"Did Sharpe Misjudge the Prince of Orange?" Topic

Hi All
I've been reading David Hamilton-Williams' ‘WATERLOO: The Great Battle Reappraised' and it appears from the reading that The Crown Prince of Orange, Prince William wasn't the complete idiot that he's made out to be in that ripping read: ‘Sharpe's Waterloo'.
Just wondering, what is the current view of the young Princes' performance during the 100 Days?
Is he still considered a buffoon?
Did Sharpe misjudge the lad?

I don't think he misjudged him so much as made a bad shot and only wounded him.

Seriously? We have a running gag when a newbie comes in to play a game with British troops. We always give the newbie command becvause he purchased his commission.
William is a typical newbie gamer who read the rulebook just before the game, or at least scanned the cheat sheet. Well, maybe not even that.

The fictional one was a buffoon so sharpe was right.

Really, historically, I don't think he was an idiot. An inexperienced young man who madeva couple of rash mistakes. It was his first taste of campaigning with an actual command role. Probably just trying too hard or a little out of his depth. He is remembered as a good king I think so he must have had some measure of character.

No he wasn't the buffoon of Sharpe.

He was a valued officer commended by the Duke on a few of occasions. Of course the fact he was allied royalty kept him from being censured on those occasions he performed less satisfactorily.

So a bit hit or miss really but not the liability of fiction.

That wasn't the Prince of Orange. That was the surgeon from one of His Majesty's frigates pretending to be the Prince of Orange, presumably something to do with his intelligence work.

because he purchased his commission

Was that not the most common way to become an officer in period?

Doug

Still a good idea, purchasing commisions. Gives a young officer some investment in his career, not like the Short service commissions nowadays. Kind of like a mortgage.

While the Prince is noted for his 'gallant' actions during the campaign he also was also involved in the destruction of 3 or 4 Allied Bns. by French cavalry.
He was NOT a good field commander.

P.S. read elsewhere on the Napoleonic Media Board about the merits of David Hamilton-Williams' ‘WATERLOO: The Great Battle Reappraised'
- one assessment " throw it away ".

Cliff

The prince was probably somewhat out of his depth given the level of command that he (nominally at least) held during the Waterloo campaign. He had some staff experience but none at all of commanding serious numbers of troops in combat. He was certainly not the buffoon of Mr Cornwell's third rate Napoleonic fiction; neither was he the figure portrayed in Mr Cromwell's (aka Hamilton-Williams') third rate Napoleonic fiction.

However, he did have some very good staff officers, which probably made him look better on occasions.

"because he purchased his commission

Was that not the most common way to become an officer in period?

Doug"

In peacetime, yes, when probably at least two-thirds of commissions were purchased – but in wartime (as the following article mentions) "During major wars there were far more vacancies than young men wishing to buy commissions, and most officers commissioned during the Napoleonic Wars gained their rank without purchase".

link

And the Sharpe novels make Sharpe sound like the only officer from the ranks in the army. In fact about 5%+ of officers were from the ranks which, in a wartime army with thousands of officers, made up a fair number.

Cheers,

David
nba-sywtemplates.blogspot.com

I was just reading something that defended the purchasing of rank.
As an officer moved up he would sell his old position. This money helped pay for the new position. If the position for sale was with a good regiment or duty and the selling officer had made a good name for himself, the value of the position would have gone up since the seller purchased it. Upon retiring an officer would cash in his position and that was his retirement fund. So it actually paid an officer to do his best in a position. But then again just because someone has money does not mean they are not an idiot.

you should cross reference anything in hamilton-williams against a different published author – he makes up evidence and sources, so even when he may be correct, you simply can't trust him.

I doubt anyone was ever as bad as the bad guys protrayed in the sharpe stories, and in Waterloo, the bad guy was Orange

Yes. As much as I love sharpe, the HAS to be at least on foppish upper class idiot for sharpe to humiliate, be stabbed in the back by or shoot. In Waterloo it was the turn of the prince. Cornwell just doesn't like the more genteel members of society.

My thinking is that Sharpe is'nt real so why ask a question partly based on a fictional character?

Captain Gideon

The versions of all historical figures we read about are fictional as well. No one can claim to know the real thing.

I'll never understand all the Sharpe-hate around here…

Carlos,

I don't think anyone here hates Sharpe (at least, I hope not!). However, the books are very badly written with one dimensional characters, while the TV episodes are a masterclass in sparing every expense possible.

I utterly disagree with your statement that "The versions of all historical figures we read about are fictional as well." Biographies may not capture every nuance of the subject's personality or character and may contain errors, but they are usually not fictional.

Gideon

It's a good question. Many writers (particularly British of a somewhat earlier era) decried the Prince. Trailape is asking for a collective, current appraisal using a recognisable if extreme example as a hook.

"My thinking is that Sharpe is'nt real so why ask a question partly based on a fictional character?
Captain Gideon"

See advocate's reply above.
He sums up my reasoning exactly. I realise "Sharpe" isn't real, (sheeeeez).
;o)
However, there is no denying that The Prince Of Orange has been 'roughly' handeled from a historical perspective (as well as by Mr Cornwell and Sharpe). I just wanted to hear what the current feeling towards 'Slim Billy' was.

Keraunos
You state:
"you should cross reference anything in hamilton-williams against a different published author – he makes up evidence and sources, so even when he may be correct, you simply can't trust him".
Would you care to elaborate?

Cheers

trailape,

Many of his references do not check out; they lead to documents that say things other than what he claims, or to documents that do not even exist. He also references a book of his own that was never published, and possibly never actually written.

Some of his references are correct but, without checking, one cannot be sure.

The PoO was at least highly competent in his role of army commander in the later war of Belgian Independance.

Hi Trailape,

You may have inadvertently stumbled across a long running sore on TMP about Mr Hamilton Williams, who is indeed guilt of occasionally misciting his sources. I'm surprised there hasn't been more 'passion' on this thread so far, possibly Dave Hollins, who made it a personal crusade to hound DHW to the point of breaking his health, is one of the 'DogHouse 99' or however many it is now…

DHW was guilty of trying to break into a crowded market of professional historians trying to hawk their wares…a coterie of existing published authors made a point of exhaustively checking his sources and pounced on his handful of errors and used every forum available to them to attack his work, his personal honesty and eventually brought him down. He quoted a non existant forthcoming book of his because his publisher, who had signed up to the deal, was subject to a campaign of misinformation about DHW and cancelled the thrid book as he couldn't get to the bottom of it all since the waters had been thoroughly muddied – and still are! Some of this coterie are themselves quite happy to write glowing review of their own works, and in one case all but ignore key primary sources to sell their own works….The main culprit is banned from TMP so I shan't go into detail as the man can't defend himself…

As for Bernard Cornwell, it has become trendy to scoff at his work to show how knowledgeable and erudite one is…

I think its worth bearing in mind two things with his work, first of all the first few were dashed off to allow him to make a living in the States where he had no work permit, so they were written in a hurry. Secondly, Bernard Cornwell has done more than any other man alive to publicise the glory and the horror of the Napoleonic wars to the english speaking world, and for that he has my gratitude and thanks…

As for the poor Prince of Orange, 'Slender Billy' as he was known to the Brits, he was a gallant officer, and that goes a long way in my book. But as has been said, he cost several battalions heavy casualties and some colours for no good reason except to exert his authority.

Had I been there I might have tried a few shots meself!

Interesting feather pillow, sparker. My opinion of DHW's book was that it was wrong when I first started reading it.

He's the only guy in the 200 years since that most famous battle to look at it that way? Siborne lied? Let's be novel and check the DB military archives?

When I first read his book, I STOPPED because alarms were going off in my head. At the insistence of a friend, I finished it. Now I regret putting his ideas in my brain because I have to make sure now that I didn't pick up some concept of Waterloo from his fiction.

Sharpe is a good comparison of the work.

Well you are comparing a book which, no matter what your opinion of it, is a work of factual history; with a work of fiction, which. except as an insult to the former, takes us nowhere…

Look, I'm not sure about DHW's book either, since all the mud slinging started, I use it as a highly readable account of the battle, as I do Peter Hofschorer's two volumes, even though I am certain that they are flawed by his anti Wellington axe grinding. They still have value for his unique insights into the German sources…

The lesson I have learnt is to take all such non fiction works with a large dose of salt unless they are by former military men – which includes the good Captain Siborne.

And to enjoy the 'Sharpe' books as simply a series of damn good corset ripping yarns where the dastardly Crapauds inevitably get their just desserts at the hands of impossibly good looking Englishmen – what more do you want from a novel?

And, forgive the interrogation, whats your take on the gallant Prince in question?

It all depends on who you talk to. Wellington thought the the Prince [Slim Willy to his comrades in arms], was "a dissolute, untidy, and stupid young man.'" An opinion stated after Waterloo. And by Waterloo, Slim Willy had been an officer for a few years in the Peninsula on Wellington's staff.

Of course, Sharpe knew Wellington, so he may have gotten his ideas from the Great Man himself… ;->

Bill

Sparker

I don't know if it's fashionable or not to criticize Mr. Cornwell. What I do know is that all his novels are the same plot, repeated ad nauseam. It's a winning formulae, so kudos to him, but after a couple of novels it gets boring.

Best regards

sparker, trailape,
the thing to remember here – since the comparisons with Hofschroer have come up again, is that while the Hof may make comclusions which folk think are wrong, and while he make be pushing an agenda that folk thing petty and inaccurate, his cited and sourced evidence is accurate and is testable, so you can use that, even if you ignore the thing he uses it for at the end – and you can go and check it to prove him worng, as many have done.

with HW, it is the reverse – it matters not whether he ended up with the right or the wrong conclusions (as the reader sees it), since the evidence he cites in support is simply untrustable.
If you cannot check what he found to reach that conclusion, it is unreliable to believe it.

the sensible thing to do, is to throw the book away
or write a new book which uses proper evidence to agree with him, if you are inclined to rehabilitate him

Recall your school maths exams – 6 marks for long division, only 1 of which is for the right answer – there is a reason for that, since you can guess without knowing anything.

Good post, Keraunos.

Hi
Well, I'll continue to read DHW's book and come to my own conclusions of how reliable it is. He does make some compeling arguments (from this soldier's point of view).
I also enjoy The 'Sharpe' books, (those that I have read).
I was just interested to hear peoples views on the PoO these many years after the Campaign. Is slender Billy still seen as 'an idiot'? That's all. I have no desire to rip open 'old wounds' so to speak.
Thanks for all the background info, and for the opinions on the Prince.
I'd like to read more, (on the Prince, not the book).
Cheers

On the DHW saga, the first time I was aware of it was when it appeared in JAHR. It was mainly to do with DHW's case against the Siborne's.

Hofschroer who was writing/researching his own books at the time questioned these because DHW's references to Siborne's papers to support his 'New Perspectives' didn't say what DHW claimed they did.

It also transpired that other references were to material in archives in Germany destroyed during WW2 and didn't exist.

To cut a long story short, the saga continued in First Empire and on the NSF. It has been raised here on a number of occasions. I think the final nails in DHW's coffin were when it was found that he'd tried to pass himself off as a baronet and a former British army officer.

To summarise the problem was that DHW's arguments and conclusions were based on source material he'd made up.

Bill

David Chandler used Cornwell's books to good effect on touring the Penninsula. His discriptions of the locations which Sharpe was supposedly at were " right on' according to David. I alwways wonder if Harris was based on the Harris of '25 Years in the Rifle Brigade". Others are right is stating that Cornwell is a poor writer, all of his other characters are just Sharpe in another era, but the context in which he places Sharpe is correct.

Back to the thread, the PoO did call up his corps to Quatre Bras based upon the advice of Perponcher and his entire staff Corps of 6 (The only Dutch on the field in bicornes). After all he put all he was taught by Wellington as an aide in the Penninsula into use!

@Trailape,

Dutch author and wargamer, Erwin Muilwijk is currently busy with Waterloo, the Contribution of the Netherlands Army.

The first of a four volume set will be out soon, but you can contact him directly through his website:

link

I am sure he would be able to write a few lines in response to your question.

I have all the books in the series, but Sharpe's Waterloo is one of my favorites and the character Rebeque does describe the Prince's character to offer balance.

Cheers,

Others are right is stating that Cornwell is a poor writer, all of his other characters are just Sharpe in another era, but the context in which he places Sharpe is correct.

I wish I could be as poor as Bernard Cornwell…

Actually I haven't made up my mind about the Prince of Orange and his conduct in general in 1815. Obviously he made some serious errors of judgement, involving a few actions and battalions.

Yet, to fully appreciate his knowledge and experience prior to 1815, I have to get into the archives and see what his tutor Constant-Rebecque wrote as they were with Wellington's staff in the Peninsular.

For what is sure to me, when the Prince was Corps commander in 1815, is that like his younger brother Frederik before him, he relied much on the good services to run an army corps in the preceeding months on Constant-Rebecque.

And for what Sharpe is concerned: just enjoy the stories! They're fun no matter what. :-)

(Erwin Muilwijk)

Hi All
Thanks very much to your input.
I'm actually trying to assemble a Dutch Belgian / Netherlands / Nassau force for wargaming purposes. I'm particularly interested in the 2nd Dutch-Belgian Division
under LTG Perponcher at Quatre Bras.
Can anyone confirm if:
1st Bn, 2nd Nassau Regt (903);and
2nd Bn, 2nd Nassau Regt (903); and
3rd Bn, 2nd Nassau Regt (903),
can all be suitable represented by the Perry miniatures codes 2nd Nassau-Usingen regt NN9 to NN12
perry-miniatures.com/index2.html

And likewise:
1st Bn, 28th Orange-Nassau Regt (795); and
2nd Bn, 28th Orange-Nassau Regt (796)
can all be suitable represented by the Perry miniatures Orange-Nassau regt, Codes NN2-4

Finally
Will the Perry Miniatures Volunteer Jager company skirmishing Code NN13 do for the Freiwillige Jaeger Detachment (172)?

BTW, the Erwin Muilwijk 'Link' was most interesting, and I will continue to enjoy 'Sharpes' exploits. ;o)

Thanks
Scott

Scott -

Good luck with the project – are you planning to have it ready for 18 June 2015? And if so will you be diplaying it at an Aussie show?

Regards,

Ralph

Hi Ralph
I hope I'll have them (my Dutch Belgians) complete by 2015!
As for an Aussie show, I have no plans at this stage.
Cheers
Scott

I am returning to this forum after many years away and I just wanted to say if more people made contributions like Sparker the world (and TMP) would be a better place. Like him I believe Bernard Cornwell is more responsible for the current interest in the Napoleonic Wars than almost any other individual. And like most people, I think the Prince of Orange was both good and bad. I think, on my many readings of the battle, that his heart was in the right place but his lack of experience as a Corp commander let him down.

Well thanks Twister! I do believe thats the nicest thing any
one has said about me on all my years on TMP!

And welcome back…

I came to this thread because I had just finished 'Sharpe's Waterloo'. After a PhD in English Literature at Durham, I have found lifelong relief on so-called genre fiction. This is easily one of the most enjoyable and exciting examples of that type of book. The formula IS there, but it is nicely judged and makes the battle really, really, interesting. I'm sure Cornwell can handle the criticism of some of those writing above. He's Britain's best 3rd rate novelist!

Beaumap,

I agree with you. I hold an M.A.in history, and unlike many history majors, I actually managed to put it to use as a museum curator for a goodly number of years. I am not blind to Cornwell's exaggerations for effect, but I enjoy his vivid, fast-paced plots for a change of pace from serious reading. Nobody could churn out as many books as Cornwell if every detail were to be scrupulously authentic and original. The television series based on part of his Richard Sharpe novels was hamstrung by an inadequate budget, but even that was a vast relief from the ghastly fare offered up these days by American commercial television.

If you want to try some really original historical novels, try to find copies of John Biggins' four novels about Otto Prohaska, a fictional naval officer in the waning days of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. These novels have some pretty outrageous plots, but all supported by the most amazing authentic details, and they are studded with hysterically funny "throwaway" lines and historical references. They were published originally in the early 1990's by Martin Secker & Warburg.

However, the books are very badly written

I think that's being unduly harsh. I've only read two, but they were very well written in terms of what matters: story, i.e. what keeps the pages turning. And you don't keep turning the pages to find out what happens to characters you don't care about.

I think the Waterloo book is probably the best of the bunch, for me anyway. Most of Sharpe's stories seem to revolve around some adventure…a woman…some treasure…whatever… but Sharpe's Waterloo doesn't. Cornwell explains that he tried to fashion a novel with an adventure that revolved around, or culminated in the battle, but he couldn't make it work, because Waterloo was so dramatic, so full of possibilities, crises and opportunities that he found that the best thing to do was to just drop Sharpe into it and make him a witness (albeit a pretty active one). As a reader, I think he made the right choice, and he really knows how to bring the battle to life on the pages.

Having said all that, I think it's unfortunate that he chose to regurgitate some of the standard Waterloo myths e.g. only the Guards defended Hougoumont, the Prussian didn't turn up until the battle was just about over, the Dutch-Belgian Allies weren't worth a t in a high wind…and of course the incompetence of the Prince of Orange. Whatever his tactical performance, he did have the sense on the evening of the 15th to approve Perponcher's disobedience of Wellington's order to head for Nivelles, and in that sense he can justifiably claim to have had a hand in saving the campaign. I can't help wondering if this might have been part of the reason for the portrayal of him as an immature blunderer.

However, I must admire Cornwell's version of the wounding of the Prince of Orange. I thought that was very, very clever. You read the historical account and fit the Sharpe event into it seamlessly.

My favourite quote from the book about the Prince (by the affable Witherspoon): "Is he good for anything at all?"

I've also read Sharpe's Eagle, which follows the more standard blueprint, and while it was enjoyable enough, I haven't felt the need to buy any others.

Anyway, the worst thing about the Sharpe TV series was the bloody electric guitar music in the background…

Regarding DHW, I don't know enough of have access to enough sources to appraise his work thoroughly. Some of his points did makes sense, I seem to remember. But what struck me as strange, was that sometimes you would see some point referenced to a book, by DHW himself…but which he hadn't published yet.

(Shome mishtake shurely…hic!)

Others are right is stating that Cornwell is a poor writer

I think what would be useful at this point wound be a definition of what comprises a "poor writer".