardin dictionary says "emploi", "titre".
link

To be utterly and irrevelevantly pedantic, if someone was assigned to be an adjudant commandant, and held no prior rank of colonel, then he was made a "colonel par assimilation" or "colonel assimilé". His official rank in the armée personnel list, his pay, his seniority, his pension, his allowances, the rank he could be and was called officially and unofficially was "colonel".
Google "colonel Jomini" – see the contemporary usage ? Amazing, no ?

However, there was a certain stigma attached by the colonels that commanded regiments to this process of getting a colonelcy by assimilation. They had charged and fought and bled and so on. And the staff guy might just have pushed some boring paperwork around. Or some such.
It appears that you share this point of view.

Chuvak

Would not brevet colonel be pretty much the same thing, in waiting or until a position became available permanently.

Regards
James

James,

For French, "brevet colonel" would be hard to perfectly match, but they had some more or less similar formulations ….

1. "chef de brigade au titre provisoire" or "colonel au titre provisoire" – this would be an officer who was an acting colonel, based on local promotion, pending confirmation from the War Ministry. Begins to draw colonel's pay and allowances. The "chef de brigade" was a revolutionary re-naming of colonel, when such provisonal promotion was more common. The officer in question would retain his prior rank, but have local authority as a colonel. When confirmed, he would usually have seniority to the date of provisional promotion. This was not common (never happened?) under the Empire, as the Emperor wanted to reserve to himself the naming of colonels. If the Emperor was not around, then it was more likely be something like "chef de bataillon faisant fonction de colonel", retaining the call-out of the exisitng rank.

2, "colonel à la suite" – this was a colonel who had no specific post or command, and was added to the staff of some regiment or higher formation. He usually went into the field with the army, or to the place or garrison to which he was attached.

3. "colonel en disponibilité" – this was a colonel who had no specific command or post and stayed home, soemthing like in individual ready reserve – usually with less than full pay.

4. "colonel en 2e" – second colonel, this was a specific rank created for the commanders of provisional regiments, most common in Iberia …. also pops up in the Guard for the Cent Jours

5. "colonel major" and "major colonel" – existed only in the Guard, the usage almost has to be explained person by person.

6. "colonel général" – not a rank, but a dignity or function, usually given to a maréchal – for example, the maréchal Davout was the colonel général de grendiers à pied de la garde, and in titular command of the "corps de grenadiers à pied" …. existed for some "arms" of the line also – such as chasseurs, hussards, suisses and others.

7. Kevin, did I forget any other flavors of "colonel" ?

Colonelly yours,
Chuvak

colonel of truth?

Chuvak wrote:

Actually, Kevin's summary (above) would likely be mostly shared now by Mr. Hollins…

Dave Hollins writes:

No, I wouldn't as I cannot make any sense of it. Most of it is contradictory/unsupported by any primary evidence. I have only revised my position to the extent (partly due to my discovery of Graf Hochenegg's memoir) that one battalion of 5-600 was involved and I am not sure now that the Bussy took part.

Chuvak,

No, I don't 'share this point of view.' But there was a difference in both function and purpose to an adjutant-commandant and a colonel. One designated a staff officer and the other a line commander, or a commander of troops.
That's a very simple designation of what the man was assigned to do. The staff rank was also imbedded in French law, as of 29 October 1790-See the 1800 edition of Thiebault's Staff Manual. When the position was created, in fact a staff corps of thirty officers, they were designated adjutants-general. That term was later changed by Napoleon to adjutant-commandant and they performed the same functions, that of a primary staff officer.

Sincerely,
K

"The staff rank"

Please provide contempory documentation that "adjudant commandant" was a rank.

I provided a contemporary source, the Bardin military dictionary. It says "emploi" and "titre".

period defintion of "emploi" :
link
period definition of "titre" :
link
period defintion of "ranq" :
link

Are you having a French-challenged moment ?

Chuvak

Kevin,

Digressions aside ….

Do you have any more original sources for the incident with the grenadiers à pied at Eylau, or shall we be left with only Jomini and Napoléon's propaganda ?

Did this review change your opinion at all ?
Do you stand by your prior comment ?
"You might also find out about the 'quick bayonet work' that one of the Old Guard battalions got in at Eylau in 1807, led by Dorsenne, as they annihilated a Russian column of grenadiers."
Or do you think this statement was "an error" on your part ?

Chuvak