
"Surprise Christmas Present......." Topic
614 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board Back to the Napoleonic Media Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article I paint the last two figures from the Escape from the Dark Czar starter set.
Featured Workbench Article
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
10th Marines | 27 Jan 2011 5:22 p.m. PST |
'I got $10 USD USD on who pushed the "tell the teacher" button on von Wint.' Well, don't keep us in suspense-tell us who did it and we can see if you win or not. K |
10th Marines | 27 Jan 2011 5:24 p.m. PST |
Mark, Please tell us who the ''butter won't melt' brigade' is-your 'insight' might be both interesting and helpful. K |
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 27 Jan 2011 5:56 p.m. PST |
The problem is that those, who wish to discuss the issue will use the Stifle button as it is meant to do. The Tendency will bait and use inflammatory language to get a response from those who don't use that Stifle, on whom they then use the button (missing the irony), but that may be more to do with silencing those, whom they disagree with. The Stifle button is there – I can Wint and K wanting to listen to all views, but it is better to grey them out. |
Editor in Chief Bill  | 27 Jan 2011 7:13 p.m. PST |
4th Cuir wrote "Incidentally, it looks to me like PH's increasingly childish posts have now been deleted from the thread."Those comments are certainly in the same category or worse than what Von Wint and Khavenhuller were DHed for. Nonsense. 4th Cuir's comment is not a personal comment, but a comment directly regarding the posts at hand. That's not against the forum rules. |
Lest We Forget | 27 Jan 2011 7:26 p.m. PST |
I never argue with the host. Explanation accepted RE: 4th Cuir. 4th Cuir--I retract my comment. |
Monophagos | 27 Jan 2011 7:52 p.m. PST |
Personally, I find the rabid nationalism of PH quite laughable – according to his Osprey book on Prussian Light Infantry, the Prussian army in 1806 was the most efficient and invincible army of all time. Funnily enough they lost though. Similar sentiments are expressed at times on this board regarding other armies that lost – the Italians in WW2, or the USA in Vietnam for instance. The troops may have fought bravely, but there was something lacking in terms of the strategy, tactics, equipment, organization, leadership or war aims and consequntly they got beat. Facts is facts and you have to accept history and not try to spin it into fantasy because of persoanl preference or prejudice
|
Lest We Forget | 27 Jan 2011 8:15 p.m. PST |
M: You conclude "Facts is facts and you have to accept history and not try to spin it into fantasy because of personal preference or prejudice
" History is written by people. Napoleon stated on several occasions that history is made up of lies agreed upon by people. Fact "Bernadotte failed to come to Davout's aid." Explaining that fact is interpretation. If you agree with an interpretation it is "history." If you disagree it is it "spinned fantasy?" You claim what PH writes is "rabid nationalism" [mere assertion as it is just your unsupported opinion]. Perhaps you can rephrase "I disagree with PH and think that his writing suffers from rabid nationalism." But, in the end, is that not just personal preference or prejudice on your part? How about the Consular Guard was obliterated at Marengo? Is that a fact? Or, the Consular Guard survived Marengo intact and with honor. Is that a fact? Facts that are not disputed are boring and do not make for interesting historical writing. An account that attempts to answer the question will at least be interesting and perhaps some learning will occur. [didn't mean to draw you into an argument DH, the Marengo guard idea just popped into my head as a good example]. |
Monophagos | 27 Jan 2011 8:57 p.m. PST |
Oops my mistake. The Prussians won at Jena and Auerstatdt, the Italians captured both Athens and Cairo in 1941, and the republic of South Vietnam absorbed the North in 1972
. |
Lest We Forget | 27 Jan 2011 9:14 p.m. PST |
Based on your impeccably argued opinion I'm going to run outside and burn my copies of PH's books. Now I'm a believer, not a trace of doubt in my mind. P.S. I just read an online battle report by a wargaming club where the Prussians won at Jena (but it was the Germans in their ranks that turned the tide). I can't wait for the book! |
raducci | 28 Jan 2011 12:06 a.m. PST |
It looks to me as if it wasn't the Prussians who won at waterloo but the forces of acrimony. They certainly prevailed in this thread. |
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 28 Jan 2011 3:00 a.m. PST |
Monophagos is making a common error of merely consiodering who won on the day – ! The popular view of N is that the GA was the best in every way, because it won and that the British were the best overall as they won in psain and in 1815. If you look at 1806, it was a monumental foulup in ops and planning, which led to Auerstadt and that while he did well, Davout had the terrain advantage. Nevertheless, the French had been trained for two years and had already fought one successful campaign – against an Allied command in disorder as was also the case with the Prussians. The financial cost had been huge and in he end, like the Nazis, the hunger for more wealth destroyed the underlying army and state. These things are much morem complex than they are presented as – but it never does any harm just to emphasise the issues in 1815 and 1800, just to get noticed and add to sales. Much like the History Channel being much diminished without Adolf, the boards would have been rather quieter without the battles at the either end of N's rules! |
4th Cuirassier  | 28 Jan 2011 3:32 a.m. PST |
Dave makes a good point as usual. The fact that an army won doesn't make it the best. Equally, the fact that it lost doesn't make it the worst. It could simply have been badly outnumbered, for example. My impression of the Prussian army is that it was a great army – on paper. So it did all the adminny stuff well, such as looking after its horses in Russia and having a nice drill squadron. When it came to tacks, though, its actual combat record is, as I suggested above, hardly the stuff of legend. It lost half its battles and those it won featured either an ally or superior numbers or both, with barely an exception. I take the point that someone who concentrates superior numbers on the field of battle has done something right. Conversely, though, other armies didn't seem to rely on achieving this to win, to the extent to which the Prussians did. Get a sufficiency of British, Russian, or Austrian troops into action, and doctrine and elan prevailed. Indeed, the only battles I can recall where Napoleon won with the numerical advantage are Jena and Wagram. The man did the business most other times despite the odds. Hence I arrive at the view that, whatever its other virtues, the Prussian army was the worst of the Big Five and quite a lot worse than several of the rest, notably Italy and the Netherlands. The relevance to the thread being that if these guys were such martial giants, why didn't they end the campaign all on their lonesome on June 16th? 84,000 versus 68,000, flanks secure, reinforcements en route, and ground they chose? |
(religious bigot) | 28 Jan 2011 3:39 a.m. PST |
But there was no such thing as Italy. Sure, there might have been a "kingdom of Italy" but blah blah
. |
4th Cuirassier  | 28 Jan 2011 4:11 a.m. PST |
@ SR Italy, like Germany and Iberia, has always been a useful geographical expression. There is even a Latin word for Italian. |
XV Brigada | 28 Jan 2011 7:11 a.m. PST |
Can anybody point to where Mr Hofschroer says in his book on Prussian Light Infantry that "the Prussian army in 1806 was the most efficient and invincible army of all time." Maybe TMP needs a 'Get Hoffie' board :-) Regards Bill |
Gazzola | 28 Jan 2011 12:22 p.m. PST |
Anyone watching Julie Bradbury's German Wanderlust (BBC 2, Friday) this one is about Bavaria. Brilliant programme. Enjoying every minute of the series so far. Recommended. |
Monophagos | 28 Jan 2011 6:49 p.m. PST |
, why do I still bother with this website? Nobody on here as any sense of irony or reading beyond the printed word
..
If the Prussian army in 1806 was so ing good, how come they lost? 
Bil, Doghouse me for God's sake! I have my mitt and baseball ready
|
Monophagos | 28 Jan 2011 6:53 p.m. PST |
In terms of German bnationhood in Napoleonic times, how come Bavaria and Saxony were on the French side for most of the period? For all you Germans and German-loving Americans remember this song from Britain (to the tune of "Campdown Ladies"): "One World Cup and Two World Wars! do-da, do-da" |
10th Marines | 28 Jan 2011 7:08 p.m. PST |
The following excerpts are from the History of Germany 1780-1918 by David Blackbourn. He is one of a string of scholars on German history that agree on what the Holy Roman Empire was and what it wasn't, as has already been posted along with material from a list of books on the subject. ‘The countless borders on which smugglers operated were a product of Germany's political fragmentation. There was, in fact, no ‘Germany' at the end of the eighteenth century, although there was something that sounded as if it might be: the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. But this ramshackle, invertebrate entity neither was, nor aspired to be, a German nation state
.The empire was neither a nation-state, nor indeed a modern, territorial state of any kind. It was a product of historical accretion, loosely draped over an array of independent, highly diverse territories.' -10. The next excerpt from the same volume definitely takes a dim view of ‘German nationalism' of the Napoleonic period and takes the view that it was an idea, and not something that was fact, and that Prussian propaganda blew it up into something it was not to further their own territorial aims after 1814. ‘Hohenzollern (and Hapsburg) calculations in the period 1813-1814 are a reminder that the ‘war of national liberation' described by later nationalists was largely a legend. Frederick William's belated appeal to ‘my people' met with widespread indifference, which can be measured by resistance to conscription and high levels of desertion. The methods used to mobilize and discipline the soldiers were not so very different from the methods used in earlier decades; they were just used more effectively. Many of the extra officers drafted in to the army were fished out of the pool of men dismissed after 1806. It was a war of princes that led to the so-called Battle of the Nations at Leipzig. There was no spontaneous Prussian uprising in 1813, let alone a German-wide movement, nothing to be compared with the guerilla war in Spain or even the 1809 revolt in the Tyrol. The role of the volunteer detachments was exaggerated by nationalist historiography, like the part played by students within them. Nevertheless, there were nationalist feelings at work that had been absent twenty years earlier. Reformist leanings among officials and younger army officers overlapped with a ‘patriotic' spirit. This fueled the contempt towards the German princes displayed by some reformers; it also explains why Stein and Clausewitz went to Russia and Gneisenau to England when Prussia capitulated to Napoleon in 1812, and why many officers resigned. Particularly among the members of the educated middle class we can see a heightened patriotic sentiment. It was conditioned by the disappearance of the Holy Roman Empire, sharpened by French occupation, and fed by the growing interest in German language, history and folkways shown by intellectuals like Herder and Schlegel. This early nationalism had different inflections, from idealistic patriotism rooted in an older cosmopolitan spirit (as in the Konigsberg League of Virtue), to a more mystical enthusiasm for German virtues that stemmed from turn-of-the-century Romanticism and sometimes extended to belief in a German mission. Familiar examples of this second kind of nationalism, in which bathos mingled with anti-French xenophobia, include the egregious belligerence of the gymnastic instyructor ‘Turnvater Jahn', the war songs of Korner and Eichendorff, the ‘Speeches to the German Nation' of philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, and the Francophobe literary vitriol of Heinrich von Kleist. The trope of the French ‘archenemy' was expressed with particular violence in the ‘catechism' of the publicist Ernst Moritz Arndt: ‘I hate all the French without exception in the name of God and my people.' ‘This kind of visceral hostility to the ‘archenemy' naturally had its mirror image on the French side. And we need to place sentiments of this kind in context. They were not the only currents that flowed into later German nationalism, nor did they enjoy widespread support at the time. Against the roster of nationalist intellectuals we have to set not only the continuing admirers of Napoleon (they included Goethe, Hegel, and Heine), but the much greater numbers of those who felt themselves to be Saxons, or Bavarians, not Germans. The apostles of liberation and regeneration were largely confined to Prussia, and many who referred to the Fatherland still meant Prussia. That is important. It is sometimes said that the educated middle class found a new source of identity in the nation at a time of crisis. No doubt: but we should not forget the continuing hold of state, dynastic, local, and religious loyalties. Lower down the social scale these loyalties were of primary importance. When Jakob Walter later described returning from the Russian campaign, he expressed his relief at finding himself back where ‘German life began again.' But it is clear that he felt himself to be truly home only when he reached Swabia, and more specifically the area around his own village, just as it in clear that during years away from home he felt more comfortable as a Catholic in the company of Polish peasants than with Saxon fellow-Germans. 67-68. So it appears that the idea of a united ‘Germany' before 1871 was not a reality and a sense of being ‘German' was subordinate to being a Bavarian, a Wurttemberger, etc. despite the speeches of Fichte, the poems of Korner, and the other ‘indicators' mentioned earlier in the thread. In short, Germany was a physical location but not a state, despite opinions to the contrary. And, Vendome, perhaps it is you who should 'hit the books' as your somewhat condescending and inaccurate postings, with their accusations of strawman arguments, definitely show a lack of understanding of what Germany and Germans were during the Napoleonic period. K |
Monophagos | 28 Jan 2011 7:10 p.m. PST |
Mr Hollins if you notice I said that due to poor planning brave armies, or ones with really nice uniforms, lose to those who fight harder, have better weapons, more soldiers or effective leadership
 |
ochoin deach | 29 Jan 2011 12:33 a.m. PST |
@ monophagus You need to get past Dave's anti-American attitudes. He does after all balance them with his anti-French rhetoric 87) The anti-Prussian sentiments of many southern Germans is still alive & strong BTW. I was just reading how in The Great War, a Bavarian unit called over to the Tommies in the trenches opposite that they were being replaced by Prussians on the morrow & to be sure to give it to them hot. Still you can't deny some feelings of Pan German nationalism & anti-Bonapartism amongst many German people in 1813-15. |
10th Marines | 29 Jan 2011 5:40 a.m. PST |
You're correct-you can't. But the anti-French and anti-Napoleon feelings of some of the assorted Germans and especially the idealism of Pan German Nationalism is very debatable. The latter being more so than the former. The concept of 'Fatherland' being another term for Prussia I found very intresting. The German nationalism question I also found to be an idea rather than a tangible reality. Prussia didn't rise in revolt in 1813 any more than the German states did in response to the Austrian invasion of Bavaria in 1809 when urged by Charles to 'break their German brothers' chains.' The response of the Confederation of the Rhine in 1809 was to go to war against Austria and play a significant part in the French victory. Even in 1813 the Wurttemberg contingent stayed with the French until after Leipzig and only turned home upon summons from their king because the allies were threatening Wurttemberg. Prussia's 'mission' in 1813-1814 was to grab as much of Germany as she could and make it Prussian. The idea of 'liberation' is nonsense. Even in Prussia, with all the anti-French tub-thumping that went on, many Prussians were not enthused about being shot at and conscription had to be put in place by force by the Prussian army. Korner wrote about that draft-dodging by the Prussians too. It was the same in 1806-Prussian fortresses that were well-manned and -armed and were also well-stocked surrendered without a fight to small numbers of French cavalry, Lasalle's foray being the most famous. And the Prussian civil authorities submitted meekly to French occupation. Though I don't like to use the term as it has been used to much and also too much abused, there is too much myth of the German response in 1813-1815 and that was 20/20 hindsight by German nationalist 'historians' who overlook episodes such as the Saxon mutiny in 1815 that almost caught Blucher and he had to escape being lynched by running out of the back door of his headquarters. Sincerely, Kevin |
ochoin deach | 29 Jan 2011 6:12 a.m. PST |
Kevin, you are correct: it is impossible to decide the number of German Nationalists in the period. I would guess it to be very small: basically the intelligentsia. It is important not to confuse embryo nationalism with simple xenophobia. Such a failure to distinguish between the two is a frequent fault of what I call Osprey History: a complex matter jammed into a few pages of examination. |
10th Marines | 29 Jan 2011 12:24 p.m. PST |
Exactly and a good analogy. I've been interested in the Germans for quite some time-at least thirty years, undoubtedly aided by me being stationed there twice. I also looked at ten different volumes on Germany, the Germans, and the Prussian and German armies and I've ordered two more that might be helpful. One of the benefits of participating in the internet forums is getting names of useful books to have and to read and use. Sincerley, Kevin |
basileus66 | 29 Jan 2011 3:40 p.m. PST |
What I don't understand is where is the link between German nationalism or the idea of Germany, and the criticism to PH's books title. I read the books, and besides being history at its borest, he just claimed that Waterloo was as much a German victory -because a majority of the troops involved were from German countries- as a British one. PH just tried to balance the narratives on Waterloo, usually focused on the British side of the battle. He overstated his case, and nobody in his right sense would deny that after reading his book. However that's how historical knowledge can progress: competing interpretations of facts, that then are rechecked by other scholars. I don't know if PH is a German nationalist or not -though some posters have claimed that he is, I can't affirm that only based on hearsay-. His books looked to me like those of a dilettante with more enthusiasm than actual knowledge about how to compose a historical analysis. They have some value, though, and just dismissing them as anti-British pamphlets is as narrow minded as taking them as the new Gospel on Waterloo. Come on! They are just one between other dozens of books! We can be more open minded than that, can't we? |
Arteis | 29 Jan 2011 4:43 p.m. PST |
I don't know if PH is a German nationalist or not I thought Peter Hofschröer was British? Though I guess that still doesn't stop him being a German nationalist, or not. |
4th Cuirassier  | 29 Jan 2011 5:04 p.m. PST |
I think the issue with the alleged "German" victory is that its plausibility depends heavily on there being either a German national consciousness in 1815, or on the participants claimed as German becoming part of the later political entity called Germany. I don't see how else you can call any event or outcome "German". As we have seen in this thread, the idea of a German national consciousness in 1815 is at least highly questionable. Meanwhile, associating a number of disparate states that later became Germany together, so as to claim the battle retrospectively as a "German" victory, is clearly dodgy too. It's anachronistic, and to the extent the participants would have understood the claim they'd likely have done so in geographical terms, in the same way that Rorke's Drift could be considered a "European" victory. Absent that, what is left of PH's claims? Not very much. Most of Wellington's army wasn't British? Er, yes, we knew that. Germans today think they won the battle? I'm sure they do. They need to read one of those British historians who claims the battle as a British victory, if ever we manage to identify one. Seven pages of the thread and no sign of him. So
.what we are left with is that PH has done a fine job of translating and ferreting in German-language archives, which is more than most. It remains intellectually respectable to disagree with his conclusions. |
14Bore | 29 Jan 2011 7:34 p.m. PST |
If nothing else, I've always wanted to read his book and next book I get is probably going to be it |
basileus66 | 30 Jan 2011 4:01 a.m. PST |
4th Cuirassier Germany as a nation state didn't exist in 1815, nobody has denied it. What some posters have claimed is that the culture, background and language of a majority of the soldiers that fought at Waterloo in the allies side were German. Personally, I am not sure that common background justifies the idea of German victory, though. Peter Höfschroer doesn't prove that the idea of being German existed between the allied contingents; nor that they had an actual conscience of being part of something bigger than their regional background. One thing is that intellectuals and elites have a German conscience and other is that the people of German lands had it. However, even if the claim of PH of Waterloo being a 'German'n victory is erroneous or not, it doesn't matter. PH's books will be valuable, even if you disagree with his most far fetched conclusions. You said that no historian has claimed that Waterloo was a British victory, but an allied one. But although all narratives of the battle have recognised Prussian and other contingents intervention in the victory at Waterloo, how many of those same books have been focused in their experience of the battle before PH's books? Not many. Most of them are centered upon the British or French experiences. Wellington has occupied the center of the stage, and his British regiments too. The Germans contingents have been relegated to secondary roles in the narratives. Take Quatre Bras, for example. There are more books centered upon the experiences of the British regiments than upon the Dutch-Belgian contingent, though they made the majority of the units in the field. A new account of the battle was needed. PH tried to balance the narrative, passing the focus of the story from the British to the German contingents; from Wellington to Blucher; from Quatre Bras to Ligny. In my opinion, PH overstated his case, and instead writing a balanced analysis what we have is a Germano-centric story that is in its own way as misleading as former British-centric narratives. PH threw the baby with the water, regretfully. As you say, -and I agree- it's intellectually respectable to disagree with PH conclusions. What I don't find equally respectable is to dismiss his conclusions off hand, just because they don't conform to accepted wisdom. Some of his insights have a solid basis. For example, he claims that Wellington deployed his army at the beggining of the campaign with an eye to have open his lines of retreat to the coast, and that's why he was caught wrong footed by Napoleon at the start of the operations. That is consistent with Wellington's previous record at Spain, where his main concern was the survival of his army. Moreover it was a sensible concern, as he was aware that Great Britain hadn't the reserves to absorb as many loses as the Continental powers. Only when he was sure that the Prussians and Dutch-Belgians weren't going desert the alliance, he decided to confront Napoleon. Which, I insist, was a sensible approach. Wellington's duty was first a foremost to his king and country's interests, not to Prussia's or Netherland's. To expect otherwise is not only naive, but also absurd. However, once Wellington decided to fight Napoleon at Waterloo, the plan of the battle was his, not Blucher's. The Prussians conformed to Wellington's plans and deployment, not the other way around. German and Dutch-Belgian contingents were subordinated to Wellington, and obeyed his orders and conformed to his plans and deployments. In that sense, Waterloo was a victory of his making, not Blucher's or Perponcher's or anybody else. Wellington made a gamble and it paid off. He was able to outsmart Napoleon. The biggest mistake of PH is, in my opinion, that he allowed his agenda to take over his common sense. State that Waterloo was a German victory is as erroneous as saying that it was a British one. None of the allied contingents could have defeated Napoleon by themselves. And still this statement I just have made is only an educated guess based upon logic, because the only thing that we do know for sure is that the victory resulted from co-operation. In the end we can't be prove that Wellington's army couldn't have been able to defeat Napoleon alone, as we can't reproduce the battle and know beyond any doubt which elements were more decissive than others for the final outcome. Best regards |
XV Brigada | 30 Jan 2011 4:19 a.m. PST |
The question that developed from the original post was whether it is proper to apply the adjective 'German' to describe the victory of Waterloo. I hope it is otherwise we will need to find another adjective to describe 'German' states which certainly existed in 1815 and other 'German' things. Most book are much easier to criticise than to write and whether Mr Hofschroer has developed a valid argument to support his conclusion that Waterloo was a 'German' victory is something else entirely and depends on his premises which are in essence I think that it was soldiers originating from the German states that were the largest in number had the most casualties and did a larger part of the fighting during the campaign. Some have taken the view that they are not relevant to his argument but that is largely a matter of opinion as far as I can see and does not make them incorrect. One can certainly disagree with his conclusion but what his argument does not depend on is whether there was a German nation state or a united Germany in 1815 and as nobody has said there was what the present argument is now about is not very obvious. For those who are interested in Germany the Cambridge University Press have a social and economic study. It is in three volumes starting with medieval Germany covering the periods from 1450 to 1630, 1630 to 1800 and 1800 to the present respectively. That there was a place called Germany, people called Germans collectively and a language called German long before 1815 is clear enough. Can somebody turn the lights out when they are finished:-) Bill |
basileus66 | 30 Jan 2011 5:23 a.m. PST |
Bill I don't think that 'German victory' is an accurate description. But not because Germany did or didn't exist. Mr. Höfschroer doesn't proves that the campaign plan or the battle deployment was 'German' in any way. He assumes that because the Prussian intervention was decisive, and because most regiments in Wellington's army were from German lands, it was a German victory. But that doesn't make sense. At least, not more sense that claiming that it was a British victory. We can agree that the victory over Napoleon was a consequence of the co-operation between different armies, which, at times, had conflicting interests, that could be put aside because Napoleon was perceived as a bigger threat. What if many units in Wellington's army were German or not? At the end, it doesn't matter. They were units that were under Wellington direct command, and therefore subjected to the strategical interests of Great Britain -as expressed through her representative in the battlefield, Wellington- and deployed and tactically employed after the orders of Wellington. And Wellington hadn't in mind the interests of Germany -either it existed or it didn't-, but those of Great Britain. In the part of the battlefield under Wellington's command, the only objective was to protect those British interests. Germany, German countries and Netherlands were secondary for the Iron Duke. In a sense, Waterloo was two different battles: a German battle, as fought by the Prussians; and a British battle, as fought by the coalition under Wellington's command. Best Antonio |
XV Brigada | 30 Jan 2011 5:57 a.m. PST |
Dear Antonio, You are certainly not alone in believing that Mr Hofschroer doesn't make his case. As 4th points out it is perfectly acceptable to disagree with him. One either accepts his premises and therefore his conclusions or not but whether German was united or a nation state is irrelevant to his argument. Bill |
10th Marines | 30 Jan 2011 7:27 a.m. PST |
'but whether German was united or a nation state is irrelevant to his argument.' Bill, I disagree-that is the argument based on the conclusion in the books. Merely stating 'the German victory' sets up the notion that 'Germany' is the issue. To my mind, if that is going to be at least part of the argument, then stateing 'the Prussian victory' would have made much more sense. At least two posters have mentioned that there was a German state, the Holy Roman Empire, before 1871 and that has been shown to be nonsense. What has also been neglected is the Saxon mutiny against the Prussians before Waterloo. The entire thread has been too much hyperbole and much nonsense (though thankfully that has been deleted) and not much material to support the arguments presented. Maybe next time the personal attacks won't take place. K |
10th Marines | 30 Jan 2011 8:50 a.m. PST |
'The question that developed from the original post was whether it is proper to apply the adjective 'German' to describe the victory of Waterloo.' That is correct. And the other question is whether or not the assorted Germans that composed Wellington's Anglo-Dutch army considered themselves 'Germans' first and whatever (Hanoverians, Nassauers, Brunswickers, etc.) second. By some of the material I found and posted, it appears that they considered themselves both, generally with the state to which they belonged coming first-the German 'nation' being a separate idealistic entity from the many German states reality. For example, the Germans making up the King's German Legion were in British service, so technically, they were British troops; Hanoverians owed at least some type of allegiance to George III. The Nassauers, whether ethnic Germans or not, belonged to Holland, so were they actually Dutch? The Prussians were definitely Prussians first and Germans second and the reverse idea was a product of later-German/Prussian nationalists, as clearly demonstrated in Blackbourn's book on Germany. 'I hope it is otherwise we will need to find another adjective to describe 'German' states which certainly existed in 1815 and other 'German' things.' Why would we, or anyone else, have to? There has been no denial that there were Germans and German states during the period. That is not the point of contention-it might also be a strawman argument. The issue is was Waterloo a 'German' victory. I say no-it was an allied victory. And in that context, the term 'German' to my mind insinuates that there was a physical German 'nation' as in a state, to support that theory. And that idea cannot be supported by any of the evidence so far. Sincerely, K |
basileus66 | 30 Jan 2011 8:50 a.m. PST |
Merely stating 'the German victory' sets up the notion that 'Germany' is the issue. To my mind, if that is going to be at least part of the argument, then stateing 'the Prussian victory' would have made much more sense Kevin I don't think that that was the intention of Mr Höfschroer. At least, that's not the conclussion I've got from the book. It's not the same to state that it was a 'German victory' (I disagree with that statement, by the reasons explained in my previous message) that to say it was a 'Germany's victory'. Meanwhile the second statement would support the criticism of those who have correctly pointed that 'Germany' didn't exist as such in 1815, the former only stresses the decisive role of German regiments and officers in the outcome of the battle. The subtitle 'A Prussian victory' would have been even more far fetched. Best regards Antonio |
4th Cuirassier  | 30 Jan 2011 11:13 a.m. PST |
@ basileus A new account of the battle was needed. PH tried to balance the narrative, passing the focus of the story from the British to the German contingents; from Wellington to Blucher; from Quatre Bras to Ligny. This is fair enough. I'd agree that while all the British writers I've read have been scrupulously fair in noting the crucial Prussian contribution, this hasn't often resulted in much use or citation of Prussian sources. Kalmbach cited a few in the Prussian chapters of "Waterloo: Battle of Three Armies", but he's an exception. However, it is quite a jump between "there's an interesting Prussian story too about Waterloo" and "the Germans won it". That's the bit that, for me, doesn't work. |
XV Brigada | 30 Jan 2011 12:01 p.m. PST |
Dear Mr Kiley, I must say I have difficulty following your arguments. >'but whether German was united or a nation state is irrelevant to his argument.' I disagree-that is the argument based on the conclusion in the books. Merely stating 'the German victory' sets up the notion that 'Germany' is the issue. To my mind, if that is going to be at least part of the argument, then stateing 'the Prussian victory' would have made much more sense.< There is no suggestion that I can see in his book that Mr Hofschroer is talking about a united or nation state. His conclusion is the result of an argument based on the premises already described. An argument is not based on a conclusion! The word 'Germany' is used by Mr Hofschroer as an adjective to describe the victory. >At least two posters have mentioned that there was a German state, the Holy Roman Empire, before 1871 and that has been shown to be nonsense.< Have they? Is it? The HRE existed and what it was called is a matter of fact. I don't think anybody called Germany a 'nation state' a 'united Germany' in 1815 or anything like and it is not relevant to Mr Hofschroer's argument anyway. >What has also been neglected is the Saxon mutiny against the Prussians before Waterloo.< I am really sorry but I fail to see what the Saxon mutiny against Prussia has to do with Mr Hofschroer's argument that Germans at Waterloo deserved the collective recognition for the victory. >The entire thread has been too much hyperbole and much nonsense (though thankfully that has been deleted) and not much material to support the arguments presented. Maybe next time the personal attacks won't take place.< What are you talking about? What arguments do you allude to? The premises used by Mr Hofschroer are in his book for all to read. One can either agree with them or not. The onus is on those who disagree to produce a counter argument and that has been conspicuously absent fro this thread. 'I disagree' is by itself no argument at all. Yes disgraceful personal attacks have been made by a number of people but that has nothing to do with Hofschroer's argument and conclusion? >And the other question is whether or not the assorted Germans that composed Wellington's Anglo-Dutch army considered themselves 'Germans' first and whatever (Hanoverians, Nassauers, Brunswickers, etc.) second. By some of the material I found and posted, it appears that they considered themselves both, generally with the state to which they belonged coming first-the German 'nation' being a separate idealistic entity from the many German states reality. For example, the Germans making up the King's German Legion were in British service, so technically, they were British troops; Hanoverians owed at least some type of allegiance to George III. The Nassauers, whether ethnic Germans or not, belonged to Holland, so were they actually Dutch?< Why is it another question? Who has raised it? What is this evidence that reveals what individuals thought? Why does it matter as far as Mr Hofschroer's argument is concerned? Yes, the KGL was part of the British army. So what? How does that make Germans in its ranks not German? >Why would we, or anyone else, have to? There has been no denial that there were Germans and German states during the period. That is not the point of contention-it might also be a strawman argument.< Good. We agree that Nassauers, Hanoverians etc were Germans. Arguing that there were no Germans during the period would be breathtakingly stupid. But no this was not an argument of any kind but merely an observation that 'German' in this context was an adjective. I leave all strawman arguments to you :-) >The issue is was Waterloo a 'German' victory. I say no-it was an allied victory.< Your prerogative. Many people agree with you, some do not. >And in that context, the term 'German' to my mind insinuates that there was a physical German 'nation' as in a state, to support that theory. And that idea cannot be supported by any of the evidence so far.< Does it? I see no suggestion that there was "a physical German 'nation' as in a state to support that theory". No mention is made that I can see of such an entity in 1815 either here or in Mr Hofschroer's book. Be careful you have not erected a man of straw all your own. |
Lest We Forget | 30 Jan 2011 12:41 p.m. PST |
Antonio and Bill: Good points. 10th is, as noted by some other posters in this thread, "trying to move the goalposts." He is using a variation of the false dilemma logical fallacy ("reframing the question"). He will redefine your counter arguments into a definition of his own choosing and conveniently argue that his points are "stronger." Bill, the reason that you have "difficulty following" his arguments is because they incorporate "special pleading." He loves to cite secondary sources to support his points and counter the points of others. Out of context secondary source citation only confuses the issue. You can always "find what you are looking for" to support your assertions in secondary sources. At least you are trying to maintain some semblance of balance. You are not defending a preconceived notion and tossing out quotes from secondary sources to back them up. He will counter that you are creating a "strawman" argument (while refusing to consider that his own arguments meet the same criteria). "Moving the goalpost" (keep the focus off your own argument) yields an endless loop with no hope of resolution. |
von Winterfeldt | 30 Jan 2011 12:45 p.m. PST |
As far as I know – Peter Hofschröer did study at King's colledge in London. |
10th Marines | 30 Jan 2011 2:10 p.m. PST |
LWF, And which goalpost did I move? And if you don't like the source material that I have used, perhaps you have something better to counter it? K |
Lest We Forget | 30 Jan 2011 2:24 p.m. PST |
After reading MH's post I actually pulled "1815 The Waterloo Campaign: Wellington, his German Allies and the Battles of Ligny and Quatre Bras" off the shelf. 1998, Preface (page 15) "Drawing mainly from German archives, published and unpublished sources, this work presents, supports, explains and justifies the point of view of the overwhelming majority of the Allied participants in this campaign, the Germans." I next pulled "1815 The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory" from the bookshelf to refresh my memory of its contents. Preface (page 15) "This volume also contains what is probably the most detailed account yet written in the English language of the numerous sieges of the northern fortress belt in France which took place after Waterloo. Again, the bulk of this fighting fell to German troops." But, I started pulling other books off the shelf, notably John Gill's "1809: Thunder on the Danube." On the back cover I read "dramatic opening ecounter battles in Germany" and a quote from the Bulletin of the Military History Society; ". . . operation of all the German contingents that fought under Napoleon that year." From the Preface (page xi) I read "Battle of Wagram, pummelling the 150,000 French and German soldiers. . ." I find references in Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon (example "crossing into German territory"). Then I open Elting's "A Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars" and immediately find a reference in the Ulm Campaign "Though the Main Austrian concentration was in Italy, Germany was obviously more important . . ." James Arnold's "Crisis on the Danube" notes "It was a polyglot army recruited from an Empire having a Germanic majority . . ." (page 37, 2009 ed.). Need more references to "Germans" and "Germany" from a plethora of other Napoleonic works? I could recite from other texts, but the point is that other authors refer to Germany and Germans in their works. If you are going to argue against PH's use of "Germans," then argue against all the other works as well. Case closed. |
Lest We Forget | 30 Jan 2011 2:33 p.m. PST |
10th: Deal directly with Antonio and Bill's points above. Counter what? They countered your assertions quite well. There is no need to provide source material to properly counter your claims--they fall of their own weight. |
Gazzola | 30 Jan 2011 2:46 p.m. PST |
Kevin on the first page of this thread mentioned Germany because there was no Germany as we know it. That is a fact. It was mentioned, I believe, because it supports the argument against anyone wanting to call it a German victory. There were no Germans. There were Prussians etc. But there is no problem with referring to an area as a Germany and to Germans, because it helps define the area geographically and various states that have a Germanic connection. I don't think we called the Confederation of the Rhine the Confederation of Germany. But we do refer to those making it up as German states, eg-Bavaria etc. I can't see a problem with that and I believe that is the point Kevin was trying to make. It seemed clear enough to me. I'm really surprised this thread has continued for so long, since it is obvious to anyone who has done some decent reading and research, that the 100 Days Campaign was an Allied victory. Not German. Not British. Allied. As Least We Forget states – case closed! |
10th Marines | 30 Jan 2011 3:11 p.m. PST |
LWF, That's about what I expected-you have no input you merely make inaccurate and unfounded comments. I've supported what I've said, and if it is agreed with or not is why we have discussions. However, I would urge you to join the discussion with something to contribute-unless what you enjoy is merely playing the marplot. K |
10th Marines | 30 Jan 2011 3:15 p.m. PST |
'I could recite from other texts, but the point is that other authors refer to Germany and Germans in their works. If you are going to argue against PH's use of "Germans," then argue against all the other works as well. Case closed.' Perhaps mind closed? Just a thought
The use of 'German' is all in context. And if you read the entire thread carefully, you'll see the context in which it is used by different members of the forum. K |
Lest We Forget | 30 Jan 2011 3:21 p.m. PST |
10th: Stop moving the goalpost. Deal directly with Antonio's and Bills' points relative to your claims above. Your assertion "inaccurate and unfounded" is just your opinion and is itself innaccurate and unfounded as a result. You are not accepted as an authority in the field and thus you cannot make such claims based on your authority. We have discussions in order to learn. To learn you must admit that when other people point out that you are in error that you should graciously accept that fact and thank them for helping you grow. Until that occurs we cannot have a discussion. Will you update your book reviews to note that Col. Elting using the word "Germany" in his Atlas and thus made an historically inaccurate statement? "Mind closed" is a projection of yourself onto other people in order to draw attention away from yourself. |
XV Brigada | 30 Jan 2011 3:29 p.m. PST |
Dear Mr Kiley, You said to the effect that you deplored personal attacks yet you make them yourself. I had to look up Marplot to find that it is an interfering and officious meddler. That is an inflamatory comment and I think you owe LWF an apology. Yours Sincerely Bill Hickey |
10th Marines | 30 Jan 2011 3:29 p.m. PST |
John, I thought it was pretty clear and simple myself. No one said there were no Germans or Germany. There wasn't a united Germany until 1871, and I believe most Germans were Bavarians, Wurttembergers, etc. first, and Germans second. Further, the sources that I listed and quoted from back up those points. Interesting that LWF doesn't understand a very simple and direct point and insists on posting inaccurate material both to what I said and what is actually being talked about. Sincerely, Kevin |
10th Marines | 30 Jan 2011 3:39 p.m. PST |
'After reading MH's post I actually pulled "1815 The Waterloo Campaign: Wellington, his German Allies and the Battles of Ligny and Quatre Bras" off the shelf. 1998, Preface (page 15) "Drawing mainly from German archives, published and unpublished sources, this work presents, supports, explains and justifies the point of view of the overwhelming majority of the Allied participants in this campaign, the Germans." I next pulled "1815 The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory" from the bookshelf to refresh my memory of its contents. Preface (page 15) "This volume also contains what is probably the most detailed account yet written in the English language of the numerous sieges of the northern fortress belt in France which took place after Waterloo. Again, the bulk of this fighting fell to German troops." But, I started pulling other books off the shelf, notably John Gill's "1809: Thunder on the Danube." On the back cover I read "dramatic opening ecounter battles in Germany" and a quote from the Bulletin of the Military History Society; ". . . operation of all the German contingents that fought under Napoleon that year." From the Preface (page xi) I read "Battle of Wagram, pummelling the 150,000 French and German soldiers. . ." I find references in Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon (example "crossing into German territory"). Then I open Elting's "A Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars" and immediately find a reference in the Ulm Campaign "Though the Main Austrian concentration was in Italy, Germany was obviously more important . . ." James Arnold's "Crisis on the Danube" notes "It was a polyglot army recruited from an Empire having a Germanic majority . . ." (page 37, 2009 ed.). Need more references to "Germans" and "Germany" from a plethora of other Napoleonic works? I could recite from other texts, but the point is that other authors refer to Germany and Germans in their works. If you are going to argue against PH's use of "Germans," then argue against all the other works as well.' Unfortunately for you, what you have posted here has nothing at all to do with what I have been saying and is not contributing to the discussion. This isn't personal, but you are making it so-why is that? 'To learn you must admit that when other people point out that you are in error that you should graciously accept that fact and thank them for helping you grow. Until that occurs we cannot have a discussion.' However, the point is I didn't make an error and backed up what I said with evidence from current sources from recognized scholars. K |
10th Marines | 30 Jan 2011 3:41 p.m. PST |
Dear Mr. Hickey, I would be glad to apologize to LWF if he in turn would apologize for his inaccurate postings about what I have said. His 'analysis' is inaccurate and he has inaccurately 'portrayed' what I have posted. I believe that fits the definition of a 'marplot.' However, I believe I left the statement and comment as a conditional, as in a choice that LWF could make-contribute to the discussion and not attack someone personally, or be a marplot-so it is entirely up to him to be one or not. Sincerely, KF Kiley |
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
|