"Surprise Christmas Present......." Topic

My Mother in Law knows I do something War-y as a hobby, but doesn't really understand what. The result is that at Christmas and Birthdays I am often startled by what she buys me as a gift. Sometimes it's great (a Brand New Sunday Times Atlas of History for ££££££££, when I could buy one for pennies on the net, lovely present but even so…) sometimes not so great.

This year she has bought me three books on Napoleonics by a guy called Peter Hofshroer. I don't do Napoleonics, but a good book is a good book.

That name rings a bell…. I do a quick TMP Search and discover he is some sort of combination between the Anti-Christ and Breaker Morant.

But what I cannot find is what he did to get this rep. Seriously not looking to start a war, just curious – what did the guy do wrong?

Pat

I think, simply, he elevated Prussian contributions to Napoleon's defeat beyond what data and reason could hold.

I personally haven't made up my mind just yet …

don't say his name three times – or he will reappear in another guise,

get the behind me, Hoff-tan

I've never really had a problem with him, but, as Flashman says, he went against the orthodoxy about the 100 days being a great British victory and that way lies danger. It is a shame when an interesting historical idea causes vilification instead of debate. What was it the man said? 'I disagree entirely with what you say, but I will die for your right to say it.'

I have known PH for over thirty years and got to know him, when he was really just getting underway with looking at the Prussian side of things. Bear in mind that this was at a time when the Germanic/Russian record was not easy to access and the events of the 20th century had closed most minds to them. It was a world summed up best perhaps by Bruce Quarrie's rules, where the French were marvellous (except against the British!) and it was nice of the Prussians, Austrians and Russians to turn up for a good threashing every few years and they lived in the 18th century anyway.

This had an almost religious status among some elements and as PH put up his material, so he became something of a hate figure among the fundamentalists, who felt their sacred books – invariably secondary and containing no research on German language materials – were under threat. In the mid-90s, up popped Hamilton-Williams with his two fantasy epics – debate over the first on Waterloo was limited to a letter every two months in FE. PH was looking at HW's claimed sources and showed where HW was telling a few terminological inexactitudes, but nonetheless, there were many people, who at the time felt PH was going in too hard! While PH was shown to be right, they did not even like that.

This took him into the world of Waterloo and his two books on that subject. Now you are really on sacred book turf and there is a small group, who simply will not listen to the evidence and must continue to believe that because the Duke of Wellington wrote, thus it must be true. There was a lot of new info in his books about the campaign, but that was ignored and replaced by a rather bizarre campaign, which continues to this day 15 years later. It involves the endless repetition of the sacred texts (see FE output as an example) and of course, those, who may dislike PH himself or just what he has turned up, have joined in.

It is very easy for those not familiar with all this to say "keep it clear" and "address the issues", but they have had no experience of the campaign waged against PH – not to try to get closer to the truth, but essentially to engage in book burning in the hope that the average enthusiast simply won't read the material and the information/analysis will die. It is waged by innuendo and focus on details, because they would be in trouble with the wider issues – you will see the endless tedium of the constant dioscussion over the Zithen message, while what else was going on in Wellington's HQ is conveniently ignored.

I have been down a similar, but shorter, road myself, but you do start to wonder what is driving these zealots – why do not address the issues? Why do they run off slagging you off elsewhere where you cannot reply etc. PH's error has been to express that view of people in rather extreme (although no worse than many politicians discuss modern jihadis) terms, which has alienated many "average enthusiasts". It is part of the fundamentalists' strategya s there are more of them and so, the baiting goes on. the advent of the Internet from 1998 onwards has of course changed a bi-monthly exchange into a daily exachange and many have just said "a plague on both your houses" – which is again part of the strategy. When they read PH's books, they often take a different view.

Now, I am not saying that PH is right in general or about every detail – as I have never even read Chandler's account of Waterloo, let alone a full book on it! His arguments must stand or fall on their merits.

The followers of the True Faith will always have a key advantage – namely that their view of the world has been the prevailing wisdom since at least 1870 and in many cases even earlier. The late Colonel Elting was right when he said in an article in Age of Nap mag that anyone seeking to overturn the received wisdom must expect a lot of incoming fire. Chandler told me himself that he wrote Campaigns of N largely from secondary material as a basis for others to take the work on and he was always delighted to read the new work as it came up, even if it showed it was 100% wrong.

The frankly rather bizarre campaign waged against PH for 15 years – in which the fundamentalists have not actually turned up a single new piece of material – will no doubt go on for another 5 years at least. The history of that means that lines are probably way beyond entrenched now. However, I do see people advocating the "new researchers" should work with the fundamentalists to take the work fprward, but you cannot work with people, who are not even prepared to listen to the newer material as it comes up. I find that most "average enthusiasts" are interested in what comes up and over time, the RW will drift away, but it is a process, which is already 20 years old. They do not like the fighting, but I hope they will consider what PH has had to put up with over that period.

Anyway, I am sure PH is glad the OP bought his books – in the end, I suspect the average enthusiast's wish for in formation will oversome the often idiotic behaviour of the fundamentalists, whose primary aim is that he/she does not read the material in the first place.

His behaviour on TMP, which has often wandered into the bizarre, example the Chinese sock puppet account complete with fake accent, has earned my enduring disrespect. Anyway he has been banned.
Here is a link to more on the subject of "the smallest victory" than you'd probably want to know. :o)

TMP link

a good summary DH.

I consider him to be a giant among the printed Napoleonic world, and a troll among the electronic Napoleonic world.

his books are essential.

Interesting that PH's first book on Waterloo was published in 1998. Here is the contents page for FE for Jan 2011

link

I found the books most interesting with evidence to support things I had always suspected. The notion that it was a "German" victory can be supported and he does so. I find some of his interpretations or related events to be somewhat over-simplified, especially in the post-Waterloo analysis, but I'm very glad I purchased and read the books. Part of my on-going quest, for like they used to say in X-Files, "the Truth is Out There."

'The notion that it was a "German" victory can be supported and he does so.'

The only problem with that is there was no political state of Germany under one government and there wouldn't be until 1871. Even then it was still more of a federation than a modern state.

Waterloo was an allied victory, not a 'German' one. I would submit that the overwhelming majority of the assorted Germans in the two allied armies considered themselves Hanoverians, etc., first and Germans second, if that even entered their heads. The Prussians certainly considered themselves Prussians first and the Saxons who were forced into Prussian service in 1814 certainly considered themselves Saxons first and didn't have any particular fondness for the Prussians, Prussian rule, and being taken away from their own country and king.

K

Donner unt Blitzen,
I wonder if there isn't a lot of truth in what you say. Many years ago, I played soccer(football) with a local semi-pro (in reality) German-based club. At one party, I was sitting at a table with a guy from Prussian and his wife. He was well into his cups, and I was speaking to him, when necessary in my passible PlattDeutsch. He was mainly saying "Wer sind nicht Prussen, sind Scheisse!!!!" and I thought it wise not to disagree with him. His wife nodded with a smile and non-verbally asked us to agree with him. There might be a lot more regionalism, than we realize. Might we see Basque type bombings for the independance of Baden?

"'The notion that it was a "German" victory can be supported and he does so.'

The only problem with that is there was no political state of Germany under one government and there wouldn't be until 1871. Even then it was still more of a federation than a modern state."

That's why I put German in quotes to signify a qualified definition. He refers to it as a German victory but uses examples of the Hanoverians, KGL, Brunswick, etc. that made up Wellington's army as well as the Prussians to make his point. I never got the feeling from Peter's writings that he was describing a German nation concept.

Though I personally would opine that this is the beginning of nationalism and in the case of the Germanic peoples gave them something to talk about in the revolutionary dens or philosopher parlors for the next few decades.

"But what I cannot find is what he did to get this rep. Seriously not looking to start a war, just curious – what did the guy do wrong?"

Ignoring the silliness of many of the above posts, I'd just tell you read his book. Don't accept everything he says. Find other sources, German, French, whatever you can get. Multiple sources are what prevent bad books from being accepted as doctrine. If you aren't willing to spend numerous hours reading and question the motives of the authors, the material used and the authors of the first hand accounts, then don't bother with it.

Most people don't realize what a supreme effort it takes to do proper research and get a book published. PH and all others deserve kudos for that. But it is a solo effort. The writer works alone and without interference.

Life in the virtual world is different. People make flip remarks, exhibit irrational predjudices, etc. It's natural that a hard working author will resent that and react, well, badly.

It takes a lot of flame wars to realize all that for what it's worth, which is not much. I guess some people never learn to let that just slide off one's back. All I can say is that it must take alot of patience to publish real books and then deal with all the yahoos you are bound to encounter in the virtual world.

"Most people don't realize what a supreme effort it takes to do proper research and get a book published."

Research can be wrong too. Again to Kinghell, read multiple sources. Never rely on one author despite what anyone is urging. No author is without bias and so you should be discerning if you want the whole picture.

Gary,

You are absolutely correct. Two good sources are better than just one, and three even better than that. That's a point that all of us should remember about books, sources, and forming opinions.

Sincerely,
Kevin

You didn"t write which books?

For my part the issues with PH are more about his style than his substance, the way he argues his case more than the content. I absolutely recommend his books, they bring an extra perspective and a wealth of wonderful extra research material. In on-line form, such as here, he can get a bit silly, as do many of us. Happy to read his stuff, not sure I'd want to sit down to dinner with him. :)

It gets extremely confusing when I watch the German news and I get so darned angry that they keep referring to this place that doesn't exist! For example, they insist upon showing a weather report for… The Loose Confederation That Some Mistakenly Refer to As Germany. I know that's not right, but what can a poor pedant do? Then there's the thing about the World Cup! Can you believe that they gave the 3rd place to a fictitious country! I was glad that the Loose Confederation Team refused to accept it, on principle. Better than those tricky Olympic athletes who want the Loose Confederation Not-National Non-Anthem played when they win! (especially irksome, since the anthem was written back in the 1840s, when the Loose Confederation was Even Looser!)

Just the other day I was having dinner with some French friends and one of them mentioned that, as a Breton, she has never felt any kinship with Paris or the Parisians, and says that traveling to Paris is like visiting a foreign country*, and POOF! There went France off the map of Europe. "Wow," I thought, "The pedant has a point. As soon as somebody expresses strong regionalism, or references their history of regionalism, their whole nationality is invalidated and vanishes utterly!"

I got home and turned on the TV and there was Gov. Rick Perry boasting about how different and special Texas is, and POOF! suddenly I was stateless. (He threatened to secede from the USA, and I thought, "Dude, why bother? We don't exist anymore.")

I haven't seen Canada in ages, come to think of it.

England disappeared the moment I heard Cornish people ranting about London, and to be perfectly honest, I'm not even sure whether Yorkshire exists at all, given what somebody from the West Riding recently told me about Leeds. (I'll have to do some research to see if Trafalgar was indeed a "British" victory…)

And Belgium… has it ever existed? Does anybody know?

- -

Well, this has all been very nice, but I need to get to work fixing all the erroneous references to the "Italian Renaissance." An utterly incorrect name, since – as our dear resident pedant will no doubt inform us – "there was no political state of Italy under one government and there wouldn't be until 1870. Even then it was still more of a federation than a modern state."

Sounds good to me! No "Italians" involved! Case closed.

- -

* true story, actually; she did say that.

Schnurfel – priceless!

When I was in college I was president of the "German" club. Which is interesting since my family origins are 100% "Irish" (my mom was born and raised there, my dad was 1st/2d generation). I'm not remotely "German." But the Schwobs, Bavarians and other assorted "Germans" found it easier to avoid regional rivalries by selecting the Irishman. Note I did not run for office. I was railroaded…I'm mean "appointed."

BC

don't say his name three times – or he will reappear in another guise

I've just banned his latest account – Yahooo

I am reading a book at the moment called "Zombie Myths of Australian Military History". A variety of historians examine Australian historical military myths that will not die (hence "zombie") to determine their veracity.

The one thing that strikes me as surprising (having trained as an historian and archaeologist) is my reaction to what is quite sound historical investigation and understanding.

I am bloody angry and I feel betrayed.

These people are saying things about my historical heritage that goes against the grain, completely undermines everything I was ever taught about Australia's military.

And it takes a great deal of perseverance to continue reading because I am outraged at seeing my beliefs, or what I thought of as "truths", being stripped of their mythological power.

Just as an Englishman would feel outrage, being told that Wellington and the Anglo-Allied army at Waterloo was less successful than previously thought because the Prussians were the deciding factor.

Or an American would feel outrage reading that Patton was a strutting, arrogant bully who only achieved his position because Eisenhower bowed to the press.

Or an Australian would feel outrage to be told that Breaker Morant was actually a murderous conman and womaniser.

I am still angry, but I think I am more angry at the people who gave birth to these myths in the first place.

We all build mythologies around the exploits of our heroes and the great deeds of our countries and countrymen. We perceive these deeds and myths as "truths", forgetting of course that there is a vast difference between truth and fact. And that quite often this difference is obscured by the needs of individuals, governments and political agendas.

Outcomes are rarely as cut and dried as we perceive them. The events leading up to those outcomes are always open to interpretation. And history was once always written by the winner (thanks, Internet).

And Fact is invariably different from Truth. Understanding only makes us stronger.

We need to keep our minds open as well as our options.

Peter C.

You should definitely keep the three PH books, and read them!

Compared to some of the absolutely dire works in the period – especially Waterloo – in recent years ( nobody mention Hamilton Williams to me please) there is some excellent material in the PH study.

David Chandler himself was delighted with the integrity with which PH approached the research for the books, and as a wider look of the 1815 campaign from a Prussian perspective it has been the most refreshing new study for years. You will find details in the PH books which you will not find anywhere else.

Imho he does over egg his own pudding though, and stretches or forgets some of the facts beyond objectivity in quite a few areas, and for me that spoils what would otherwise have been a new standard of work for the 1815 campaign.

So Wellington now has his own "conspiracy theory" of scheming deception against the noble but gullible Prussian command; the universality of Germanhood in the campaign, and a reluctance to objectively record Prussian failures all give these an unfortunate bias. So what exactly happened to the Prussian guns lined up across the Ligne to counter the French? One minute they are set in serried ranks as a formidable force, the next the French cavalry are wandering around the rear areas of Ligny/St Amand unfettered, the fate of the Prussian guns quietly ignored. And why did Thielemann not do better and take the FRench attack on Ligny in the flank? Even the French expected more, as they later moved troops out of the area to break Bluchers line elsewhere. This is an account full of Prussian detail, but not of critique for Prussian activity.

And as for defining "German" -well that can be almost anyone if you take his logic to its conclusion. The true English themselves might well be considered of Saxon, Angle, or Jute "germanness", with a King who was decidedly Krautish. And the French antecedent (Frankish) nation stretched as far as Bavaria, to include Franconia and Frankfurt. Germans on both sides perhaps? Although that would ignore the widespread occupation of Germany, Hungary and Bulgaria by the Huns in the 4th – 6th Centuries. "Waterloo: A Hunnic Victory" perhaps?

We are still waiting for that really definitive book on 1815.

What Elting says about Peter Hofschröer

I am especially indebted to my friends, Peter Hofschröer and Lt. Col. Jack Gill, for help in untangling Prussian Army organisation."

Knötel / Elting : Napoleon Uniforms volume IV page 488

and

I owe many thanks to my friends – Lt.Col. John H. Gill, Peter Hofschröer, and Dr. Gunther E. Rothenberg, who know a great deal more about the "enemy" than I do.

so above, volume III, preface page 7

1815Guy says it well.

For me, there are a number of issues with the PH world view.

First, I don't buy the idea that Prussian sources trump all others, any more than Dutch, French or British sources do. Anyone can be self-serving.

Second, the thrust of the claim that Wellington deceived the Prussians seems to rely on an unlikely reading of the timing of messages, and on assuming the worst possible bad faith by Wellington throughout. This also seems eccentric.

Third, the claim that the Prussian contribution to victory was played down for 200 years (or whatever) is refuted by the Waterloo Despatch itself. I'd enjoy a balancing history of Prussian perceptions of the Anglo-allied contribution.

Fourth, the claim that a battle was a "German" victory, at a time when "Germany" was a geographical expression, is, well, odd. One might with equal accuracy describe Agincourt as a British victory, or Kursk as an EU defeat. The assertion really is that silly – which is a pity, because otherwise it's an interesting point.

Fifth, the general claims of Prussian military prowess are rather undermined by, er, Prussian military performance in 1806-1815. The Prussians were clearly the worst army of any major European nation, better only than the Spanish. 1806-7 speaks for itself, but I say this of 1813-5 also because they lost most battles against a conscript and near cavalry-less army of greatly inferior size, and only won with either numerical superiority or a highly effective and resolute ally on hand. One struggles to think of anyone who did worse.

So PH has an interesting perspective, and one worth hearing. He's performed a valuable favour to buffs by providing in English a lot of stuff you previously needed to know German – and have access to German sources – to get to. But the significance of Prussian participation in 1815, which is what he is most often cited for, is news only to those to whom everything else about 1815 is news too.

I think several of you are overlooking the fact that Franz was Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, although the exact extent was probably only resolved in 1871.

Read his books (and enjoy them); just don't get trapped in a lift/elevator with him.

I thoroughly enjoyed his books and am grateful to him for presenting a far more comprehensive description and analysis of the Prussian actions and decisions during the campaign. I would really like him to do the same for 1813/1814.

It is very interesting to look up both the Holy Roman Empire and Prussia, especially the development of both. The Holy Roman Empire was a collection of independent states of many types, each having its own ruler. They may follow what the Holy Roman emperor wanted done-or they might not.

Some of Prussias holdings were in the empire as such, which is the reason that when the Prussian elector was promoted to king, he was designated 'King in Prussia' and not 'King of Prussia.' The first King of Prussia was Frederick the Great.

The German federation that was established in 1871 as the German Empire was also an interesting political entity. There were still kings in the minor German states, each with their own army. That relationship wasn't really done away with until after War I with the establishment of the Weimar Republic and with the rise of Hitler in 1933.

Germany has a fascinating history and being eventually dominated by Prussia led it down a very bad path that ended up losing two major wars (and winning none) and to murder and genocide. And the Prussian reputation for harshness and brutality can be traced by to Frederick and his treatment of Saxony during the Seven Years' War and the performance of the Prussians during the Napoleonic period. The Belgians in 1815 believed them to be worse than the Cossacks.

K

I was sort of naively hoping that we might get through at least the first week of the New Year without being lectured about German brutality and Nazi genocide.

(But I'm glad to see that they're still offering that dollar for every mention that the Germans didn't win the two world wars)

Ascribing the Nazi genocide to "Prussian brutality" is an old canard.

Prussia was run by Prussian (duh) aristocrats, who set her policies and carried them out.

There were rather few Prussians or aristocrats at the top of the Third Reich. I believe you'll find that regime to have been led by an expat Austrian, who neither liked, nor was liked by, most Prussian aristocrats.

PS – Frederick I was styling himself "King OF Prussia" unofficially by the end of his life, and signed several documents with that moniker. His grandson Frederick II only made it official in 1772.

<<I believe you'll find that regime to have been led by an expat Austrian, who neither liked, nor was liked by, most Prussian aristocrats.>>

It must have been quite a head- for Herr Schickelgruber to give the go-ahead to those propaganda films hero-worshipping a member of the Prussian aristocracy giving the Austrians a damned good thrashing.

Long before Charlie Chapli--- er, sorry, Adolf Hitler – – poked his angry little head into the world, Germans from the Alps to the Baltic had been thinking of themselves as "Germans." All throughout the 19th century, German kids had been taught in school that Frederick the Great was a "German" hero, and of course their teachers had glossed over the facts of the intra-German conflicts. I've read Bavarian and Saxon school texts from the 1850s in which you'd never know that those states ever been allied with Napoleon. As far as those kids learned, the Napoleonic Wars began in 1813 when all the Germans suddenly rose up as one, did some push-ups with Turnvater Jahn, sang a few songs with Theodor Körner, and then marched off, arm-in-arm, to liberate the beloved Fatherland.

Kevin's argument against using the word "German" is silly. Of course there was a "German" nationality. It went back at least as far as Martin Luther. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of examples of people referring to themselves as "Germans" and expressing German national sentiment of one sort or another, interleaved and overlaid with their other regional, religious, or state-based loyalties, throughout the 17th and 18th centuries.

It's also what outsiders called them. Napoleon referred to his second wife as a "German," and allegedly sang the praises of "German" women to Louis Constant de Wairy. Napoleon's correspondence is full of references to "Germans." I own a 1770s map of Europe, printed in New York, with the Holy Roman Empire labeled simply as "Germany." Madison and Hamilton referred to "The German Empire" in the Federalist papers.

If Kevin's going to argue that you can't use the word "German" to describe that nationality before the arrival of a unified nation-state in 1871… then I'd like to hear what he calls the Italian Renaissance? (Or, for that matter, were there ever any "Turks" in the Ottoman Empire? We can't call them that until they had a unified nation-state in the 1920s, right?) And I'm assuming that there's still no such thing as an "Arab," right?

People can have multiple, different and even contradictory national identities in their heads simultaneously. Anyone who has lived in the American South has seen pickup trucks going down the road with a "Proud to be an American!" bumper sticker and a Confederate flag.

Hitler, of course, had an idea of nationality that was based on race and blood, not state or government, but he was certainly not immune to the general spirit of his childhood and youth. For him, Frederick the Great was a "German." As for his relationship to the actual, living Prussian aristocrats of his own day? Well, he found some fellow travelers, certainly, like Walther von Reichenau (a Rhineland Prussian). But by and large, Hitler had no love for either Prussians or aristocrats, and probably even less affection after several of them tried to kill him!

Don't get him on the subkect of the Russian Untermensch – it is amazing how someone, who hates these peoples so much has (from his bibliography) learend to read their early 19th century works! Well, so he says ….

Yes the argument against using the word German within context of the Napoleonic times only prooves that 10th Marine us just not shaping up in research at all – unable to learn or change his view.

Read memoires of "German" officers, NCOs or soldiers, please do so, they are interesting reads and surprise – surprise you will find the word German – or Germany, or Deutsch and Deutschland.

like in a song – sang by the Prussian Landwehr -

O du Deutschland, ich muß marschieren,
o du Deutschland ich muß fort!
…

Or the song

Deutsch vor allen ..

or

Schwur deutscher Männer

or

Vaterlandsruf

Ihr kämpft treu für Gott und Vaterland,
das deutsche Recht erkämpfet ihr uns wieder

and so on

also it is King's German Legion and not
King's Hannoverian Legion

or the

Russo German Legion

need more to be said?

I apologize, Schnurfel, for mentioning historical unpleasantness so early in the New Year-how thoughtless of me.

However, Prussia was the dominant power in Germany before and after 1871 and Germany was molded in her image.

And I never said that you cannot use the word 'German' during the period, just as I have never used the term 'untermensch' for the Russians.

And I agree that the use of the term 'Germans' for people of that ethnicity was used more often than not. M

My point is that Germany was not a political entity as a nation state before 1871 and was during the period 1871-at least 1918, a federal state with the inclusive states still retaining their particular heads of state and separate armies loyal to their monarch first, and a 'united' Germany second. And people of those states invariably thought of themselves as Wurttembergers, Bavarians, Badeners, etc. first, and Germans second. If they had not, their loyalty would have been to 'Germany' and not to their own countries, and those countries would not have fought so long to retain their independence.

As for the titles such as 'The King's German Legion' and the 'Russo-German Legion' those units were eventually (as in the KGL) or originally (as in the Russo-German Legion) made up of various assorted Germans from different states, not just one in particular.

You cannot historically, make something out of what was not, which is apparently the argument as I understand it. If Germany was one and everybody wanted to be a German, why did it take the area so long to unite into one nation. There was plenty of talk about it, and some action as well, but it was a long time coming and I don't believe it was the best thing for Europe in the short or the long run.

K

"And I agree that the use of the term 'Germans' for people of that ethnicity was used more often than not."

That's all I wanted to hear.

Then I am happy if you're happy. However, terms being used and what people in the smaller German states actually thought of themselves as are two different things.

General Heinz Guderian was quoted by Kenneth Macksey: 'Be the day dark, be the sun bright, I am a Prussian and a Prussian I will be.'

K

Tom H.

I would like to contact you off-list about the comment you related about his book:

Chandler told me himself that he wrote Campaigns of N largely from secondary material as a basis for others to take the work on and he was always delighted to read the new work as it came up, even if it showed it was 100% wrong.

As I don't have your email address, I can be reached at insights@oro.net

Bill H.

"General Heinz Guderian was quoted by Kenneth Macksey: 'Be the day dark, be the sun bright, I am a Prussian and a Prussian I will be.'"

Every time Rick Perry opens his mouth, various Texas-nationalist claptrap comes flying out. That doesn't mean that if you asked him whether he was proud to be an American, he wouldn't say "Yes."

I grew up around Virginians who at times seemed only vaguely aware that there were 49 other stars on the flag. And at other times, they wrapped themselves in that flag and got misty-eyed with American national euphoria.

The existence of regionalism – even strong regionalism backed up by generations of dialect, history, and culture – doesn't necessarily negate a sense of national identity. Obviously, sometimes it does: French Canadians, for example, have traditionally felt themselves to be more Quebec than Canada. Belgium at the moment seems particularly fraught. But in other cases, both identities (plus others) exist simultaneously. There's a reason the German word "Reichspatriotismus" begins appearing in the 1500s, at the same time that religious conflict was dividing people. A Catholic might loathe a Protestant, or a Württemberger might mistrust a Hessian, but both used the same word to express their feeling of identity with the Reich.

I've read Heinz Guderian's memoirs, and he mentions Prussia when speaking of his youth, and then at the end, as his ancestral homeland is being destroyed, and he's – belatedly – coming to the conclusion that perhaps taking orders from a lunatic Austrian might not have been the best of decisions. Example 47-B in the "Nazis weren't Prussians" exhibit.

I thought Lieutenant-Colonel Sharpe won the battle of Waterloo ?

However, the German officer corps prostituted itself when they took the personal oath to Hitler in 1935. They took the road to dishonor and were as guilty as the SS with atrocities in the field against civilians.

K

"However, the German officer corps prostituted itself when they took the personal oath to Hitler in 1935. They took the road to dishonor and were as guilty as the SS with atrocities in the field against civilians."

I'm just wondering, Kevin… why you must always turn every discussion of Napoleonic Prussia into a rant about the Nazis, the Holocaust, and the world wars?

I mean, What the Hell? Do you honestly think any of that is even remotely relevant to the Napoleonic era? What is the Pavlovian trigger that flips into action every time Prussia comes up? You even recycle the same verbiage over and over again. I can't begin to count the number of times I've read your line about the Germans not winning the world wars, harrumph harrumph, so there!

Is it like comfort food? It just tastes so good that you have to keep putting it in your mouth over and over again? Or are you sincerely worried that, unless reminded by you every week, people might mistakenly believe that Nazis were good, and that Germany won the world wars? Are you trying to win the Oscar for "Most Vehemently Restating the Bloody Obvious in an Irrelevant Context" ?

Can you imagine how tedious it would be if, every time somebody mentioned "Belgium," some lunatic began ranting about the Congolese?

"I visited Bruges in September… nice city."

— Yes, and the Belgians killed six million people in the Congo! That was wrong, very wrong, by the way…

"I had a lovely waffle for breakfast this morning."

— The Belgians do make nice food. And they killed six million people in the Congo. Horrible! Horrible!

"I think I'll make Brussels Sprouts for dinner tonight."

— Hate to disturb your little cabbages, but we must never forget all the dead Congolese, slaughtered by the Belgians in the Congo. That was bad for Africa and the world!

----

Cue now the inevitable "comeback" about why I'm allegedly "defending" Nazis….

First, I'm not ranting, I just brought it up as is historically relevant to our period and to the thread.

The question that could also be asked is why are you defending the Germans so vehemently? To my mind, that is just a little odd, but then who knows?

K

"I just brought it up as is historically relevant to our period and to the thread."

I must have missed all the obvious relevance. Would you be so kind as to indulge me, then:

How are Hitler, the two world wars, the SS, Nazi war crimes, Heinz Guderian, German wars of unification, and the Weimar Republic "relevant" to the discussion of the merits of Peter Hofschroer's Waterloo books?

"First, I'm not ranting"

That's true. You're not. I am. And I should have known better. It's like yelling at a broken record. Pointless, and just gives you a sore throat. My bad.

The only problem with claiming that there were "Germans", "Germany" and a "German nation" before 1871 is that the contemporary idea of "Germany" did not accord with what we now consider German. The entire Austrian empire, bits of Poland, and bits of eastern France and southern Denmark, for example, qualified as "German" by 1815 standards, but weren't.

So, while there were people who considered themselves "German" in 1815, and people who considered themselves Italian, we wouldn't call them such today. Otherwise we'll have to call Wagram a "German" defeat, and we'll have to call 1812 a German defeat too for that matter, French troops being in a minority in that army.

The point of PH's books seems, AIUI, to pad out German credentials for a victory in an era when German victories were very, very, very scarce. Nothing wrong with that as long as we're aware there's an agenda there.

I don't have a dog in the fight, and quite agree that Welly's efforts on Spain were pretty peripheral too. I do though think that to focus so heavily on whether the EU won at Waterloo or not (which is what we're arguing), while ignoring Russia's destruction of not one but two French armies of 500,000 men or so in consecutive years, is rather missing the wood for the trees.

It was only the hereditary and Bohemian Lands of the habsburg/austrian Empire, which were considered German and were administered using that language.

PH's point is really that the whole Germanic contribution – the Prussian army and the large German contingent do get forgotten about in the W worship.

You cannot historically, make something out of what was not, which is apparently the argument as I understand it. If Germany was one and everybody wanted to be a German, why did it take the area so long to unite into one nation.

That is what Johann Herder was asking in his many works from 1757 to his last series Ideas for the Philosophy of History of Humanity(1784-91) He felt that what was German, the 'volk' would be lost among the dozens of mini-states. Like many Europeans, he felt that being German was a cultural and even racial distinction which ignored any particular state boundaries. [Which changed often.]
The question was a concern of many Germans, from the Austrian Germans to the Prussian Germans, from Switzerland to the Rhine and Lorraine.

Historically, it is also wrong to view 1813 'Germans' through the prism of our notions of 'nation states' and 'political entities'. Germans could see themselves as such through a shared culture, language and history [Holy Roman Empire etc] where national ties were not nearly as important as cultural. That is why you could have 'The King's German Legion' instead of Hanoverian, and the 'Russo-German Legion' made up of various assorted Germans from different states, not just one in particular. The title 'German' meant something specific spanning the entire German culture even if "Germany" wasn't a 'political entity.'

In 1813 men from all over Europe could be found in other armies. Frenchmen fought for Russia and Austria, Germans for Britain, British, Italians and Poles for Franch and also Russia. Nationalism that we see in the 20th Century wasn't the Nationalism of the early 19th. It even morphs within a century's time.

When Heinz Guderian said "'Be the day dark, be the sun bright, I am a Prussian and a Prussian I will be,' in first part of the 20th Century, he wasn't speaking of being Prussian as either a member of a political state or a German culture. He was speaking of a military ethos and life philosophy, one not shared by all Germans OR all those living in Prussia.

Meanings change, and as Kevin wrote there is a difference between how terms are used today and what those living in the various German states during 1813-14 actually thought themselves.

Bill H.

From Europe 1500 – 1848 by Rene Albrect-Carre, The overwhelming bulk of Europeans belong to one of 3 large ethnic groups: Latin, Teutonic and Slavic. Much of the history of Europe could be written in terms of the broad conflict between Teuton and Slav or between Latinity and Germandom.

@ Dave Hollins

It was only the hereditary and Bohemian Lands of the habsburg/austrian Empire, which were considered German and were administered using that language.

Thanks for the correction.

PH's point is really that the whole Germanic contribution – the Prussian army and the large German contingent do get forgotten about in the W worship.

But is that really true? The first book on Waterloo I read was called "Waterloo", imaginatively, by John Naylor, and was written I think in the 1960s. It was abundantly clear in that book that Wellington's gameplan was simply to hold on till the Prussians arrived. In fact, unless I have it wrong, he even mentions in it that by about 6pm there was probably more of Blucher's army on the field than there was left of Wellington's.

The second was an effort called "Waterloo: Battle of Three Armies" co-written by a French, British and German writer. Not a lot of pro-W bias in evidence there!

The oddly maligned Bruce Quarrie, in NCIM, observed of Waterloo that "it was unquestionably Wellington's greatest victory, even though technically it was a Prussian rather than a British triumph since it was only the arrival of Blucher's troops in the afternoon which staved off an allied collapse". Fair, no?

All 1970s accounts, or earlier.

Can anyone name, say, five English language writers of the last 100 years or so, who have unfairly bigged up Wellington at the Prussians' expense, and whose work can be considered influential (or even just popular)? When people claim PH has corrected a widely-held and inaccurate perception of Prussian insignificance, I can't think whose perception this is, save perhaps for people who don't know anything at all about the matter.

But that is the point is was not just a triumph of Wellington's Britsh – but also his Germans and Neatherland / Belgian Allies plus the Prussians.

Otherwise – yes I ask in what context are Guderian and others – realted to PH books about the Napoleonic time.

There is none – other than 10th Marine is out of his depth.