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

Dear Least We Forget & XV Brigada

My apologies if my postings upset you. I thought everyone took it all in good fun as I did those remarks made against me. Perhaps some people are not aware they have been insulting. It was clear enough. But never mind, I was just arguing my point. And nice to see you agree that there wasn't a German state, although I am puzzled as to why you harped on about Germany on a map, which is basically saying that it existed as a state. I think perhaps some people are confusing themselves. Just as well this thread has run its course. Can't have people being confused all the time, can we.

Gazzola:

"And nice to see you agree that there wasn't a German state . . ."

You have the most singular sense of humor. I'm convinced my wife has been drugging my beer because I am beginning to have hallucinations about TMP posts.

Lest We Forget

You could try getting her to drink it first and see what happens? And I did have a feeling that you were suffering in some way. I suggest a good reading of something Napoleonic. Cure's everything. How about Gills 'With Eagles to Glory' or 'Thunder on the Danube'. Well recommended.

fizzle….

well, at least you all got this train to station #10

Yeah, and people moan that I bring nothing to the table. Sheesh.

/snigger

all passengers please depart through the marked exits. The next train will be departmenting this station in approximately 10 minutes…

bump

Don't forget to take all your baggage with you as you exit.

… and, my, some of you have quite a lot of baggage to take off, haven't you?

Oi, who left this bricole in the luggage rack?

And hey, you there, yes you, the Prussian hussar, don't forget to take this (slightly bent) bar with you.

:-)

(OK, OK, I won't give up my day job to become a comedian … er, but I haven't got a day job anyway at the mo)

… and, my, some of you have quite a lot of baggage to take off, haven't you?

pot and kettle…/wink

Das ende

auf Wiedersehen

YouTube link

Arteis

Is Gazzola being a defiant old marine till the bitter end?

Who left the gum under the seat?

SJDonovan

Ask yourself who is remembered the most, the man who says he will be back, or the one he was sent to kill and then later protect in following films? Great films by the way.

?

SJDononvan

It relates to the Arnold link you posted. Think about it!

It is interesting that in earlier posts some people have claimed that British historians hype up Wellington, at the expense of Blucher and the Prussians. I disagree with that completely and have not seen anything that supports such a statement. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, of course, just that I have not read anything that supports the statement.
However, it did make me wonder how the present day Germans, or indeed, those after the Napoleonic Wars, viewed Wellington, the British and the other Allies? Did they hype up Blucher and the Prussians at their expense? Or did they correctly view the action as an Allied victory?

Personally for me when I was much younger my understanding of the Battle of Waterloo was that the battle was fought by the British against the French and won by Wellington. There was no mention of the number of Germans nor the Prussians for that matter. It was not until I began to study the period after high school that I learned of the existence of all the Germans at that battle. I must admit it was a stunning revelation for me to learn they were there and made up such a large part of that battle.

I remember distinctly thinking to myself, well, the British did not just win that battle by themselves, they had help. What that did for me was to change what I felt about how history was taught in our schools and that because Australia was and still is part of the commonwealth that a distorted teaching of history was being taught. What did I do about it? I simply became very sceptical of anything I read from then on and would double check the facts with as many books on a single subject as possible.

So my experience was very different from that of Gazzola's but thankfully for me I figured it out very early on. If you ask anyone down here who won the Battle of Waterloo or more to the point, who was in the battle no one would know the Germans and more to the point the Prussians took a major and majority part in that battle or campaign. Most people who are not particularly well read on the subject would not know they took part…I would think this is the same in the UK?

Dear Defiant,

Exactly the same in the UK I would say. My experience was also very different and mirrors yours. I would also say that the general public is even worse informed now than it was twenty or thirty years ago.

Bill

(Whispering because we're not supposed to be here)This is going back to a post a thousand or so I made about attitudes changing before the WWI when friends became enemies and enemies became friends. I've just read Tomkinsons memoir and he certainly mentions Prussians help at Waterloo.

"Ask yourself who is remembered the most, the man who says he will be back, or the one he was sent to kill and then later protect in following films?"

"It relates to the Arnold link you posted. Think about it!"

@Gazzola

You're asking me who was the most memorable character was in the film The Terminator starring Arnold Schwarzenneger? Let me go away and think about it. I'll get back to you.

I don't think the fact that people would not know who was at Waterloo, is down to a bias for Wellington or the British, created by historians, school or whoever, but more a general disregard for history in general. Most people seem more interested in football, TV soaps, music and having other forms of fun, than they are in who was at whatever battle and who could claim the victory. Thankfully, there are those of us who can enjoy reading and researching history and wargaming, as well as football and enjoying other forms of fun. But when I was at school we were not taught anything about the Napoleonic period. My Dad did inform me that the British beat the French and that was it. But I grew to love history and started researching and discovered it was an Allied victory, with the Prussians taking a critical part in the overall victory. So the books I read at an early age must not have been biased towards any one side. Those I have read since, apart from PH's books, are not biased either.

SJDonovan

There is nothing to think about and please don't get hung up on the film. Not necessary. But should you wish to discuss it further, you could consider finding a film forum. This one is for Napoleonic topics and I don't think Arnold has been placed in the Napoleonic period, well, not yet anyway. Mind you, I'm sure Napoleon would have won if he was on his side at Waterloo, although someone would obviously end up writing a book entitled 'Arnold's Victory'.

I never studied waterloo at school. It was mentioned finally, in year 11 British history as the reason for the Peterloo Massacre aquiring its nickname. It was mentioned in European History in the year 12, as being the starting point of the period of studied. No mention of Wellingotn, British or Dutch belgians, just the the fact it interrupted the, far more exciting and important to study, Congress of Vienna. Which dashed my hopes of having an interesting military discussion in school in which I could excel and impress everyone.

Edwulf, I recall exactly that! I was so enthusiastic when I heard we were studying 1815 at high school here in New Zealand during the early 1970s. And then I found out that Waterloo was merely a footnote in our studies about the Congress of Vienna. I was most disappointed.

However, I do remember doing my speech competition at school on Waterloo (we could pick our own topic). I can't recall what sources I used – probably nothing too deep, as it would've been just something from the school library. But I do remember the Prussians coming into my speech, so it couldn't have been entirely about the British beating the French.

@ Arteis

One of several reasons why I think Hofschroer's argument fails is that he doesn't support his assertion that British historians routinely claim Waterloo was a "British" victory; nor does he stand up even the milder, qualified assertion that they over-emphasise the significance of British participation.

There are two ways of testing either of these straw men. One is to find some British historians guilty of it, and assess how significant they are. The other is to see if anyone other than British historians makes a similar claim. Either would debunk Hofschroer's premise as being, at best, no more than the kind of nationalistic bias he finds in others.

Your experience of researching Waterloo using the resources of a school library bears this out – you came up with a source that credited the Prussians. Similarly, if you check out PH's bibliography, there aren't any English-language Prussia-disrespecters in there. Chesney? Chandler? They "claimed" it for Britain too, did they? He can't have read them properly.

So not only has nobody in this thread substantiated PH's claim of an undue nationalistic bias in Waterloo history, but also, neither did your school library, and neither does PH himself. In neither his text, his footnotes or his bibliography does he cite a single example of this supposedly near-universal practice.

The other part of the strawman one can test is whether these claims of pro-British bias are uniquely British. If they're not it refutes the idea that this is nationalism at work.

This is harder because you'd need to read widely in several languages to establish it, but we should note that the French don't see it that way. French wikipedia calls Wellington the victor of Waterloo and attributes the victory in large measure to his battle plan and army management as well as to Prussian determination. There is no suggestion that Wellington was a bystander while "Germans" won it.

Overall, in fact, the historical erudition and the quality of the arguments marshalled for and against a "German" victory at Waterloo have been substantially higher in this thread than in the actual book under discussion. And that's even without taking into account the lowering of the tone occasioned by Mr Hofschroer's own "contributions".

I want to know if PH has been banned form other Napoleonic forums ?

4th Cuirassier

Excellent posting. When reading his books you just get the overall feeling that the fabled 'German Victory' was indeed, a publicity ploy. And, as I have stated before, I don't really believe PH believes it himself. I think we can safely say that the publicity ploy, which obviously worked, was the only real German Victory.

lol, well said Gaz

John,

I agree with Shane-excellent posting. Interestingly, though, as the KGL was part of the British army, and by 1815 after long service in Spain, an integral part of the British army would they not be considered British troops?

George III was still the sovereign of Hanover after the 1814 Vienna settlement, so they had at least that attachment to Britain, though they were not British troops, but Hanoverian troops.

And as Nassau was part of the Netherlands, would they not be considered Dutch troops?

Based on that, it seems that ethnicity, and especially German ethnicity, had little or nothing to do with contributions to Waterloo-but nationality and functionality most certainly did.

Going through Scott Bowden's Armies at Waterloo based on the above, the numbers change quite dramatically for Wellington's polyglot army at Waterloo. There were now 35,671 British troops at Waterloo, 21,035 Dutch, which include the Belgian and Nassau troops, 11,496 Hanoverians, and 6,124 Brunswickers, for a total of 74,326 effectives. Now the British contingent is 48% of the total, with the Dutch being 28%. That leaves the Hanoverians and Brunswickers with a combined total of 24%. That seems to change the picture a bit, for the allies.

Interestingly, in the two subject Waterloo books, (Ligny and Quatre Bras and the German Victory) there are errors and discrepencies in the French orders of battle. In the first book, the Guard lancers are cited with six squadrons, two of them being 'Polish' when there was only one Polish squadron in Belgium. For the same unit in the second book, this regiment is listed as two, when it was only one regiment as reconsituted in 1815 with the title of the Guard Lancer Regiment. The regiment's first squadron was Polish, the rest were 'Red.' (pages 379 and 354, respectively). Similarly, the Old Guard infantry is listed by divisions differently in both books. On page 374 of the former (Ligny and Quatre Bras) the Old Guard infantry divisions are listed correctly, one grenadier division and one chasseur division, in the second volume, the two divisions are mixed grenadiers and chasseurs, which is incorrect (page 353). This information has been available for years and I do wonder about the errors.

Further, the Guard Sailors, Sapeurs, and Elite Gendarmerie are not listed, which is puzzling.

In Chapter 21 of the 'German Victory' on pages 336 and 338 the definite impression left for the reader is that there was a 'German nation' and that these ethnic Germans formed a 'national contingent' both of which I believe to be errors based on the situation Germany was in during this period. There were German national contingents, but these were not based on a German nation as a whole, but on the states that formed these contingents and sent them to war. Lastly, I do disagree with the assumption in the last sentence on page 338 that the British and Wellington 'played a secondary, supporting role.' Without the large Britishs contingent in the Anglo-Dutch army, there wouldn't have been an army in the Netherlands except that of the Prussians with allied contingents, and without Wellington I seriously doubt that the campaign in Belgium would have resulted in an allied victory over the French. Which other allied commander could have commanded in his stead successfully?

Sincerely,
Kevin

I too am perplexed as to the basis of the "German" claim. I don't remember it being discussed in the first volume, either because it's been 13 years since I abandoned it, or because it wasn't discussed at all in the bit I read.

As Kevin correctly points out, however, the assertion in volume 2's conclusion is that there was a German nation – a claim we've debated at length and found IMHO to be at least challengeable.

The other defining characteristic of being German PH relies on is speaking German. The idea that speaking the same language amounts to a shared national identity would have surprised the American revolutionaries on 1776 no end, or indeed a Dubliner and an Ulsterman today.

PH then proceeds to the conclusion that "Germans" won it because Wellington couldn't have won alone and Germans took most of the losses. The first is a straw man, and anyway applies equally to the Germans, hence is a "so what?".

To the second, Patton's dictum seems apposite. Taking the most casualties is a good strategy for losing.

In the end, PH's beef seems to be not that historians and aficionadi underrate the Prussian input. It's that lay people in Britain underrate it. The solution is not for them to read his book on Waterloo, but for them to read any English-language book on Waterloo, from which they will come away with a more accurate impression.

A good place to look for suitable titles would be English-language Waterloo works cited in PH's own bibliography.

Good posting Kevin. Sadly, I feel it will fall on deaf ears. Sometimes, facts and the truth are probably just not acceptable to some people because they don't fit in with their views or how they see historical events and characters. One can but try.

Kevin

I meant to add that, going on past experience when researching, virtually all accounts differ, concerning the actual actions and campaigns themselves, or the Orders of Battle. But as more evidence is unearthed over the years, any descriptions and figures given will probably also be liable to change. It is the double FF factor is researching – fun and frustration – in that you often spend a considerable amount of time trying to discover why number totals were different in various accounts and why some authors and historians felt they should leave out various units and even whole divisions. So, in some ways, books like PH's make us look at the figures again and seek out new research or findings, and, more importantly, check out those we consider may still be nearer the truth. Fun and Frustration all round. You either like it or hate it. Me, I love it.

The problem with British historians is not that they ignore the contribution of other countries to Wellington's victories, but that they focus most of their research in the British point of view. That is what left the reader with the impression that the books are British-centered.

Honestly, I believe this thread is spent. As 4th Cuirassier has correctly pointed, the only way to actually prove the alleged British bias would be a historiographical analysis of the books written by British historians. Which, in my opinion, would be impractical to do in a forum. Such a subject would deserve a book in itself. Until that study is done, all we can do is speculate and walk in circles.

Best regards

Dear Basileus66,

I think you are quite right. British historians write mainly British history and we should not be surprised if it is Anglo-centric in nature. French, Spanish and German historians when writing from their national perspectives do exactly the same thing I expect. That I think is the bias alluded to though Mr Hofschroer does exaggerate his complaint in my view. He is also wrong in my view about the British contribution in 1815 and here I agree with Mr Kiley and would go further. I suggest that the British contribution was rather more than just troops and a general to command them and was fundamental to the coalition in general which would not have existed at all I think without the British support and participation, politically, militarily and financially.

I also agree that this thread is just about spent particularly since despite having been given all the information to the contrary the attempt to write Germans and Germany out of history continues and interpretations are constructed of what Mr Hofschroer wrote that no educated person with a reasonable command English would make.

Bill

Dear XV Brigada

I don't recall anyone attempting to write the Germans or Germany out of history? Have you been reading a different thread? And I'm not sure I agree with you and basileus66 that British historians wrote with a British Bias, just because they were British. That would mean that authors not connected to the nations being written about, would be the best suited to writing about their history? So Germans writing about German history would be wrong. Can't see that being accepted. I think it is more of a case of historians and authors writing from a certain angle, which may be based on the actions by and against a certain nation, such as what the British troops did during the 100 Days campaign and who did what to them. But I'm sure most historians and authors did attempt to balance out events on both sides. The only title I can recall that really is one-sided is Mark Robinson's fairly recent book on Quatre Bras 1815 (2009), which, due to that, I wasn't happy with, and is a step backwards, researchwise, in my opinion, although I have to admit, it is a good book and I'm glad I bought it.

Here's an interesting thought. How often have you heard the term 'history is written by the victors'?

Food for thought there chaps.

Dear John,

Then our perceptions are not the same.

Bill

Dear Gazzola

I think that you disagree because you are missing the point, which is that the British historians -as the German, Spanish or anyone else do- trend to narrate history from their own British perspective. That doesn't mean that they are doing 'bad' history, or -with exceptions- even biased history, but that their cultural background, access to sources and their own history, cause, necessarily, that their narratives would leant to show one particular point of view about the events. The best of them are perfectly conscious of their limitations and try hard not to reach swiping conclussions of (alleged) universal validity. That's why we read different narratives, from different authors: to get a more complete picture of the events.

For example, right now I am (re)reading a book about the battle of Lepanto (17.X.1571), from an Italian author. The book is excellent. One of the best analysis of the battle I've read. However, his narrative is mainly focused in the Italian contingents -Venetian, Genoese, Papal, Florentine, ecc- while the Knights of St John and Spanish, though very important, don't occupy the center of the stage. That doesn't make his story wrong, quite the contrary. It's just that most of the archival material he has researched cames from Italian archives. It's a good history, but it's not a complete history. Still, as he is a good historian (I would say even a great historian) all the participants (Italian, Ottoman, Spanish and Maltese) are analysed in his book; but the Italians are the ones who are researched in more depth, and therefore they are the main characters of the drama.

That happens with all histories. Waterloo or Peninsula included. That's why we own dozens of different books over the same subject: because we know, even if you are not aware of, that each book only narrates a part of the history.

Bad history is when the author makes a selective use of the sources to prove his hypothesis, hiding or deliberately ignoring those that would nuanced his/her conclussions. That's bad history. But if he tries to do a honest work, even if his story leans toward a particular point of view, his history will be a valuable addition to anyones library.

What we must to do is to be aware of the inherent weaknesses of any book of history, and try to accept that what we think is the True, it's only, in the best of the cases, a partial True, not the whole True.

Best regards

Dear Basileus66,

Exactly! But I really do think Gazolla understood the point well enough :-)

Bill

The case for a "German" victory as made out by PH is IMHO pretty thin.

It is based on the assumption that everyone who spoke German was "German". In the context, it is clear that he's talking about modern German, not some contemporary idea of Germany.

The most telling illustration of this is that his analysis of "British", "Dutch", and "German" elements is based on where the relevant territories are today. For example, the Nassau troops aren't counted as Dutch, the Belgians are, and the KGL don't count as British even though they were paid-up members of the British army. If you reallocate nationalities based on what country the contingents were part of at the time, you get a quite different picture.

Other claims of German victory are based on how far they marched, what losses they took, and what battles they were present at. The fact that the Prussians marched furthest because they got routed, and that they lost every battle they fought alone and won only with Allied help, is not considered.

It's a potentially interesting angle, but not well argued. As I've observed before, he also seems oddly unable to cite any example of a historian who bigs up the British at the expense of the "Germans".

basileus66

I think we are basically saying the same thing. But we can't say that every historian/author, of whatever nationality, has written their work with a bias, even if we believe they they may have been unaware of it. The reality is that there are good authors and bad authors, and like you say, you need to read several versions of accounts to hear the 'different' voices, before attempting to make up your own mind as to what might or might not have occurred. For example, I would never consider researching and writing a magazine article based on one source, account or writer. And obviously, a writers background and personal interests will, of course, always have an effect of some sort, although I still believe that most will try to keep that area under control. In terms of British historians, those writing during the British Empire period may well have either been trying to highlight the progress or continuity of the empire, or may have been influenced by such without even realising it. But that cannot be laid at the door of all British historians/authors, during the empire period or after. And writers tend to write by whatever angle expresses itself via their research, although some will obviously be driven by their own interests, be it the British Army, the French Army, the Napoleonic wars or whatever. It is far too easy for others to say that one set of authors are biased. As proven by this long thread, I don't recall that many samples of such a bias being displayed in these postings.

Dear 4th,

Not at all. The contemporary geographical concept of 'Germany' was actually larger than it is today.

Nassau was a possession of the House of Orange-Nassau a marriage between the House of Orange in Provence and the House of Nassau. They had possessions in the Netherlands and had a history of providing stadtholders. Immediately prior to 1814 the Netherlands had been a republic which only then became a monarchy under the House of Orange-Nassau so on the basis of your reasoning we should count the Dutch and Belgian contingent at Waterloo as Germans. This is patently nonsense I am sure you will agree. I am fairly sure that the Nassau contingent was no more part of the Netherlands army than the Hanoverian army was part of the British army. You can't 'reallocate' them so they become something other than what they were. The Nassau contingent consisted of German subjects of the Prince of Orange-Nassau.

The KGL was certainly a British corps. It was to be initially a light infantry unit called the King's Germans and the Royal Proclamation stated that "all foreigners, and especially all brave Germans, are therefore called upon to enlist in the said corps". Initial recruits were largely exiles from the old Hanoverian army which had been dissolved in 1803 and they formed the larger part throughout it existence. The KGL remained on the British establishment until it was disbanded and consisted mainly of ethnic Germans most of whom were German subjects of George III.

As far as I can see Mr Hofschroer uses plain English which is a wonderful language in which a single word can have more than one meaning depending on context and ethnicity has everything to do with Mr Hofschroer's argument and one cannot remove either KGL or Nassau Germans from his equation. They were for the most part ethnic Germans and ethnicity is by definition linked to nationality and in this context refers to a group with common descent, culture or language. They were in other words ethnic Germans regardless of where they came from in Germany.

Bill

deja vu anyone!

Bill,

Could you explain the following that you wrote please?

'…since despite having been given all the information to the contrary the attempt to write Germans and Germany out of history continues and interpretations are constructed of what Mr Hofschroer wrote that no educated person with a reasonable command English would make.'

Who has attempted 'to write Germans and Germany out of history…'? This appears to be a strawman argument and an explanation might be helpful.

K

There are some countries/nations where ethnicity is not linked to nationality-the United States is one of them.

K

Dear 10th,

I refer you to my post of 13 Feb 2011 11:12 a.m. PST. You are an educated person with a reasonable command of the English language are you not? :-)

You are quite right you are a bit of a mixed bag but that's colonisation for you though the United States isn't relevant to Germans and Waterloo. :-)

I understand that ethnicity and nationhood is rather more keenly felt by the indigenous North American population.

Bill

I think they tried wiping the First Nation out too.

Oh, look, there's a nation without any state – but that means they cannot have a cohesive nationhood then. Hmm, so what do we call these guys fighting the cowboys in Westerns then?

I think they tried wiping the First Nation out too.

Careful, Dave .. now you're moving into a whole new area of (potentially DH-able) controversy.

And anyone of British descent should be a bit careful of casting such stones. Britain's behaviour was not squeaky-clean either. Just ask any Aborigine for a start.

And as I come from Dutch descent, I guess I better shut up too ;-)