"French Staff" Topic

"Elting cites Fuller in his Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars for just one example. "Fuller's ideas of history and its moving forces are very much his own, he is occasionally careless of details, but he tells a sweeping story of the great storms of empire." He may have changed his mind in later years, but he did read many of Hart's and Fuller's works. Your points are maudlin proclamations."

Lest We Forget

Elting could share the understanding of the historical forces that shaped the Napoleonic Empire and warfare, with Fuller and Hart, but that doesn't mean that he also coincided with their interpretations on how Napoleon's armies actually worked. Also, back when Elting wrote his books, Fuller and Hart couldn't be left out of a bibliography. They were too much known in military history circles for any scholar to avoid mention them. For example, in my PhD dissertation on the guerrilla warfare in Spain, I included in my bibliography the work of Rodriguez Solís, a Nineteenth historian that wrote a popular (emphasis in 'popular') history of the guerrillas that no historian worth his salt would take seriously today… but it was the only general story of the Spanish guerrillas ever published in any language, and thus I was obliged to include it in my bibliography. Sometimes you can't ignore certain books that have a relevance beyond what their scholarship values actually deserve.

It's like if you write a book on the French army and wouldn't quote Elting's "Swords around a Throne". Probably, your own study would make Elting's obsolete, but as he was the first English language historian who made a thorough analysis of the topic, his book can't be ignored no matter how much different your conclusions would be.

Best regards

LWF,

You again are very incorrect and I would venture that you don't know what you're talking about. I showed you the evidence regarding Fuller, Hart, and their 'influence' on Col Elting, and I had the great advantage of spending quite a bit of time with him discussing military history and authors. His opinion of both was not high. And you are quoting from a recommended reading list, not a bibliography, and quite naturally, all of the books should be read in order to form an opinion. It's quite obvious that you didn't read the others that I mentioned or you wouldn't have made such an obtuse comment that was contrary to actuality. That makes what you're saying nothing but hypocrisy.

As for my being an historian, you are entitled to your opinion, but, again, not only do I have a masters in military history I also teach history. In other words, I am a trained military historian, whether or not you like it. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Lastly, if you don't like being called on ludicrous 'opinions' then don't make them. Again, you just don't know what you're talking about, and you're posting was ignorant.

K

Bas,

Very well said and very much on point. You said it much better than I did or could.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Obviously Elting had read at least some of their work, as they were the popular books of the 70s and he says something them. However, I suspect Wilkinson is more influential, given the number of times he pops up on US military sites, although this does not actually address the issue of what Bourcet actually wrote and the extent to which it survived in N/Berthier's set-up.

Back then of course, the Ruling Theories were stronger, simply because much of the key material was not easily accessed. Consequently, there is plenty of copying of secondary material with its consequent amplification into claims, which have no basis in the original material. I haven't read Bourcet as I have only just seen the linked listings, but that material is now available.

Interestingly, I see that Elting does list Bourcet's 7YW memoirs (not the 2nd link above) in his bibliography to Chapter 1 of Swords, but does not footnote it to either Chap 1 or 5 on the staff. He does mention Bourcet on pp. 7, 8 and 81, with the usual claims, but no citations. A book, which is actually a memoir of his 7YW campaigns, is suddenly the "staff work" and basis of all that happened subsequently. Berthier was in de Segur's Staff Corps, but we do not actually have a job description from the horse's mouth. As Elting admits, whatever was done in this period was blocked by the authorities, so there is no continuity and we know that claims about the "permament div staffs" from this period are incorrect. Elting claims that Bourcet achieved international fame for his works on "staff organisation and functioing and on mountain warfare", before mentioining Guibert's call for "the adoption of Prussian organisation and tactics", which did happen in the
1791 French reg. He then says on p.8 that "Bourcet's insistence that candidates for the staff corps must pass examinations and undergo a probationary period" was not acceptable to the nobility.

The difficulty with all this is the dating of Bourcet's works. According to the Bibliothgeque Dauphinoise site, Bourcet's works were:

Mémoires militaires sur les frontières de la France, du Piémont et de la Savoie depuis l'embouchure du Var jusqu'au lac de Genève, Berlin, 1802, in-8° et Paris et Strasbourg, Levrault frères, An X, in-8°

- Guerre offensive et défensive de la France contre le Piémont et du Piémont contre la France. Mémoire militaire par d'Aguiton, publié par Xavier Roux, Grenoble, Imprimerie dauphinoise A. Carre, 1891, in-8°, qui est la réédition du 6e mémoire de l'ouvrage précédent.
Collection Bibliothèque de topographie alpine

- Principes de la guerre de montagnes (1775), Paris, Imprimerie nationale, 1888, in-4°, IV-321 pp, atlas de 33 planches.

Elting lists Bourcet, Pierre J. "Memoires Historiques sur la guerre que les Francais ont soutenue en Allemagne 1757 jusqu'en 1762" Paris 1792.

Consequently, the only work to predate Bourcet's death and de Segur's staff corps is the (uncited but much mentioned by many authors) mountain warfare book. This does not stop Elting at the start of his chapter on the staff from saying: "The Napoleonic staff – indeed, much of modern staff organisation – came from Pierre-Joseph Bourcet's (1700-1780) work on staff organosation and functioning." Quite a bold assertion, given that he had not actually read the book/s alleged to contain them! Quite clearly, he has got this claim from elsewhere – exactly where is apparently open to debate, but it is a secondary one.

I wonder what the actual books say?

Bourcet on Google

Title Mémoires militaires sur les frontileres de la France
Author Pierre Joseph de Bourcet
Published 1801

link

Title Mémoires historiques, Sur la Guerre que les François ont soutenue en Allemagne depuis 1757 jusqu'en 1762: Auxquels on a joint divers Supplémens, & notamment une relation impartiale des campagnes de M. le Maréchal de Broglie, rédigée d'aprles ses propres Papiers, & les Pieces
Author Pierre Joseph de Bourcet
Publisher Maradan, 1792

Volume 1

link

Volume 2

link

Volume 3

link

Title Principes de la guerre de montagnes, 1775
Author Pierre Joseph Bourcet
Publisher Imprimerie Nationale, 1888

link

I can only see an index, but it is interesting to note that there is no chapter "On Staffs" and the style looks very like principles of war books from this time.

Fortunately, the BL seems to hold all of the key works and several maps, which would be interesting from a Marengo perspective.

Dave

Bourcet was well known in professional circles, in 1800s. In Spain, generals Blake and Grimarest had read his 'Principles'. Bourcet is mentioned by them, together with other theorists (Monteccucoli and de Saxe) in a memorial sent to the Regencia (the Spanish patriot government) in late 1810 (the memorial was part of a attempt to rationalise the partisans units, not about the general staff though). Also, the marquis of La Romana had a copy of Bourcet's 'Principles' in his library, although I can't affirm he read it, though (I haven't seen any reference to Bourcet in La Romana's correspondence).

In other words, there is some circumstancial evidence that supports the idea that Bourcet was more widely readed that what you seem to suppose.

However, I agree with you that Elting was most probably overstating his influence in the actual organization of the Napoleonic staff, as there is not direct evidence that supports that claim.

Best regards

Nice one Ralpher, I downloaded from UK all but the mountain volume, will try other means when i get home.

Basileus66,

Remeber that a bibliography to a book should be a list of works cited in the text not just a list of other books on the subject. The trouble with bibliographies in a lot of books these days is they are used incorrectly and sometimes just to give an impression of 'authority'. I can certainly imagine a new book on the French army not citing 'Swords Around a Throne' or any other secondary source. If we wanted to compile a bibliography as something in its own right, a list of all books published on the subject since 1950 we would include 'Swords Around a Throne'.

Bill

10th:

This is a wargaming site not a history site. You love to make prononcements and label people because you believe that you are an "authority" in the field. Your modus operandi on this site betrays any supposed "trained" skills.

You use phrases such as "ignorant" and "ludicrous" in your replies and then propose that you are a "trained" military historian. What is ludicrous is your insinuation of being a military historian. Let's look at your claims.

Your Master's Degree is an "online" degree in general military history from Norwich University. From the Norwich site it notes; "Norwich University's Master of Arts in Military History is a rigorous course of study designed specifically for working professionals. It lets you explore your passion for military history without the constraints of a traditional classroom education." and "Instead of a Master's "thesis", Norwich requires a "Capstone Paper" that must be written and submitted to complete your degree." The capstone is 45-50 pages and has "elements" of a traditional thesis. Your courses included "Introduction to Military History," "The Western Way of War," "Military Theory and Thought," "the Non-Western Way of War," "U.S. Military History," "Race and Gender in Military History," and a "Capstone" (instead of a traditional thesis). You did not have to complete a traditional thesis and defense. You believe that "survey" courses made you a "trained" military historian. Where is your original research in the Napoleonic field?

You teach "social studies" at a Middle School. You do not know a foreign language in the field (such as French, German, or Russian) well enough to do original research. You ARE NOT an academic historian (you do not have a PhD) nor are you are you a professional historian (you do not earn a living in the field of military history). You cite secondary sources as the gospel and have only written a few general hobbyist level books that were not peer-reviewed. You have pronounced biases toward your "favorite" sources.

You believe that your "credentials" make you an authority in Military History. You are not accepted by any historical peers as a professional.

Your credibility as a Military Historian is inversely proportional to your hyperbolic claims.

Your posts do not enhance wargaming nor the miniatures hobby. Your claims and pronouncements are what are "ludicrous" and "ignorant." You are what you accuse others of being. Your shallow attempt to convince others of your "training" and status only demonstrates that you have a motive other than benefitting our hobby by posting here. A TMP member that is a professional historian noted that you are "immune to correction." I agree with that assessment.

In your case "The Emperor Wears no Clothes."

Basileus:

I understand what you are saying. I wrote "Elting was most likely influenced by the writings of your own B.H. Liddel Hart. You can find references to Guibert and Bourcet in Hart's writings. In Strategy (1954), page 95 (and other pages) Hart wrote "Napoleon Bonaparte, whose military ability was stimulated by study of military history and, even more, by the food for thought provided in the theories of Bourcet and Guibert, the two most outstanding and original military writings of the eighteenth century." Hart notes that the plan Napoleon executed in his first campaign was "based on one that Bourcet had designed half a century earlier.""

I used the phrase "most likely." Hart's views of the influence of Bourcet and Guibert have influenced authors.

10th's "temper tantrum" and imagined "insult" against Elting are examples of why fewer people post here any more. This is not a professional history site and it is for sharing ideas. If someone disagrees, just note it and state why.

10th loves to find faults in others' posts and present a facade of authority as a military historian. He must correct us "ignorant" wargamers and dictate what we can post--"cleansing" the boards to conform with his perceptions.

Bill

I can't agree with you more about how bibliography should be used. But it's less and less common every day. Actually, one of the members of my PhD tribunal thought strange enough that I only included those books I did actually consulted, to merit a commentary for his part. Apparently, many would-be doctors include all relevant bibliography, no matter if they used it or not! O tempora, o mores.

However, when you write a scholar book it's useful for the reader -and all good books do it- to start with a chapter where you review all the relevant publications on the topic, and then explain which will be your contribution. In the example above, if you write a book on the French army and don't discuss what Elting's contributions/mistakes were, how would your readers know what are yours in comparison to Elting's or other authors?

Best regards

'Remeber that a bibliography to a book should be a list of works cited in the text not just a list of other books on the subject.'

The definition of 'bibliography' from the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:

1: the history, identification, or description of writings or publications.

2a: a list often with descriptive or critical notes of writings relating to a particular subject, period, or author.

2b: a list of works written by an author or printed by a publishing house.

3: the works or a list of the works referred to in a text or consulted by the author in its production.

Definition Number 3 refers to the references used by an author in a publication-they don't have to be cited in the text. What you're referring to is a 'Works Cited' page in which all of the works listed have been cited in the text.
There is a definite difference between a bibliography and a works cited page.

K

LWF

That should generate some lengthy posts!

I must say I have never felt the need to broadcast my qualifications (except for an interview)I smile when people email me with all their titles and meaningless letters under their name. (Not Kevin BTW)

Graf B,

Let's hope not in spite of LWF's illuminating post.

Bill

These people, who fabricate theior work and references always get found out in the end.

link

Come on, Dave! Kevin hasn't claimed he has a PhD, neither he did plagiarise a thesis, as the German minister did. It isn't fair to imply such thing. I usually agree with your posts more than with Kevin's, but this time it looks to me you are taking a cheap shot against him.

This is a French Staff thread not a TMP Staff thread. I hope this doesn't get to a point where everyone has to point to credentials to have to be acknowledged to have an opinion or to add anything to a discussion.

14Bore

That may have been the point of LWF's post.

Dave
I agree with Bas, your link is not appropriate or relevant, and implies something I'm sure you didn't mean.

Posted on the Napoleon Series by Steven H Smith are the Gallica links to both the text and plate volumes of

Pierre-Joseph Bourcet (1 March 1700, Usseaux, Piedmont – 14 October 1780, Meylan). Principes de la Guerre de Montagnes. 2 Vols. 1888:

Vol 1:
link

Vol 2:
link

See:

link

Steve also posted the 1802 edition (the link above is to the 1801 edition) of

Mémoires militaires sur les frontières de la France, du Piémont et de la Savoie, depuis l'embouchure du Var jusqu'au Lac de Genève. Chez Levrault, 1802. 416 p:

link

Just posted to cover the Bourcet works on the internet. – R

I was merely pointing out that whoever you are, you should tell the truth, especially where original work is allegedly involved, as LWF was talking about – otherwise you will get found out.

We have had several dodgy bibliographies recently in this period and it creates a problem that we cannot actually establish what an author has read and what has been inserted to give a false air of authority. That is taking the mick out of your readers, who have paid for your work, and is a poor gift to posterity as it confuses later researchers.

In contrast, Elting has only listed one book by Bourcet, so we can establish that what he is saying about staffs either comes from that book or is received wisdom. The world was a different place then, but while you can criticise the book for its shortcomings, you cannot criticise the author.

I thought Dave was trying to offend him by comparing him to a German….

What, like PH you mean?

From the pdf article I have the following titles may tell something about French Staff

Alexandre Berthier
Règlement sur le service de l'état-major général à l'armée d'Italie, 1796

Général Thiébault
Manuel des adjudants-généraux et des adjoints employés dans les états-majors divisionnaires des armées, Paris 1800, 160p.

Philippe, comte de Grimoard
Service d'état-major, Paris 1809, 372p.

Général Thiébault
Manuel général des états-majors généraux et divisionnaires, Paris 1813, 592p.

Lieutenant colonel de Philip
Etude sur le service d'état-major pendant les guerres du Premier Empire, Paris 1900, 305p.

They are the main works – Elting does list Grimoard. However,. I have yet to see any of those by any except de Philip cited directly from the source and wonder if we are about to see another 1762 report episode, where the original actually does not say many of the things attributed to it. Indeed, I have yet to even see how long this fabled manual (variously dated to 1795 and 96) actually is!

The first 200 Pages of

Lechartier : Les Services de l'Armée en 1806 – 1807, Paris 1910 give a good idea was well.

and

Coutanceau : La Campagne De 1794 A L'Armée Du Nord, Paris 1903, Tome Premier, Premier Partie, gives over 100 pages about the Etat Major

A critical survey – about the problems of Napoleons staff is the widely ignored but superb book by

Titeux : Le Maréchal Bernadotte et la Manoeuvre d'Jena
D'Apres Les Documents Des Archives De La Guerre Et Les Papiers Du Général Dupont.

In case one troubles to read Foucart – or Alembert und Colin and other works from the historical section of the French general staff – one can clearly see how the system Napoleon / Berthier did or didn't work.

I have just ordered Vachee, who is often quoted too – 50p plus p&p so the True Believers can buy a copy for burning!