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

"'The Germans make everything difficult, both for themselves and for everybody else.' -Goethe"

Kevin, you're very fond of that Goethe quote. You've used it a dozen or so times over the years. Has it ever occurred to you….

Goethe, a German, wrote that long, long before there was a nation-state called "Germany."

So, um… to whom, then, is he referring when he says "the Germans"

??

Hint: Oops!!

It doesn't matter to 10th Marines that the Romans used the term Germania and Magna Germania (birthplace of Arminius) or that the HRE was called Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicæ in Latin for a long, long time before 1871 came around.

Schnurfel, good luck on using reason, logic, supporting evidence, or any other form of discourse to get 10th to admit that he might possibly be incorrect. Unlike Groundhog Day, there will never be an end to this movie. I rarely visit the Napoleonic hisotry or books boards any more. It seems that 10th has a new supporting member since I last visited.

I am waiting to see how he sidesteps your latest reposte. I would make a bet with you for which method he will use.

Lest We Forget

Yes, indeed, the Romans did name certain European areas as Germania Inferior and Germania Superior. But again, as I tried to explain to Vendome, the term has been used to cover a vast area and people, without having to name each individual state or tribe all the time. And the people living there, as far as I am aware, did not refer to themselves as Germans but called themselves by their tribal names. The same goes with the Romans calling an island Britannia. The people who lived there did not refer or see themselves as Britons or British, but were known and referred to each other by their Celtic tribes. And just because ancient historians or even later writers, called various areas by various names does not mean the people who lived there saw it the same way.

Vendome

I think if you read the posts again, you will see that the thread included mention of a German nation or state. It is part of the discussion, like it or not. And remember, you don't have to read or reply to my postings, but I do welcome them.
And I'm sorry, but you can't just fob off the inclusion of Austria and Northern Italy, because it spoils the vision of a 'German' Holy Roman Empire. The term referred to a collection of different states. That in no way proves there was a Germany or anything else German, unless you consider Austria and northwestern Italy as German, which would be silly.
But I'm glad we can agree that a German state or country did not exist during the Napoleonic period, so the term Germany was employed really to save having to repeat the names of all the different Germanic states. There probably was however, a feeling of, I'll use the term 'Germaness', between the various Germanic states. I do not have a problem with that, as it was probably only natural. I also believe that is what Kevin meant.
I do hope this is now clear to everyone and we can all move on. My Confederation of the Rhine miniatures are saying 'stop writing, paint me, paint me'.

Gazzola

You are entitled to your opinion, and if it is clear to you – fine paint your German troops – otherwise I share a different opinion.

Your idea of Germany is Ancient History – the Marcomanni certainly did not judge themselves German, the Bavarians in the Napoleonic time did judge themselfes as Bavarians and Germans, today they would say Bavarians, Germans and living in Bavaria being a part of Germany.
Indeed before the collaps of the German empire – they would consider to be part of the Holy Roman Empire of German nations.

In the Austrian Army, you are well aware of it, there are so called German regiments and not those of Vorarlberg or Klagenfurth.

Also Gazzola you are right, I don't have to read your postings anymosre – s-t-i-f-l-e

Gazzola, your exclusion of Austrians as non-German relies on the fact that in 1871 they were not included in the nation-state called Germany. This is irrelevant to the topic. In fact, Austrians were considered Germans during the Napoleonic period, this was how they self-identified and how everyone else viewed them. In terms of the military aspects (which I'm sure you are familiar with) the use of the term "German" regiments for Austrian units from "German" regions provides one bit of readily accessible evidence for this (as observed by others). For the rest, you seem to be arguing the corollary – the presence of non-Germans in the empire negates any assertion that it was German, which as I've already pointed out would then "prove" that the French Napoleonic empire was not French. Or the inclusion of Poles and Lithuanians in the Russian empire means we can't call it Russian. I don't accept that line of reasoning, it makes no sense. I don't see any possibility of challenging the description of the HRE as a German empire without crafting definitions designed for the sole purpose of proving otherwise that cannot be applied anywhere else. Ruled by Germans, predominantly populated by Germans, containing most of the Germans in the world, self identified as German … but hey, there were Italians within its borders, so it's not German? Really?

As far as what the empire was, this is certainly a complex topic and open to discussion – as I had already noted. Is an empire a "state" and is the debate at hand nothing more than quibbling over a definition? And is it even valid to apply a modern concept of a state to 1796, or 1648 or 1512 or do we have to consider alternative definitions? The chief significance of the empire by the Napoleonic era is as a concept of a formerly powerful German empire that had become weak and divided after the cataclysm of the 30YW.

I suppose the bigger issue to determine is whether we're trying to actually understand the historical situation or if we're playing a game of "gotcha" where we dissect literal meaning and concoct interpretations for the sole purpose of winning petty wars of words through debating tricks and pedantry. I tend to get optimistic after I've been away from this forum for a while.

For LWF: I had been taking your approach as well, but had a weak moment (head slap)

Obviously, if the presence of non-German groups within the state is proof that the state is not "German," then the Kaiserreich of 1871 isn't German, either. Good-sized minorities of French- Danish- and Polish-speakers existed within its borders.

Kevin's fondness for the Goethe quote is such that he even tacked it onto the beginning of his article about the 1806 Prussian army:

link

That's rather curious, don't you think? Why would Kevin include a quote referencing "Germans" when writing about the 1806 Prussians… if he so fervently believes that they weren't "Germans" yet because there wasn't a German nation-state?

Why would Kevin then say that P. Hofschroer was wrong to use the word in the subtitle of a book about German soldiers from various German states?

Unless, of course, that was never really the basis for Kevin's critique, and all of this circular and evasive argument was just an excuse or façade for something much simpler, like personal rivalry or simple bias.

That would help explain why an otherwise knowledgeable and intelligent person has painted himself into such a strange little corner, where he has to ignore the frequent historical use of the word "Germans", even by Napoleon himself, to describe people living in a region known to everybody at the time as "Germany."

"Ce que désirent avec impatience les peuples d'Allemagne, c'est que les individus qui ne sont point nobles et qui ont des talents aient un égal droit à votre considération et aux emplois…. Il faut que vos peuples jouissent d'une liberté, d'une égalité, d'un bien-être inconnus aux peuples de la Germanie…"

— Napoleon, 15 November, 1807.

"Quand les Allemands triomphaient, ils appelaient les Français; quand la victoire avait rendu les Français les maîtres, ils se liguaient avec les Allemands et les chassaient."

— Napoleon, 28 October, 1809

(There are 300+ more where that came from, just up to the year 1809. If you'd like to tell Napoleon that he's wrong to use the words "Germans" and "Germany," then go right ahead…)

-

PS – I'd be interested, also, in hearing suggestions for what we should call Napoleon's "Army of Germany" in 1809, since he was obviously in error when giving it that name.

Dear VW

Not sure what the heck you are saying. You agree with me then say I am wrong????? And yes, you are right, the Austrian regiments were usually classed as Hungarian or German. You knew I knew that so why did you mention it? That had nothing to do with the whole point of the debate. Anyway, if you want to stifle me, okay, although you might end up stifling anyone that doesn't agree with you or dares to agree with Kevin. And you say you are not biased against Kevin. Yeah, pull the other one. I just wanted a decent debate but I do hope you enjoy many other debates, and not just those that only agree with you. Sorry you feel so bad and best wishes anyway.

Dear Vendome

You have it wrong, again! I did not exclude the Austrians or anyone else. I said they were part of the Holy Roman Empire, along with Northern Italy. A case could be put forward for the Austrians, or some of them anyway, being considered as German, but certainly not all of them. Yes, they had what is termed German regiments, but they also had Hungarian regiments. And you certainly can't class Northern Italy as German! Strange that they weren't mentioned?
Anyway, I don't really want to mention or discuss anything other than the Napoleonic period, if possible, which was why I stated there was no Germany, no German king or Emperor during the Napoleonic period. Kevin seems to understand this so I can't understand why others can't, or perhaps just don't want to? And I don't care who wins or loses debates here, but I do care about the Napoleonic period and the reality of the time.

" I stated there was no Germany, no German king or Emperor during the Napoleonic period."

Several people have tried to explain that that's simply not correct.

The Holy Roman Emperor was titled "King of Germany," and had been since Otto the Great:

link

link

link

This isn't a secret. And it's not a subject of debate among any historians anywhere, period. It's historical fact.

" Kevin seems to understand this so I can't understand why others can't, or perhaps just don't want to?"

The tone that you have observed, in the exchanges between Kevin and others, is the result of a very long (10+ years) history of Kevin conveniently not understanding things when it suits him, and doing everything humanly possible to avoid admitting any error or contradiction, while simultaneously using the "misunderstanding" as a way to criticize others. (Hence his willingness to throw around a Goethe quote that mentions "Germans," and even including it in his own article about Prussia in 1806.. while simultaneously saying that Peter Hofschroer was wrong to use the word in the subtitle of a book, because "Germans" didn't exist yet, prior to 1871.)

Kevin has issues with Germans (and some other nationalities), and he won't accept correction on this point, even when the correction comes from Napoleon Bonaparte.

It's not your fault that you arrived new to the "show" and didn't know the back-story, so you've taken a bit of crossfire as an innocent bystander.

Dear Schnurfel

I think you appear to have a bias against Kevin. Surely you know that roll belongs to the master, Mr. Hollins. Are you trying to usurp him? But, to be serious, we all know what Kevin meant, so playing silly games and making silly accusations is just wasting time and space. Napoleon and others who used the term Germans and Germany did it for exactly the reason mentioned, to cover the area containing Germanic states without having to name each one all the time. Everyone knew what he meant, it is clear what Kevin meant and I'm really surprised that people are pretending they don't agree with it, just to get at Kevin. And if I remember rightly, I do not recall the Confederation of the Rhine being called the Confederation of Germany, do you? If I'm wrong, please let me know.

Dear Schnurfel

There wasn't an empire,as empire are usually considered, that's what I keep trying to tell you. It wasn't holy and it wasn't Roman. And the last man in charge of the so called empire until 1806, was an Austrian. You can call him German to prove your point, if you want, but I would consider him an Austrian, otherwise he would be emperor of Germany, which he obviously wasn't. Why, because there wasn't a Germany, which is the whole point of the discussion. It is not to say that people were not Germans. They were. But I very much doubt they consider themselves German first, in perference to the Germanic state they belonged to. And to keep flagging up the Holy Roman Empire up as proof there was a sort of Germany is a joke, and you know it. If you want to keep believing it, then do so, but please, it is really time to move on. All this parrot talk has gone on for far too long. I do hope you enjoy other debates and postings. I know I will.

"Napoleon and others who used the term Germans and Germany did it for exactly the reason mentioned, to cover the area containing Germanic states without having to name each one all the time."

Bingo.

So we're in agreement, then, that there were in fact "Germans" prior to 1871, who called themselves "Germans," who were called "Germans" by other people, and that it is correct to call the people of German states "Germans."

And you agree that there was a region known as "Germany" that had been called that since the Middle Ages, and a "King of Germany" and a "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation," and a "German Emperor."

Right?

And if somebody were to write a book about Germans in this period, it would be okay to use the word "Germans" to describe them, right?

"And the last man in charge of the so called empire until 1806, was an Austrian. You can call him German to prove your point, if you want, but I would consider him an Austrian, otherwise he would be emperor of Germany, which he obviously wasn't."

I'm sorry, but that's simply not factually correct, either.

He was King of Austria, King of Croatia, King of Hungary, etc, etc, etc. – all because he was the Habsburg dynastic ruler – and "German Emperor" – because he additionally had that role and title. Just like his predecessors.

He didn't become an "Austrian" emperor until the creation of the "Austrian Empire" in the midst of the Napoleonic period, following the dissolution of the HRE.

link

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you; it's just that these are historical facts, not matters of opinion. (I mean, obviously, one could hold an opinion that is not supported by fact, but you did say that you wanted to stick to the facts.)

Gazzola knows well the back story, he follows track of 10th Marines.

I am suprised that anybody can state – that there was no German Emperor, no German Empire in the Napoleonic period.

Just read :

Dictionnaire Napoléon tome 2

Saint Empire Romain Germanique

Sa disparition se fit en quatre étapes:

1. Annexion de la rive gauche à la France (1787 – 1801)
2. Transformations entrainées par le recés du 25 février 1803
3. Constitution des la Conféderation du Rhin (16. juillet 1806)
4. Abandon de la couronne impériale par Francois II (6 août 1806).

Le 22 juillet 1806, Napoléon fit savoir qu'il ne reconnaissait plus l'empire allemand …

So there was an official German state till 1806 and after that – there still was Germany as such and people living there were regarded as Germans and regarded themselves as Germans as well.

The Goethe quote – I did not know that Goethe said this in English, can 10th Marines be so kind to give the quote in decent German.

So – the subtitle of PH German victory – is indeed corect.

Gazzola – Let's review. You stated:

And I'm sorry, but you can't just fob off the inclusion of Austria and Northern Italy, because it spoils the vision of a 'German' Holy Roman Empire. The term referred to a collection of different states. That in no way proves there was a Germany or anything else German, unless you consider Austria and northwestern Italy as German, which would be silly.

Then I stated:

In fact, Austrians were considered Germans during the Napoleonic period, this was how they self-identified and how everyone else viewed them. In terms of the military aspects (which I'm sure you are familiar with) the use of the term "German" regiments for Austrian units from "German" regions provides one bit of readily accessible evidence for this (as observed by others).

Then you stated:

You have it wrong, again! I did not exclude the Austrians or anyone else. I said they were part of the Holy Roman Empire, along with Northern Italy. A case could be put forward for the Austrians, or some of them anyway, being considered as German, but certainly not all of them. Yes, they had what is termed German regiments, but they also had Hungarian regiments. And you certainly can't class Northern Italy as German! Strange that they weren't mentioned?

So … lets go slowly.

You have it wrong, again! What, in your opinion, do I have wrong again?

I did not exclude the Austrians or anyone else. I said they were part of the Holy Roman Empire, along with Northern Italy. This is not something that is under dispute, and it was perfectly clear to me that you understood that Austria and northern Italy were a part of the HRE. My comment was addressed at your assertion "unless you consider Austria and northwestern Italy as German, which would be silly." This, as written, expresses a belief that neither Austria nor northern Italy were German. With regard to Austria, you are mistaken.

A case could be put forward for the Austrians, or some of them anyway, being considered as German, but certainly not all of them. Yes, they had what is termed German regiments, but they also had Hungarian regiments. Austrians, i.e. the inhabitants of Austria (upper and lower), are Germans. The subjects of the Austrian Empire, so styled beginning in 1806, include a mixture of nationalities. Austria itself was a part of the Holy Roman Empire and a part of the Austrian empire, but always German.

Hungarians are not really relevant to the discussion. Hungarians have never been Austrians, though they have been a part of the Austrian empire (until they objected strenuously and got their own name added to the imperial marquee). Hungarians were never a part of the Holy Roman empire. Austrians are Germans and Hungarians are Hungarians. Czechs (and others) were sometimes lumped in with the Austrians as "Germans," even though they remained Czechs (and others). Some Hungarians were actually Germans – and not always Austrians but Germans from places like Swabia and the Palatinate, but these folks considered themselves German despite being Hungarians.

All of which means .. what?

And you certainly can't class Northern Italy as German! Strange that they weren't mentioned? Why would I want to classify Italians as Germans? Ok, if you would like me to explicitly state what should be obvious, north Italians were not German. Dutch were not German. Belgians were not German. All of which gets lumped under the statement that the empire included non-German populations, but the vast majority of the population was German. Again, relevance? Is there a point to this? I will ask, in all seriousness, is it your position that the existence of non-German populations within the empire makes it inaccurate to refer to it as a German empire?

The fact that you have no interest in anything other than the Napoleonic period may explain a good bit, but it will certainly limit your understanding of the era unless you get a bit of a running start instead of just starting at 1804.

And for the record, I am not pretending to disagree with Kevin, I actually do disagree with Kevin, and you. But I'm not sure you have managed to get a handle on what the disagreement is about despite multiple efforts to explain it.

VW:

Per "The Goethe quote – I did not know that Goethe said this in English, can 10th Marines be so kind to give the quote in decent German."

10th cannot speak nor write German, but knows German history so well (or perhaps Deutschen historie nicht sehr gut!)

His claim has me singing "Ich weiß nicht, was soll es bedeuten, Daß ich so traurig bin, Ein Märchen aus uralten Zeiten das kommt mir nicht aus dem Sinn." :)

VW

No one has to track anything to do with Kevin. Everyone can see and have seen the discussions, debates and one man war freely on this very website. Plus those who support and agree with his views and those who obviously don't, no matter what he says or tries to explain. So to accuse someone of tracking one man's posting is childish, to say the least, unless of course you are tracking Kevin? Is that nearer the truth?
King of Germany? Kingdom of Germany? Really. Where? I'm looking at a map of Europe now, showing the various states in 1806. There is a Kingdom of Prussia, there is Bavaria, there is the Austrian empire but no Kingdom of Germany.

Vendome & VW

Napoleon formed the Confederation of the Rhine in July 1806 and the fabled Holy Roman Empire was dissolved in August of the same year. So, if as VW says there was a German king and a German kingdom, why didn't it come to the aid of Austria in 1805, especially since I believe the Austrian Emperor was head of the Holy Roman Empire? All Germans together and all that. And why did these fellow Germans not aid Prussia in 1806. The answer of course, is because there was no real German King, as the head of a German empire. And if you have Northern Italy in the fabled Holy Roman Empire, then if should not be termed Holy Roman Empire of Germany or whatever. In name only, perhaps, but not in reality.

So my answer to VW and Vendome is that I'm quite happy to have you both, or anyone else disagreeing with me on anything. That's how it should be. We should not all be sheep agreeing and patting each other on the back, without any individual thinking. But perhaps we should now consider getting back to the original Anti-British Napoleonic thread, rather than continue with the Hollin's type parrot postings. You won't agree with me, or Kevin. I won't agree with you. No problem. Let's move on. If you can. I know I can. It's easy if you try.

I meant to add that yes, although I am interested in history, especially military history, from the Ancient to present day, I am not an expert on German or Austrian history and have not really studied them, apart from their contributions to the Napoleonic period, and then mainly via the various campaigns.
I do stand corrected I think, concerning the Austrian Emperor who only became the Austrian Emperor after the RHE ended. However, I will still stick to my other views and would suggest people view the description of the Holy Roman Empire on the website flags.net/flags/de-roman.html – the introduction is very interesting, as is Section No 2. Might well be worth a view, although I do hope we can all move on now and accept our differences.

For Gazzola – You go with that. I note that you really haven't managed to point out what I've said that is wrong, you've just shifted the goalposts to post-1806 when everything I have addressed is pre-1806. By avoiding what's been said and shifting the focus to a different time period you have successfully proven something that's never been under dispute. If that fulfills a need to declare "victory" and move on, go for it.

Good posting. You win.

– Mr. Kiley does know a substantial amount about Napoleonic artillery and Napoleonic history in general. The problems that I've seen coming up in his forum postings stem from overreach – a lack of awareness of his own limitations and biases coupled with a strange unwillingness to never modify opinions he has expressed or to admit to any possibility of uncertainty either in the available data or his conclusions. He's not unique in this, Mr. Hollins shares some of the same traits (especially overreach due to misplaced certainty).

I have considerable confidence in Mr. Kiley's grasp of the facts at the most detailed level with regard to the French army. Credit where credit is due. I do have some doubts about his ability to differentiate between facts and his opinions, and of course his analysis needs to be viewed critically, like anyone's – but especially so in his case considering his extreme biases.

Dear Vendome and others.

I think you are totally under the wrong impression. I'm not out to gain a 'victory' – how absurd to think so. I have learnt a lot about Austria, Germany and Germans from this thread, which I have always thought is what forums like this were for. It even got me looking at numerous websites and other sources that I would never consider. However, I don't really have a great interest in German history, pre or post the Napoleonic period, as interesting as it may be to others. I posted because I felt posters were being unfair to Kevin and that I believed there never was a real king of the Germans or a Germany during the Napoleonic period. Sorry but I have yet to be proven wrong. There was I believe a title the King of Germans, but there certainly wasn't a king in reality. For a start, we don't see a king of Germany marching his 'German' army of the 'German Empire' to face the French. Why, because there was no Germany and no German Empire. Some people don't seem to be able to accept that. I can't understand why? And as the website I mentioned pointed out in Section 2: There was no king of the Germans and there was no Germany.
David Chandler (pages 127-128. Napoleonic Source Book) is also worth viewing. 'The Austrian Empire (initially the Holy Roman Empire) was ruled throughout the period by the Habsburg Emperor Francis II (1768-1835) who succeeded Leopold II in 1792. On 11 August 1804 he assumed the title of Francis I of Austria, and following the defeat of 1805 the Holy Roman Empire was officially dissolved and the title renounced on 6 August 1806. The Empire spread from Italy to the Netherlands and from Poland to the Balkans, incorporating in 1793 some 6,500,00 Germans, 3,360,000 Czechs, 2,000,00 Walloons and Flemings, 1,000,000 Poles, 900,000 Croats, 700,00 Serbs and numerous smaller nationalities. The Emperor ruled Austria as Emperor, but the 'Hungarian' possessions (including Transylvania) as King of Hungary; thus the Empire's multi-national army was styled the Kaiserlich-kongliche Armee (Imperial and Royal). The central administration ruled the 'German' parts of the Empire; Hungary was ruled by its own Diet (parliament) which enjoyed a degree of independence, as did the Netherlands.'

'The Austrian army was multi-national, being divided into 'German' and 'Hungarian' regiments: the latter included Hungary, Croatia and Transylvania, Italy and Poland.'

I think it is quite clear that the HRE was not a totally 'German' empire, perhaps only 50% German, no matter what those who obviously want to see it that way believe. And is there a source that states that the king of the Germans led a German Army of the German Empire into battle. I doubt it. The term 'multi-national' is also interesting, don't you think?

As I say, I am not out to win a victory. But I feel if I disagree with some people, I have a right to say so and think so, until proven wrong. Sorry but Kevin was right there was no Germany during the Napoleonic period. I support his view on this and add that there was no real King of the Germans, although some seem to think there was. That's just me voicing my opinion, that's all. And I have made quite a few postings that did not involve postings by Kevin or Dave Hollins in any way. Funny how some people ignored that.

Sorry everyone about the long posting. It is not really my style. I am out to learn and sometimes you have accept others will always disagree with you. I am also quite happy to be proven wrong, believe it or not. Anyway, I'm thankful for this thread which had me reading material I probably would never look at, and probably may not again. I believe this forum is not a place for a word war or personal grudges, so happy posting everyone, no matter what you believe.

Gazzola – Not sure if the questions you've asked are rhetorical or if you intend for them to be answered, but I'll note that all of this has already been explained by me in multiple attempts to communicate. While you're expressing frustration that no one can understand the things you are noting, some of which I have EXPLICITLY stated agreement with more than once in this thread, believe me that there are others here who are extremely frustrated that you are failing to even understand what is being challenged and persist in putting up new strawmen to knock down. Since I've seen no evidence that you're making a good faith effort to understand what my points are and are quick to jump to "You're wrong" while presenting evidence on something different entirely, my conclusion is that your main focus is on being right – or claiming that I'm wrong, which amounts to the same thing – not on understanding what is being discussed, despite your protestations to the contrary. So I'm backing off and moving on to more productive and less frustrating activities.

Dear Vendome

Sorry you have decided to back off. To be honest, I think the thread had probably gone well past its sell by date several postings before. And yes, I know some people supported some of my views, while others didn't, such as the non-existent Germany and the non-existent king of the Germans. But many threads end up debating something that had been slightly diverted from the original topic and posting, so it just natural perhaps, that it happened in this one. I don't have a problem with that. Perhaps others do. And I think others have thrown up strawmen at Kevin, and possibly myself, even though Kevin stated in his an early posting that to use the term 'Germans' was okay. And I'm not trying to say you or anyone else 'is wrong', but I am trying to say that I disagree with some of the things said by certain members. But, as you say, there are far more interesting things to study and do than argue over pre and post Germany history. Others might disagree, I imagine, which is perhaps the way it should be. I've enjoyed the debate anyway and didn't find it all frustrating, but very informative. But yes, I agree, time to end now.

A little peace offering for all the German fans, who seemed to be really upset during these posting. But then again, the Germans were said never to have had a sense of humour, so perhaps it should have been expected from those who jumped in to aid the 'everyone is German' cause, so to speak.

Are you ready – one, two, three -

'You say German, I say Bavarian
German, Bavarian
German, Bavarian
Let's call the whole thing off'

Happy posting everyone.

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that the battle – field performance of the Prussian Army of 1806 to 1815 was poor, a lot of victories – like

Eylau, Katzbach, Wartenburg, Haynau, Kulm, Möckern, Leipzig, to name a few.

I cannot see a cavalry less army oponent either, like at the Katzbach, there were even French cuirassiers.

Also read the book by PH – you will see that he is using more than Prussian references, again you fall into the trap that Prussia equals Germany – and a lot of Germans other than Prussians took part in the battle, like Hannover, Nassau, Braunschweig, surley one has to take those accounts in as well as the rest of the others.

For that reason the German victory and not the Prussian victory, but seemingly this is too subtle to be understood by a lot of non German speakers.

Dear VW

Are you sure that PH employed the term 'German victory' for his book, which I have? Could it have not been either a publishers clever idea (or I suppose even one by PH himself) because the term would obviously attract controversy and therefore potential buyers. I disagree with the silly term 'German Victory', but I have no problems with it or with PH's viewpoint. And if it helps sell a Napoleonic title, I'm all for it, because more sales possibly might persuade publishers to continue publishing Napoleonic titles. But his books, although they might make people view Waterloo from another angle, certainly did not persuade me to change my mind about Waterloo (or the 100 days campaign) being an 'Allied Victory' in any way or form. It is just as silly as calling it a British victory.

Applying the "logic" used by Mr. Kiley, Waterloo could not have been an Allied victory because at no time during the Napoleonic period was there a country called Allied.

@4th Cuirassier:

"…the claim that a battle was a "German" victory, at a time when "Germany" was a geographical expression, is, well, odd."

I thought that we'd provided copious examples of the word being much more than a "geographical" expression. Surely you see that Germans used that word to describe themselves. I offered you half a dozen classic examples from the contemporary literature. There are thousands more, if you're interested. Surely you read some of the 300+ quotes by Napoleon calling them by that name, too.

The word was an expression – used at the time – by people inside and outside of Germany – to describe the people of the region that everybody called "Germany" and who spoke the German language.

It was correct to use that word at the time (that's why Napoleon and others used it.)

It would not have been correct to call Kursk an "EU" victory, because nobody in 1943 used the word "European Union."

That was, I thought, very clear and obvious.

And it's more than a bit mendacious for Kevin to pretend that that's his objection/argument to the book… when he loves to throw around a Goethe quote that refers to "the Germans", and adorn his own writing with it, when he's writing about 1806 Prussia.

As to whether the Prussian army won any laurels in this period…? Eh, well, they had their moments, I suppose. I'm not here to fly anybody's flag. I'm not here to defend Peter H or his book.

But – as would any specialist in any topic – I do have a particular pet peeve with the mis-application of basic historical facts and terms, when dealing with my own area of expertise. (You won't catch me arguing about Russia or Spain, or the weight of a horseshoe, or anything where I'm not qualified. As Dirty Harry said: "A man's got to know his limitations.")

I come to the conclusion that the battlefield performance of the Prussian army was poor on the basis of its battlefield performance.

Lutzen: 78,000 French beat 93,000 Prussians / Russians
Bautzen: 115,000 French beat 100,000 Prussians / Russians
Grossbeeren: 80,000 Prussians / Swedes beat 60,000 French
Katzbach: 114,000 Prussians / Russians beat 100,000 French
Dresden: 135,000 French beat 215,000 Pruss / Russ / Austrians
Kulm: 60,000 Pruss / Russ / Austr beat 32,000 French
Dennewitz: Pruss / Russ beat French; numbers, ??
Leipzig: 430,000 Allies beat 190,000 French
Hanau: 17,000 French beat 43,000 Bavarians (Germans innit?)
Brienne: 30,000 French beat 30,000 Prussians
La Rothiere: 110,000 Prussians beat 40,000 French
Craonne: 37,000 French beat 85,000 Russians / Prussians
Laon: 90,000 Prussians beat 37,000 French
Rheims: 10,000 French beat 15,000 Prussians
Montmartre: 107,000 Allies beat 23,000 French
Ligny: 68,000 French beat 84,000 Prussians
Wavre: 33,000 French beat 18,000 Prussians
Waterloo: 120,000 Allies beat 72,000 French.

Totting up, I make that 17 battles at which Prussians fought (I'll ignore Hanau, I only put that in as a laugh). They lost 8 of those battles, despite outnumbering the French in 7 of them.

Of the 9 that they won, they outnumbered the French every single time, by anything up to a factor of five. 7 of the 9 victories required Allied support. Only two were Prussian-only victories and in both those cases they outnumbered the French by 2.5 to 1.

So I'll rephrase my previous summary – the Prussians didn't lose most of their battles, they lost almost half of them despite numerical superiority, won 7 more (but with Allied help) and won 2 more on their own with huge numerical advantage.

It's not exactly the stuff of legend, is it?

If anyone can point me to where my previous questions get aired in any of PH's books I'll take a look. I don't recall any analysis in there that conceded the Prussians always got pwned in 1813-5 unless they had allies, superior numbers or preferably both.

@4th Cuirassiers

You speak only about the French, did they fight their battles alone? Didn't they employ in some of the battles you quote – also Allies – like Germans, Poles, Italians, Dutch – to name a few.

You are right that the Prussians fought along with Allies, but so did the Britsh and the French in a lot of battles as well.

To concentrate superior number on a battle field cannot be regarded as blame, it prooves concentration of forces.

I agree that the Prussian Army – as any other – shouldn't be stuff of legend.

Dear 4th Cuirassier

I wouldn't bother wasting your time trying to offer accurate information. Sadly, it will be ignored and you will be accused of siding with a certain author. Funny how that always seems to happen if you dare you disagree or offer facts some people just don't want to see.
Very interesting that VW has called the Poles, Italians and Dutch as Allies, not Germans. Wow, amazing.
As for the German or British victory nonsense, if you took it seriously, it could be seen as insult to all the allies who contributed and died during the Waterloo campaign. And I wonder if those who consider it a German victory, consider Austerlitz as a German defeat, because the Austrians (sorry, Germans) were there. We could just conveniently ignore the Russian contribution. Perhaps the real problem is that some people just can't accept that it took two ALLIED armies to defeat Napoleon? I can accept it, no problem, as I imagine you can. Funny that, isn't it? Anyway, you might be interested in a book I'm thinking of writing – 'Waterloo, the Belgian Victory'. Should sell like hot cakes.

I have, actually, met him in person, attended a seminar with him, chatted with him, and even had a beer with him.

(And lived to tell about it.)

That doesn't mean I agree with him on any given point. And as far as I was concerned, this thread wasn't really about *him*. It was about a certain other person who can't resist the opportunity to use pedantry to flog various personal and national biases, even when contradicting himself. It just happened that this most recent example had to do with a book title from P. Hofschroer.

That other person, I have yet to have the pleasure of meeting.

Out of curiosity who is the other person? names please

Schnurfel

Forgot to say congratulations on your successful meeting with Hofscroer you must have one of the lucky ones who actually enjoyed it.

I found PH's books interesting, since it looked at things from a different point of view. However, to claim the Waterloo campaign and battle was a German victory because there were more German speaking troops involved or that more Germans died during the fighting, is quite bizarre. If accepted, it would mean going back through history and counting up which winning side had the most of whatever nationality, or who lost the most men, and then calling it a victory for that particular nationality. And there is another train of thought that could be employed, in which the Prussian Army might be considered as crap (not that I think that), in that they lost at Ligny because they had no Allies to help them. So perhaps the German speaking units lost more men because they didn't have an Irish Wellington telling them to lie down and keep out of the way of musket and cannon balls. It is a suggestion for another way to look at what we already know about, which I believe is what PH's book is all about. Looking at what we already know about from a different point of view. So his original idea could be considered as good but his methods and evidence very poor. Still, he's got people talking about it, which could even be considered a 'German' victory.

Well done Kevin, you have thrown your "Germany" grenade into the discussion once again stirred it all up and then done a runner, this is all just a replay of a thread back in 98? on Max's forum, several on the NSF and quite a few here on TMP.

@Peter is on form again, not expecting anything useful from him, but possibly right that he has the opportunity to post, for the moment anyway.

@Vendome, LWF, VW, und SCHF thanks for keeping the discussion reasonable and intelligent, and nice to have some of you back.

@Gazzola – you will learn one day.

I have the first two of the 1815 books, didn't know there was a third, might pick it up one day, also have "smallest victory" signed by the man himself at the St Albans show, but never read beyond the introduction.

Hopefully the OP now has a fair idea of the books, the main players and even an entrance by the author! but has the question been answered?

Wagram – the German victory and defeat (mind you, there were plenty of Irish and at least one British senior commander kicking around on the defeated side)!

YouTube link

Song called "Oh du Deutschland" apparently played at Wagram.

Mark,

I do apologize, but I'm not on the forums all the time and at times I have to work late. So, again, my apologies. I am somewhat surprised that you have made remarks such as 'done a runner.' That is insulting and quite unacceptable. However, you may do as you like.

If you carefully check the thread, I wasn't the one that brought the subject up. I do believe that my comment was appropriate, and I also tend to look and listen when the subject gets heated instead of knee-jerk reactions which don't help any situation at all.

I do hope that you refrain from insult from now on, but apparently that is what this thread has degenerated into. Were you merely caught up in the general flow of the 'fury of the noncombatants?'

K

Dear Graf Bretlach

I have already learnt that there there are people who can't take what they like to give to others. Plus people like (PH), Hollins and fellow cronies, can't seem to stand anyone disagreeing or having different views. And it is really sad and pathetic that, because they can't convince someone to think THEIR way (VE HAV VAYS TO MAKE YOU TINK LIKE US) they resort to personal attacks. The site should be about debate and discussion and EVERYONE learning from it. I'm quite happy to be wrong on matters that others may know more about, but some people will never change, I suppose and just like to play mind games. They seem to get ever so upset if they can't convince you that THEY are right. Perhaps they're not used to people thinking for themselves and not impressed by them, whatever they say or have done. And what a sad life they must lead. And what a good excuse it is to throw the blame on Kevin all the time. How convenient. After the numerous personal attacks by the some of the biased fools attending this site, I'm surprised he bothers to post at all. He doesn't have to reply to anyone, no one does. If he has sparked off a debate, good, what's wrong with that? It certain got people talking, which is the whole idea, isn't it? It also brought up the DUMB title 'German Victory', which was after all just a good publicity ploy and stunt to attract attention to sell, what are not really all that good books. And I'm sure there will be people who will not waste their money on them now, so well done everyone. One nil to REAL Napoleonic enthusiasts.

John,

Great posting and right on the money. You did forget one thing, though, and that is some folks misquoting people they disagree with to bend the argument their way. I'll attend to that one later today. Keep up the good work.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dave I dont follow you on the German defeat I only joined in this debate because

Kevin, wasn't intended as an insult, just a statement on something you do on the forums on a regular basis and have done ever since I have known you, so I too apologize if I have caused offense, but I think you knew the reaction you would get before you typed.

I personally think "The German Victory" was a good sub-title to a book describing the contribution of the German soldier to 1815, and I tend to have a French bias (despite my name)it is just a title of a book, the content is good and very useful to the English reader.

Now where and what was the windmill of Bussy at Brye, a good discussion on that would be very interesting as also the actual meeting.

Peter, it does make entertaining reading when nothing better to do, but I don't think 4th cuirassier or Wagram deserver the personal insults from yourself, if that is all you have to say, why bother?

Dear Wagram

I wondered about Dave's statement. Perhaps he has gone along the same silly route as PH, albeit possibly in a joking way and extending it, in that the name France possibly came from the Franks, who were, I believe a Germanic tribe, so it was obviously Germans fighting Germans at Waterloo, which meant it was both a German victory and a defeat, as DH says. And DH is never wrong, is he? Silly, stupid and insane of course, but fun for some people I suppose, unless of course, they actually believe it? My apologies to Dave in advance if that was not his train of thought. You've got to be careful on this site, haven't you.

I think he is referring to the battle of Wagram (1806?) where lots of "Germans" took part on both sides, certainly there were Germanic-Irish-Austro-Hungarians, better known as Eastern-Empirans.

Was the Brit Wilson?

No, Swinburne, a Yorkshire-born GM in IV korps.

I know of at least one German on the Eastern-Empiran side, a certain fähnrich who reckoned the Frankish artillery was crap shots (or was he Polish)and of course the Franks were led by a certain Shrek from Corsica, so maybe a Corso-Franko-Shrekish victory, all starting to sound very silly, so will stop now.

Ahh a Yorkshire man, is that still Britain?

‘Kevin's argument against using the word "German" is silly.'

Could you please show me where I have an argument against the word/term ‘German.' What I stated was that as a term for a German nation in 1815 I don't agree with that, as there was not one German nation in 1815, but multiple sovereign states in the territory known as Germany. So, your statement here is incorrect.

‘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.'

There was a German ethnicity but not a nation as there was not one German state that encompassed the whole of Germany. That is my point and to try and create one by force of argument is not only factually incorrect, it is ludicrous. The German states within what was known as the Holy Roman Empire not only didn't always obey, they sometimes fought against each other in the series of European wars after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

‘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…'

Where did I say that? My point, again, was that there was no German state that incorporated most or all of Germany until 1871 as a functioning state and that those Germans that composed the smaller, independent German states prior to that time, especially prior to 1815, believed themselves to be Bavarians, Wurttenbergers, Badeners, etc., before they considered themselves to be Germans. Further, those states fought long and hard not to be absorbed into either Prussia or Austria and in a crisis would ally themselves with a powerful state, such as France, to maintain their independence and sovereignty.

‘Whether they were loyal to specific German states first and foremost is a totally separate question.'

No-it is the same question and one topic cannot be discussed without the other. The idea of a united Germany was largely a philosophical question prior to 1815 and did not become a reality until at least one revolution and three foreign wars were conducted in order to unite Germany under Prussia's leadership.

‘go out of his way to criticize the book by alleging such a pedantic point as whether or not the word "German" should appear in the subtitle… then that person probably has other (and many) axes grinding away busily.'

I didn't go out of my way to do anything. I merely made a comment, which I have supported in the argument, and people took offense. That really is too bad because when taking offense the personal attacks started. Sometimes when one side begins losing an argument, the personal comments/attacks start. That is a definite indicator and concession that the argument is lost and it is not only ignorant to do so it reduces everything to the lowest common denominator. After that, there really is no point in continuing. I believe that we shouldn't do that here.

‘I thought that the issue was your critique of P.H.'s book with the words:"The only problem with that is there was no political state of Germany under one government and there wouldn't be until 1871."'

I didn't critique any book. I merely replied to another poster regarding the phrase ‘The German Victory' in the title of the book. My point was that it was an allied victory at Waterloo, not a German one. And if you look, you might see that I reviewed both of the books very favorably on Amazon years ago. And I have both of them in my library.

‘i.e., you object to his book ("the only problem") solely because he used the word "German", when there was no such nation-state at the time.'

Again, I'm not objecting to the book, so please don't say that I am. It is incorrect to say so and somewhat annoying.

‘That was the issue, as you raised it. You didn't raise any other critique of his book; just his use of the word "German."'

As in ‘the German victory.' I do hope you are clear on that point now. You are taking material out of context.

‘Otherwise, it strikes us that you go out of your way to apply this sort of reasoning only to the Germans. Over and over and over again. Utterly immune to correction, when presented with dozens of opportunities to read Germans of that period, using the word "German" to describe themselves.'

Wasn't that one of the topics in the thread before I posted anything? I'm not criticizing Germans in the posting, merely the misuse of a term. I did continue on about Prussia, because Prussian foreign policy for 1813-1815 voracious on the subject of how much of Germany they could ‘liberate' for themselves, as well as their conduct against civilians of different nationalities. How they treated the former states of the Confederation of the Rhine was also very aggressive and the Prussians had a voracious appetite for other German territory.

‘There was a Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.'
And that meant what, exactly? The Germans were not a united people, there was little if any loyalty to the Holy Roman Emperor after 1648 and the sovereign states did basically what they wanted-that isn't an empire.
P.H. didn't use the term in reference to a German state. You're the one who insisted on that interpretation, so that you could criticize it. I've seen you do this dozens of times. You know full well that P.H. was not referring to any German state, but rather to "Germans" of several states. i.e., the German nationality.
I would disagree with your conclusion here, but that probably is a futile argument.

‘"The Mamelukes originally, if I'm not mistaken, came from Europe originally." No, they didn't. In any event, they had been living in Egypt for nearly eight centuries by the time Napoleon arrived.'

Do you know where they came from? I've seen at least two versions-first from Turkish tribes in Asia, and second from the Caucasus, they being Circassians.

‘Do you seriously expect anybody to believe that you refer to the Mamelukes during the Napoleonic Wars as "Europeans?"'

Where did I say that? You are creating a strawman argument here, but for what reason I have no idea.
‘Well, we agree on the point, apparently, that ethnicity/nationality does not require a nation-state.'

No, we don't. Having a nationality comes from having a nation-state I would think.

‘You just make an exception for Germans, for some reason.'

What exception is that? You seem bound and determined to ignore what is written by anyone you disagree with if it doesn't suit your agenda. You're arguing here just for argument's sake and getting personal while you do it. I would suggest that you leave the personal material out and stay with what people actually state on the forum, not what you think they say or want them to say.

‘Kevin, you're very fond of that Goethe quote. You've used it a dozen or so times over the years. Has it ever occurred to you….
Goethe, a German, wrote that long, long before there was a nation-state called "Germany."'

And your point? Where have I said there were no Germans? And the quote is quite good and useful, I think.

‘That's rather curious, don't you think? Why would Kevin include a quote referencing "Germans" when writing about the 1806 Prussians… if he so fervently believes that they weren't "Germans" yet because there wasn't a German nation-state?'

Could you please point out where I have said there were no Germans?

‘Why would Kevin then say that P. Hofschroer was wrong to use the word in the subtitle of a book about German soldiers from various German states? Unless, of course, that was never really the basis for Kevin's critique, and all of this circular and evasive argument was just an excuse or façade for something much simpler, like personal rivalry or simple bias.'

I have not presented either a ‘circular or evasive argument' (though a case could be made that you are doing exactly that), and what ‘personal rivalry' are you talking about along with the ‘simple bias' comment? It seems to me that now you're just taking shots in the dark to obfuscate a very simple discussion/argument. I also didn't say anyone was wrong. I merely don't agree with it. If you don't like it, that's fine too. You don't have to go writing a diatribe based on personal comments because you disagree with someone.

'That would help explain why an otherwise knowledgeable and intelligent person has painted himself into such a strange little corner, where he has to ignore the frequent historical use of the word "Germans", even by Napoleon himself, to describe people living in a region known to everybody at the time as "Germany."'

Where have I ignored the term ‘German/Germans'?

‘The tone that you have observed, in the exchanges between Kevin and others, is the result of a very long (10+ years) history of Kevin conveniently not understanding things when it suits him, and doing everything humanly possible to avoid admitting any error or contradiction, while simultaneously using the "misunderstanding" as a way to criticize others. (Hence his willingness to throw around a Goethe quote that mentions "Germans," and even including it in his own article about Prussia in 1806.. while simultaneously saying that Peter Hofschroer was wrong to use the word in the subtitle of a book, because "Germans" didn't exist yet, prior to 1871.)'

Besides being incorrect in your personal ‘assessment' (along with insulting to boot) I never said that ‘‘Germans' didn't exist…prior to 1871.' If you believe that I actually said that, could you please point it out to me and others? Your personal comments also need to stop. Besides becoming very tiresome, they are out of line and just plain wrong.

‘Kevin has issues with Germans (and some other nationalities),'

That is utter nonsense and quite insulting in the way you are insinuating it. Again, I'm asking you to stop the personal comments.

‘And it's more than a bit mendacious for Kevin to pretend that that's his objection/argument to the book… when he loves to throw around a Goethe quote that refers to "the Germans", and adorn his own writing with it, when he's writing about 1806 Prussia.'

One more time, I am asking you to stop the personal remarks as they do not contribute to any discussion on the forum. The term ‘mendacious' is pejorative and you have no right to apply that to people with whom you speak, especially on the internet. It is also incorrect. I have not done anything or said anything mendaciously on the forums or in any of my writings.

K

Dear Pat,

Unfortunately you did 'start a war'. This Napoleonic board seems to generate some really bizarre and personal threads of which this is a really good example. Mr Hofschroer is evidently not very popular here and it does seem that he is one of those people with a low tolerance level of people he thinks are stupid. He is certainly childish and rude but he is in pretty good company. It does not make very edifying reading. I can't think of many recent books on Waterloo which are based on so many original sources as Mr Hofschroer's but I gather it was his conclusions about Wellington and his focus on the German contribution which was unpopular. A case of shooting the messenger. If you are interested in the 100 Days Campaign as a whole I would read his books after which you will be able to form an opinion of the value of the message for yourself.

If you do you will see that he applies the word German as a collective noun to the group of 25,000 ethnic Germans who served in Wellington's army and those in the Prussian Army and as an adjective to describe the ultimate victory to which he believes they contributed most. It is a matter of fact that a geographical region of Europe called Germany existed for centuries before 1815 and the people who lived their were called Germans and spoke a language called German. Neither anybody here nor Mr Hofschroer have claimed that Germany was a 'nation state' in 1815 so there is no need to debate this unless one is just looking for a fight. There is nothing incorrect or ambiguous about Mr Hofschroer's use of the word German that I can see and it can really only confuse people who want to be confused, the agents provocateurs, and those Mr Hofschroer considers fools and hard to suffer gladly.

Yours Sincerely

Bill