"Waterloo: The French Perspective" Topic

Has anyone read

Waterloo: The French Perspective by Andrew Field. Does it add anything worthwhile to the numerous volumes on the subject? I only ask as I saw it for a reasonable kindle price on Amazon.

Yes, I have, I reviewed the hardcopy version and put in on Amazon, I'll stick it here for you:

This book presents a wide variety of French sources about the Battle of Waterloo, many of them unfamiliar to English speakers before this time. Most of the sources are relatively senior officers but they do include some junior officers and some voices from the ranks.

The focus of the book is very much on the Battle of Waterloo, rather than on the Hundred Days Campaign overall, so although the book does use some pre-Waterloo material, this is mainly to show the overall condition and character of Napoleon's Army. The book really gets into its stride from the point of the eve of Waterloo onwards, moving into greater depth and covering many of the more controversial issues regarding the battle. More-or-less extensive coverage is given to:
The condition of the ground and the initial deployment.
The 'pinning' attack at Hougomont and what went wrong from the French point of view.
Extensive coverage of D'Erlon's attack and the subsequent cavalry charges.
The Prussian arrival and then the attack on Plancenoit
The attack of the Imperial Guard
The French rout

Although there are a couple of key gaps, where French primary sources simply do not seem to exist, there is enough new information to keep anyone interested in the battle going. Frankly, unless one is prepared to do the work in French oneself, this is a 'must buy' item. Helpfully the writing is good too, the author having an engaged, interested tone, always anxious to show where the sources differ from accounts in other languages or from each other, and where on balance he thinks the truth may lie – but only 'on balance'. So if you are interested in how much the condition of the ground affected Napoleon's plans, exactly how far D'Erlon's Corps got before it was defeated, whether any British or Allied squares were broken and all of the other details of the battle, there is plenty to mull over inside.

One really good point he makes is that many of Napoleon's utterances on the day were those of a commander – one trying to get his generals and soldiers to win – not a journalist 'honestly' reporting on his own battle. He was perfectly at liberty to say things he didn't mean when he needed to inspire his men. Similarly, distinction is made between the reliability of many of the other sources and a fair judgement given as to how believeable the author finds them.

I think this book would be best read after tackling a good overview work, such as 'The Battle' The Battle: A New History of the Battle of Waterloo, or Andrew Roberts' 'Waterloo' Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Gamble (Making History)or even Siborne's 'History…' History of the War in France and Belgium in 1815. It works very well in conjunction with Peter Hofschroer's book 1815: The Waterloo Campaign. Volume 2: The German Victory to aid in presenting a very rounded view of the Waterloo as a whole.

Highly, highly recommended.

Whirlwind's review is so accurate. This is a great read. Not sure I read anything new though. Adkin's is still the book for the facts (OK folk will move the French gun line a few yards/metres to the West I know but otherwise…….) Glover's five volumes are unbeatable and I still love Chandler's Hundred Days, if only for the maps. Barbero's is probably the best starter's.

There are few accounts from the French side. (They are a bit like that over La Manche….militarily the most successful nation in the world (a statistical fact apparently) but they do not like (admit to) the odd reversal every century or so……..

Great read.

Thanks – I was havering over this purchase so this was helpful…

Thank you sidley for pointing out this book to me and thank you Whirlwind for the review.

I am going to buy this as well. Anything on the 100 days from the French perspective is rare in English.

I own a copy of 'Les Quatre Bras' by Alain ARCQ, but my French is utterly appalling!

I wish that series (Les Batailles Oubliées) would be translated into English.

one of the best is:

Coppens, Bernard, Waterloo 1815, les mensonges

Dammit, another book to add to the list of 'must buy'! Thanks for the review ;)

I enjoyed the book – I have spent countless hours translating French sources with OCR tools, translators, so it was nice to read accounts that actually had gender correct and subjects/verbs in the order I could understand!

I do want to comment on the mention of Coppens' book – I have never read it, but the debate between him and "velite" is a treasure trove of detailed information. Have to deal with online translations, but check it out:

link
link

There are numerous threads that can be found by searching. Best of all, its free!

It would be wonderful just to 'download' a language into your head. sigh!

Thanks whirlwind for the balanced review.

Here is my take on the book.

I had posted this on another site not long after Field's tome first came out in 2012.

The book, Waterloo. The French perspective by Andrew W Field, comes in the standard hardback size of 160x240 mm (6 ¼ by 9 ½ ). The illustrated pages are in black and white and are of the French personalities which include Napoleon, his marshals, some of his corps and divisional commanders and a few lesser mortals in colonels Crabbe, Bro, and Marbot. There is an illustration of a contemporary map of the area and one or two old photos of the significant buildings used in the battle. The rest of the pictures are of the usual well known engravings and paintings of the battle. There are 27 pictures in total.

Between pages 118 & 119, we have 8 colour pages of maps that were produced by the authors son, showing 11 important moments in the battle ‘Adkin can rest assured that his maps are still the tops'. On page 86 we have a black and white schematic example of Marcognet's divisional ‘attack' column and a not overtly detailed campaign map on page 24.

Of note is the listing of French sources in appendix 3 giving the name of the author of the account, their post/unit and what formation they were in. not all those listed were quoted in the book.

The run down of the books sections are:

Section One
Setting the scene:
(1) The French Army of 1815. Page 9
(2) Preliminary moves. Page 23

Section Two
Prelude to Battle:
(3) The night before. Page33
(4) The morning of the battle – 1am to 11.30 am. Page44

Section Three
11.30am to 1.30pm:
(5) First attacks on Hougoumont. Page 61
(6) The Grand Battery. Page 71
(7) The First sightings of the Prussians. Page 80

Section Four
1.30pm to 3.30pm:
(8) Preparations for D'Erlon's Attack. Page 84
(9) The First Assault on La Haye Sainte. Page 89
(10) The Attack on the Ohain Road. Page 97
(11) Counter Attack of the British Cavalry. Page 109
(12) Hougoumont. Page 123
(13) The Second Assault on La Haye Sainte. Page 131

Section Five
3.30pm to 6.00pm:
(14) The Prussians Arrive on the Battlefield. Page 133
(15) The Great French Cavalry Attacks. Page 137
(16) The Prussian Pressure Begins to Mount. Page 164

Section Six
6.00pm to 8.00pm:
(17) The Taking of La Haye Sainte and the Real Crisis. Page170
(18) The Defence of Planchenoit. Page 176
(19) The Attack of the Middle Guard. Page 184
(20) The Rout Begins. Page 205
(21) The Sacrifice of the Old Guard. Page 208

Section Seven
8.pm to 1.00am:
(22) The loss of Planchenoit. Page 213
(23) The Disintegration of the French Army. Page 216
(24) The Last Squares. Page 224
(23) The Road to Genappe. Page 233

Section Eight
Tactical Notes:
Introduction. Page 239
Napoleon's Attack Options. Page 239
Hougomount. Page 242
The Columns used in D'Erlon's Attack. Page 244
French Cavalry Attacks. Page 249
French Cavalry Tactics at Waterloo. Page 252
The Sunken Lane Obstacle. Page 253
The Killing of Prisoners. Page 255
The Attack of the Middle Guard. Page 256
The Grenadier Guards. Page 260

Section Nine
Summary: The French Perspective
Introduction. Page 261
Hougoumont. Page 261
The Attack of D'Erlon's Corps. Page 263
The Great Cavalry Charges. Page 264
The Fighting Around La Haye Sainte. Page 267
The Real Crisis. Page 268
The Fight Against the Prussians. Page 270
The Attack of the Middle Guard. Page 271
French Generalship. Page 273
Could the French Have Won the Battle? Page 276

Appendix 1: The French Army at Waterloo. Page 278
Appendix 2: Anecdotes. Page 281
Appendix 3: Eye-witnesses Consulted. Page 288
Notes. Page 291
Select Bibliography. Page 301
Index. Page 305

************************************************** *****************

List of Maps

Initial deployment
Hougoumont attacks
D'Erlon's Attack
The cavalry attacks
Prussian attack on Planchenoit
Situation at 7.30pm
Attack of the Middle Guard
Repulse of the Middle Guard

************************************************** *****************

The beginning and part of the Author's preface:

I have been a soldier all my life. This work has been born out of my abiding interest in the Napoleonic wars and the Armies of Napoleon. Long hours of archive study are not conductive to a military career and family life, so I have indulged my hobby by acquiring as many of the memoirs and first-had accounts as possible. Those I have not been able to find on second-hand book websites (try abebooks.co.uk) or Ebay (French and Belgian sites), I have been delighted to access in the British library. As I have deliberately tried to present a fighter's view of the battle, as far as possible I have avoided official reports from senior officers….

Virtually all French translations are my own and I take full responsibility for any errors. I have tried to retain the feel of authenticity of the original rather than to try and bring them into modern English parlance….

I do not have a long list of eminent Historians to thank, as both the research and the writing has been very much my own work….

Then we have a full page quote by Sgt Hippolyte de Mauduit, Chevalier de la Legion d'Honneur, of the 2nd Battalion of the 1st Regiment of Foot Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard. "So here is the faithful picture of the battlefield, chosen by Wellington…."
His diatribe about the British and the Duke being defensive is all you need to know about this, though the rest of his quotes used are very interesting

The author goes on to explain in his introduction that he is:

a rare breed", being a British soldier (Officer) with "a fascination for Napoleon's Grande Armee" and that "it would be incongruous to accuse me of being a Francophile".

I, and there must be many others in general and on this site, who serve and have served her majesty's armed forces who also have a fascination for said Grande Armee.

He then says that:

in the hundred or so years following the great battle it would have been viewed as treasonous to suggest that the Duke of Wellington had not fought a perfect campaign that the French had come close to winning the battle, that the French army was anywhere near as brave or as capable as the British, that it was the Prussian intervention that was decisive or that, despite Wellington‘s army being only 25% British it was not down to them alone that the battle was won,

All of course have no basis in reality. Of course people in general have a nationalistic bent towards the British/Dutch/Belgian/German during the campaign, but ever since on first reading the account as an ignorant snotty and spotty teen of the 70s, I, as well as those past and present, had been well aware of the contribution of our German, Belgian and Dutch allies. I recall reading about how the Dutch 27th jagers for example, lost about 350 of their 800 all ranks in the campaign. Now If I, a teen snotty could pick up on it I'm sure that the more educated would have ‘seen the light' also.

Now we get to the nitty gritty.

The author goes on to say:

that the time is right to take a clear, objective view from the French perspective.
And.

some French historians find it hard not to turn an account of the battle into an almost hysterical Anglophobic tirade, and it is some what strange that virtually all French accounts refer to the enemy as ‘English', rather than ‘British' or ‘Allied', and making little or no reference to the many Dutch, Belgians and Germans that made up the majority of the allied army.

So what! Wasn't it ‘and still is, what historians and accounts called those foreign contingents fighting as part of the Grande Armee; French!

most French accounts of Waterloo are every bit as jingoistic as subjective as many of those produced by the British. However, whereas British accounts were taken as the truth on the basis that they won and British officers did not stretch the truth or tell lies (!), the French accounts have been disregarded on the basis that they were poor losers

Where is the evidence for such claims that the British 'or French' stretched the truth or lied?

We have ‘what ifs' from beginning to end of the book.

This is one of the quotes that made me cringe:

After two committed attacks, Milhaud's cavalry, both horses and men, were exhausted. However, the allied cavalry did not have it all their own way when they sallied forth to push their French counterparts back. Although the British accounts portray these counter-attacks as largely one-sided, the facts seem to dispute this. Lieutenant Chevalier was a veteran of many campaigns and charged with the prestigious Chasseurs a Cheval of the Imperial guard Guard.

"The melee became terrible, it was a dreadful carnage, the ground was covered with dead or dying men and horses; it was the height of terror….as the Guard cavalry advanced, we were moving forward; when we saw rushing towards us, a regiment of English cavalry, which came to charge us. It could not tell our strength because we were in colonne serree par escaldron: 'Let them come', said our generals, 'but do not use the edge of your blade, use the point, make good thrust with the point,' They arrived on our position in their red jackets perched on their horses, drunk with their blades in their hands, slashing to the left with their poor sabres…. We opened up a little….they came in….and, in less than ten minutes, there were no red jackets still on horseback. I believe this fine regiment was of the Royal Guard and was completely wiped out."

The above account remember is meant to be evidence of ‘fact' according to the author. Anyone know of any evidence to support that any Household/Guard or dragoon regiment were completely wiped out? Of course the ‘British' counter-charges were not all one sided, but this type of evidence is a very poor example.

There is also the accounts of British squares being broken.

A quote by De Brack is first used stating:

It has been said that the Dragoons and mounted Grenadiers to our left broke several squares ; personally I did not see it – and I can state that we lancers did not have the same luck, and we crossed our lances with the English bayonets in vain

Which is just one eye-witness account, though coming from that of a famous French cavalryman, from one part of a very smoke-filled and chaotic battlefield is no proof either way.

The author uses this account to support a claim that a British square was broken by cavalry:

Perhaps the most damning evidence comes from a British soldier describing the temporary breaking of a British square:

The next square to us, was charged at the same time and were unfortunately broken and retired in confusion, followed by Cuirassiers; but the lifeguards coming up, the French in their turn, were obliged to retrograde, where the 33rd and the 69th resumed their position in square…."

I had a funny feeling that this selective account (by the so called 'Sergeant' Morris) of the 73rd may be being used to try and fit an agenda.

There follows on the same subject of the British squares, this:

Whilst many might argue that this is purely mischief-making by a non-commissioned officer from one regiment against another, (in time honoured British tradition), this inter-regimental rivalry is not reflected in any other accounts of the battle and, as we have already discovered, as victors the British were quite prepared to suffer bouts of amnesia when it suited them; particularly amongst the officers.

Where is the evidence for such statements above? Especially the ‘discovery of amnesia' (a substitute for lying!) quote, Not very 'objective views' methinks!

that the time is right to take a clear, objective view from the French perspective.

And what of his:

that "it would be incongruous to accuse me of being a Francophile

Later in the book he tries without much conviction he trots out that old quote below to show that 6 Colours were taken and one was an English flag taken at ‘Waterloo‘.

However, given the four that the allies admitted to, Mauduit's claim of six may not be so hard to believe as a recipt, signed by an ADC to Marshal Grouchy, is reproduced in a book on General Delort, published in 1906. It reads, 'Receipt of a flag from the English at Waterloo taken by the 9th Cuirassier regiment, dated 26th June 1815.' In a postscript to General Milhauld's report on the battle he states, 'In the different charges the cuirassiers have taken six flags that have been taken to the Emperor and one taken by Lt Gen Delort to Marshal Grouchy.

It seems that we are getting close to the 10 that Napoleon said was captured

From what you have read above, you may think that I am slating this book. Well I am to the point but It is still a refreshing retelling of the Battle from the ‘opposite lines, with many good French accounts that makes this book worth the space on the bookshelf. Just be aware that contrary to what the author says, his text is far from an objective view and is full of opinion, of which many are baseless.

There is much more I could comment on but I just can't be arsed. Perhaps if some other of you reads the book and opens up a discussion I will be happy to participate.

Paul :)

wow dibble, I must say it sounds a confused read and I'm not keen on any opinion that is baseless there is just too much of that about.

True Grit
wow dibble, I must say it sounds a confused read and I'm not keen on any opinion that is baseless there is just too much of that about.

It is still a very good book and refreshing from the point of the French accounts. Take Field's opinions with a pinch of salt and enjoy the rest of the book. You won't be disappointed.

Paul :)

There seems to be a few threads going about this book
by Andrew Field;

TMP link

TMP link

Regards
James

Sorry if I'm changing the subject 'a bit' but I'm creating a wargame scenario for Waterloo and I would like to know, in peoples opinion, how significant an obstacle was the 'sunken Road' on the Allied ridge line. I'm not a full member so I cant start a new thread.

@True Grit

You don't need to be a full member to start a new thread. Just go to the Napoleonic Discussions page and click on the 'Start New Topic' tab in the left-hand column.

I'll happily start this for you if you want? Like this it will easily be overlooked.

Indeed though, if you are able to insert your question at 04.48, you can indeed ask this your self.

The cutting down to the main road, the chausse, is still a formidable obstacle at one point only, the rest was destroyed by the work on that mound. At the Gordon monument, the bank is its original height and you would think twice about descending on foot, let alone on a horse.

You, though, are surely referring more to the Chemin de Ohain running East/West at right angles to the Brussels/Charleroi road. The north side of that still has a small bank and the south side has none. I recall reading that the north bank probably reflects the 1815 situation and the south went with the earth moving. Let's say a 4 foot drop onto what was then a much narrower lane (plenty of very old photos). Enough to shelter in, but no great obstacle to cavalry, even for Victor Hugo! If you want to see a real sunken lane, go down towards Papelotte. Down there, it is quite remarkable……….

Thanks SJDonovan, I will start this as a new thread.

G'Day Paul

I know nothing of ten British squares being broken…but there is a possibility that one square was.

According to Sergeant Thomas Morris of the 73rd Regiment at the Battle of Waterloo:

"The next square to us, was unfortunately charged at the same time, and were broken into, and retired in confusion, followed by the cuirassiers; but the Life Guards coming up, the French in their turn, were obliged to retrograde, and the 33rd and 69th resumed their position in square, on our right, and maintained it during the rest of the day."

There are some who still refuse to accept that a British square was broken by cavalry…their argument is; What Sergeant Thomas Morris actually meant; was that the square retired in order, and since it did not leave the field of battle…and resumed its position, that the square could not have possibly been broken.

It has even been mentioned that it is absurd to think that the square was broken by cavalry because; after the battle, when the medical report was presented, there was no indication of any soldier in the 33rd and 69th of being killed by a sword….-not if they were saved by the Life Guards.

There is thought that if a square is broken…that normally the body of troops formed in square would suffers harsh casualties…that is an assumption…one that I myself would feel is normally correct under customary circumstances…nevertheless…in this case…my conjecture is that the life Guards saved them.

But we at least know that at the time the cavalry charges were over and the French Imperial Guard was advancing, the 69th and 33rd were back in their places and in reasonably good order, since 2 eyewitnesses of Chasse's division, who came up to repulse the Guard's attack, mention passing British squares which were in good order.

But that doesn't discount the fact that the 33rd and 69th may have been broken…and…were then rallied, and went straight back into the fight…

Thus…it may or may not of happened…but one should not rule out the possibility

Best Regards
Art

Art,

Have you read both of Private (at Waterloo) Thomas Morris' (never was a sergeant)tomes?

Read the Waterloo campaign sections. I say tome(s) as the second is pretty different in detail to the first.

The 1845 edition
link

The 1858 edition
link

Paul :)

G'Day Paul

Do you mean the 1858 edition on page 109… -I do like the version you found on ARCHIVES…I like the online program…

Then page 220 in the 1845 version…

If so I have both…

It is true he only served 7 years…I wonder what he did afterwards…do you know…

As for the title page the publisher put "late Sergeant"…so I accept that misunderstanding n'est pas…

Best Regards
Art

G'Day Paul,

Since both editions plainly state that the combined square of the 33rd and 69th was broken…that portion is closed in regards to Sergeant Morris (of course at Waterloo he was a Private).

-but again I shall reiterate that it may or may not of happened…but one should not rule out the possibility…

As for whether Morris was a Sergeant…accordingly he states that he was promoted to Sergeant with the reduction of his battalion. Sergeant Morris explains they had 311 men (his brother included) that had to leave the battalion.

I never read much of what transpired to Sergeant Morris after Waterloo…which is quite regrettable…because it is a very interesting read.

Of course you may know something that perhaps would reveal that Sergeant Morris was never a Sergeant in the British Army…which would be interesting to learn.

Best Regards
Art

Thanks for the reply Art!

Have you read his 'witnessed' account of the action at Genappe? His account of Corporal John Shaw of the 2nd Life Guards?

How did he manage to confuse Cuirassiers with Lancers and Chasseurs, especially as he got the 7th Hussars correct and also, could correctly identify the difference between said Lancers and Cuirassiers on the 18th?

Trooper Thomas Playford's account of Shaw shows just how 'imaginative' Morris could be.

Perhaps these post battle eyewitness examples were as all lying as Field 'in so many words' implies.

Captain George Ulric Barlow 2nd/69th
Camp near Paris 7th July 1815

"Such was the result of the first attack of the cavalry which I had conceived to have been a reconnaissance on the part of the enemy, but to my great surprise, this was succeeded by a second on the left, then a third and afterwards by a variety of others, during the course of these hours till 5 o'clock on every part of the division & Lord Hill's Corps, these attacks were reiterated in the most daring manner. Their officers we saw [urging them on] in the most gallant style and their men followed up the example; but the squares stood firm and not one of them for a moment was disordered. The enemy cavalry repeatedly dashed into the centre of the British centre and at each attempt were received with much destructive vollies [sic] from the surrounding squares to excite my astonishment at such useless destruction, nor were they discontinued till the flower of the French cavalry both men & horses were almost wholly destroyed and the remainder could not be brought to act with any effort at a period shortly afterwards when their services were most arguably required as will be presently related."

William Thain

To

J.Thain Esq., Newcastle upon Tyne, England

Brussels 19th June 1815

"My dear father,
I have arrived here after one of the hardest fought and bloodiest battles that has yet been recorded. The French having crossed the frontier, we marched from Soignes & we attacked them on the 16th and remained masters of the field, but about noon next day retired pursued by the enemy and took up a position on some heights near the village of Waterloo about 9 miles from this place where we bivouacked and were again attacked about noon yesterday. We carried all before us until about 7 o'clock in the evening when fortunes appeared to change against us, it was about that hour that the squares were ordered to advance against the enemy's artillery, the 33rd forming half of the front and the whole of the left face, that I received a musket ball through the left arm a little below the shoulder, but as the bone is not fractured I hope to be soon well again. We all thought from the strength of the enemy and the manner in which their artillery mowed us down in the evening that we had lost the day, but I am happy to inform you that the French are retiring in all directions. The Belgic cavalry refused to charge but a square of some Dutch infantry repulsed a charge of cavalry very gallantly. Our division which was 7,400 new is now only 1,500. Feats of personal courage were shown by every individual and the British have placed the ball at the feet of the northern allies who will find no difficulty in kicking it on to Paris. French Imperial eagles have been paraded through the streets by a party of our dragoons and columns of prisoners are marching through continually for Antwerp to be embarked for England. Never was [there] a more glorious day for our dear country. I have spoken with the Paymaster General just returned from the advanced posts who says that the French are entirely destroyed and the number of cannon which we have taken cannot yet be counted. Bonaparte's private second carriage with all his baggage has just come in escorted by Prussians who have continued the pursuit. Our whole army has been engaged, our little brigade took twelve pieces of cannon themselves and General Halkett with his own hand made a French general officer prisoner .
My arm is very painful, I shall therefore only request you to write to Sophia to tell her I shall soon recover and to remember me most affectionately to all my friends.

Yours affectionately, William Thain.

PS

When we attacked the French on the 16th they occupied the famous
Austrian position on the heights of Jemappes. I had a horse killed under me that day."

Ensign George Ainslie 2nd/69th

"The 69th having suffered so severely on the 16th ., as did also the 33rd., another Regiment of our Brigade, the two were united, and even then formed but a small body of men.
Soon after the firing had become general, the Infantry of our Army were chiefly formed into squares, on which occasion our regiment composed our front right face; the rear and left remaining to the 33rd. This formation by squares, is admirably adapted for sustaining a heavy cannonade, and for being at the same time ready to receive the attack of cavalry; for, by causing the men to lie down, a square of 4our or five hundred men is no easy object to strike with shot or shells, and on the approach of cavalry, it is ready in a moment to receive them. The experience of the whole day confirms this. The increasing effect of the fire to which our situation behind the farm of La Haye Sainte exposed us, soon forced us to lie down; a command not unwillingly complied with. This formation causes no confusion, the square preserving its form, as when the men are standing; the only difference being that that the officers spaced in the centre for the supernumeraries and colours is thus reduced.

The Regimental Colour remaining in my charge, my station necessarily was in this place. In this manner were passed several hours during which the tremendous cannonade in almost every direction plainly told us that we had no more than out share in the business of the day. The time was only marked by the occasional striking of a shot in our square…..

Among those [events] which made the strongest impression, is the grand charge of the French Cavalry, which took place in the middle of the day. After we had been exposed for hours to the heavy fire I have just spoken of, on a sudden there seemed to be a pause; and soon after rose a general alarm that the Cavalry were coming. We were quickly ready to receive them. The firing now almost ceased on both sides; the French that termite not injure their own troops; and that on our side, by the forced retreat of the guards, through the intervals of the squares. In many cases, the guns were even left; and the men and horses alone, took refuge either in in the squares or behind them. The brow of the hill was in a moment covered with Cavalry, and they then swept down, literally like a torrent, on our squares. From some cause or another, I think from our being in the direction of La Haye Sainte, our square was never charged on the 18th."

Paul :)

G'Day Paul,

Thank you for your response…

May I ask why you continue to ask if I have read this or that…you have already proved you did not read the two volumes you recommended.

But of course he was lying and quite the imitative fellow…

As a Soldier for over 33 years…serving in two armies…I never once wrote home about our failures…only of our achievements (when permitted)…and I made quite a few mistakes in identifying units myself over the years…

I have even listen to Soldiers talking to other Soldiers in front of me…of a situation that occurred…and had to walk away in disgust…and there were times I would sit in many nightly briefs that left me opened jawed on how successful a operation was…

Just recently after serving 15 months in combat…in Afghanistan…I would never talk about any failures…and still wont…

Private Morris diffidently belongs to the category of soldier that is not to be trusted or believed…

So I shall change my views…you have convinced me of my error…private Morris was never a Sergeant…he was a liar…very imitative fellow indeed…and there is absolutely no possibility in a square being broken…

Best Regards
Art

PS: hmmm…and you don't think it strange that…"I think from our being in the direction of La Haye Sainte, our square was never charged on the 18th"…does that mean that the Guards and 73rd were not charged as well…especially since the 73rd was also in the direction of La Haye Sainte ;-)

Art

PS: hmmm…and you don't think it strange that…"I think from our being in the direction of La Haye Sainte, our square was never charged on the 18th"…does that mean that the Guards and 73rd were not charged as well…especially since the 73rd was also in the direction of La Haye Sainte ;-)

No! It means exactly what he says. "The brow of the hill was in a moment covered with Cavalry, and they then swept down, literally like a torrent, on our squares. From some cause or another, I think from our being in the direction of La Haye Sainte, our square was never charged on the 18th."

That the French charged but didn't charge their square. The French Cavalry 'as a whole, 'charged' at a trot at most.

As a Soldier for over 33 years…serving in two armies…I never once wrote home about our failures…only of our achievements (when permitted)…and I made quite a few mistakes in identifying units myself over the years…

I have even listen to Soldiers talking to other Soldiers in front of me…of a situation that occurred…and had to walk away in disgust…and there were times I would sit in many nightly briefs that left me opened jawed on how successful a operation was…

Captain George Ulric Barlow and Ensign George Ainslie of the 2nd/69th who's Waterloo part of their letters I posted above, also tell of what happened on the 16th and the disaster that lead up to and including the loss of the Kings colour.

If you wish, I will post those accounts too.

Perhaps De Brack walked away in disgust when he was told by his oppo's that they broke several squares.

Paul :)

G'Day Paul

Alright…post all accounts that would support Sergeant…or is it Private Morris…and his account.

lets see if your research was one sided…

Then explain why…in all the various charges that day…the 69th was never once affronted with French cavalry…

You were a Soldier once…you tell me why De Brack may have walked away in disgust…

Best Regards
Art

@dibble

Thanks for those accounts, very interesting.

Art,

What I am saying is that two of those accounts above recalled what happened over those three days, good and bad. Or should we see it as those authors, in their private letters, were open about Quatre-Bras but conspiratorial about Waterloo?

That you experienced an incident which disgusted you, counts for nothing. This is about the brave 'significant individual other' who put their pen to paper. There are accounts from others of the 33rd/69th and 30th/73rd, which says nothing of the 33rd/69th square breaking but will tell about the sudden, temporary (in some cases shameful) panic and disorder that overtook them when ordered to retire to a bank and hedge-line. If they would write about that, they would write about any very temporary breaking of a square.

You were a Soldier once…you tell me why De Brack may have walked away in disgust…

You were the one who brought up that you "had to walk away in disgust" That's your personal experience.

Then explain why…in all the various charges that day…the 69th was never once affronted with French cavalry…

Who said that then? (You should read those accounts again with a bit of care.) They were confronted repeatedly by and fired on, by large bodies of French Cuirassiers who were milling about for some two hours or more, back and forth from the squares and the ridge etc. some witnesses said that they loitered for so long and so near that they may as well have been their own cavalry and not those of the foe.

The French cavalry charged as a whole the top of the ridge but milled around the squares; at most, at a trot. Succeeding 'charges' got slower to the point that many wrote of the horses were so blown as to not be able to move at all, even though they were close to the squares.

Alright…post all accounts that would support Sergeant…or is it Private Morris…and his account.

You have the links to the books, It's for you to show support for his claims, not me.

lets see if your research was one sided…

You don't have to see! If you think it one sided then thats up to you. I have stated that what Morris wrote should be taken with a pinch of salt. His credibility of witnessing the action at Genappe, and his character assassination of Corporal John Shaw (dropped totally from his second edition)are examples of what afaiac, is suspect about his recollections.

Paul :)

Art,

Sorry! You asked about Thomas Morris' military record.
He enlisted on the 29th May 1813. No.6 (Grenadier)Company of the 2/73rd Foot. He achieved the rank of Corporal on the 17th October 1815 and was discharged on 20th November 1818.
He did not attain the rank of Sergeant.

Paul :)

G'Day Paul

Good info on your last posting…do me a favor…

Can you find out…

In the British Army…when you receive an 'In House Promotion'…from the Commander…is it officially recorded?

I do know that you are reduced officially to your last official rank when discharged.

-I do know the regulations for the Americans…French…and a few third world countries I have been with…I know the French that win their rank under fire…it can never be taken away from them….I knew an Adjudant-Chef who had won his rank under fire…

Best Regards
Art

Local or Temporary (Rank). Is an unpaid rank, usually granted for a specific task operation or mission in a specific location or period.

Acting (Rank). The holder assumes the pay and allowances appropriate to the acting rank, but the commanding officer may revert him to previous rank held without recourse to a court-martial.

Substantive (Rank). Is the fully paid and officially confirmed permanent rank that can only be taken from you through court-martial.

Paul :)

G'Day Paul

In May of 1817 he received the rank of Sergeant…and it must be either temporary or acting…you decide…

Page 155 in the 1858 edition…

Best Regards
Art

I don't have to decide. His record states that he attained Corporal. If It was Sergeant or Field Marshal, it would state it in his records. He completed his minimal term of engagement of 7 years service then left the army.

Might I suggest that it is not impossible that Morris exaggerated his rank in the belief it would give his memoirs more credibility or make them more likely to sell?

'Captain' W.E. Johns, the author of the 'Biggles' stories, certainly did so!

But Johns didn't write an auto-biography of his exploits in the Army and Air Force as Captain W.E Johns, did he.

Paul :)

No, but his fiction – probably many incidents were based upon personal experience or knowledge of WWI in the earliest 'Biggles' stories – was published under a rank he did not hold, which is morally no different.

And then, many Peninsular veterans, writing their memoirs after the publication of Napier's history, incorporated details from the latter to describe events thay had not experienced, or did not remember so clearly. Contemporary attitudes towards historical accuracy were not the same as those in academia today.

How ironic that a thread about the French perspective of Waterloo has become a debate as to whether Thomas Morris was a Corporal or a Sergeant!

Arthur1815:

How ironic that a thread about the French perspective of Waterloo has become a debate as to whether Thomas Morris was a Corporal or a Sergeant!

Yes what a shame! Especially as Johns wrote about fictional fighter pilot (something he was not) and Morris wrote about personal experience as a participant as an infantryman during the Waterloo campaign, which he was.

And then, many Peninsular veterans, writing their memoirs after the publication of Napier's history, incorporated details from the latter to describe events thay had not experienced, or did not remember so clearly. Contemporary attitudes towards historical accuracy were not the same as those in academia today.

As I have said, Read Morris' highlight accounts that I mention above, then read the same accounts told by many others.

Paul :)

Paul,

I don't understand why you regard the fact that Johns wrote fiction and Morris wrote memoirs as so significant, when my point was simply that the latter might have 'promoted' himself for similar reasons to Johns, and you, yourself, state that there is no record of him attaining the rank of sergeant.

I simply offered a possible explanation for Morris, by analogy with a veteran of a more recent conflict who was concerned to get his writing published.

I have also read that Rifleman Benjamin Harris appears to have slightly increased his height in his Recollections, when compared to his army records.

As Shakespeare put it: "But he'll remember, with advantages, what deeds he did that day…" And, perhaps, his comrades, too? I doubt human nature has changed much since Tudor times.

Just breaking cover for a moment for some general comments about military recollections:

Over the years I have learned that military folk will often elevate, elaborate, and exaggerate recollections. The purpose for such poetic license may be anything from comedy to personal deification. Personal accounts must always be viewed with a bit of scientific skepticism. There are many recent academic studies available that reveal serious problems with total reliance upon "eye-witness" accounts. Verification of the accounts with other corroborative accounts or physical evidence is necessary.

Also, if anyone asks my military rank, I tell them "Captain"
because that's was my last rank. I do not feel the need to preference my recollections with details regarding my rank at the time of the event. I could, but unless my rank is important to the narrative I do not include it.

Just some thoughts.

I enjoyed the book – some interesting detail, esp re Plancenoit and the Guard's involvement – I had often wondered why the Prussians did not go round the village to the South – now I read that they did, and skirmished with the French in the woods.

Also interesting the first hand accounts of the village fighting, when 50 men at a time were sent in, then all order/control lost once they started firing, and another 50 sent in, etc.

So a useful book IMO (notwithstanding the comments above re factual accuracy of British squares and standards).

There are so many reasons why letters, journals and reports from the period are not reliable. Many eye witness acounts were written by ghost writers for profit see PDF link (page 18)
Officers 'remembered' the official regiment line which was primarily concerned with building up a heroic vision to encourage future generations. Senior officers, especially the COC were well aware that there were serious political issues at stake and junior officers often needed to prove their metal to a parent or relative who was financing their career.
Also, it is not often appreciated that all European states at this period operated extremely repressive measures against subversive activities and it was second nature for everyone to avoid saying or writing anything that could possibly be interpreted as unpatriotic. Truth was often simply not an option.

There's a wonderful bit in one memoir when a diarist has his action report rewritten much more optimistically by his superior. "This is how you write a report". And quite a few of the French accounts quoted clearly have issues with the truth (I remember one from I think the Guard Chasseurs about how they cut up a red-coated British cavalry unit). Still they are evidence, they aren't usually entirely made up, and careful analysis allows you to learn something from them.

The most important thing historians can do is to read this evidence, cross check it and query its inherent probability. Field's book does quite a good job of this, although he is relatively new to the game. He doesn't just dump undigested quotes and leave it us to make up our own minds.

Tim Clayton's new "Waterloo, Four Days that etc" is very good at taking all accounts with the proverbial "pinch of salt". Unique in its detailed coverage of the allied cavalry counterattacks, to the French massed horse assaults. Also, not sure I have ever appreciated just what a close run thing it was, during that period, just after the fall of LHS. His picture of the centre of the line is of a very empty scene.

We have been lucky this year. The French Perspective just had to add something. Glover's final volume to his Archive I thought the best read of them all. O'Keefe's Aftermath is great for the subsequent few weeks. Foster on "The Posterity" is good for the decades that followed. Admit it! Cornwell proved a far better read than we expected.

I agree that these documents are the key to our undestanding, but they can never be relied on without careful cross checking.

Mathewgreen

There's a wonderful bit in one memoir when a diarist has his action report rewritten much more optimistically by his superior. "This is how you write a report". And quite a few of the French accounts quoted clearly have issues with the truth (I remember one from I think the Guard Chasseurs about how they cut up a red-coated British cavalry unit). Still they are evidence, they aren't usually entirely made up, and careful analysis allows you to learn something from them.

Here's the piece from Field's book.

"The melee became terrible, it was a dreadful carnage, the ground was covered with dead or dying men and horses; it was the height of terror….as the Guard cavalry advanced, we were moving forward; when we saw rushing towards us, a regiment of English cavalry, which came to charge us. It could not tell our strength because we were in colonne serree par escaldron: 'Let them come', said our generals, 'but do not use the edge of your blade, use the point, make good thrust with the point,' They arrived on our position in their red jackets perched on their horses, drunk with their blades in their hands, slashing to the left with their poor sabres…. We opened up a little….They came in….and, in less than ten minutes, there were no red jackets still on horseback. I believe this fine regiment was of the Royal Guard and was completely wiped out."

Paul :)

Captain de Juger

There are so many reasons why letters, journals and reports from the period are not reliable. Many eye witness acounts were written by ghost writers for profit see PDF link (page 18)

Your PDF link is just an opinion from an academic.

Officers 'remembered' the official regiment line which was primarily concerned with building up a heroic vision to encourage future generations. Senior officers, especially the COC were well aware that there were serious political issues at stake and junior officers often needed to prove their metal to a parent or relative who was financing their career.

Have you evidence of this? And can you expand on where these officers came from?

Also, it is not often appreciated that all European states at this period operated extremely repressive measures against subversive activities and it was second nature for everyone to avoid saying or writing anything that could possibly be interpreted as unpatriotic. Truth was often simply not an option.

What European states? Does this assumption include France?

Most of the new material released by Glover, Franklin and Erwin Muilwijk are from private sources.

Perhaps you could expand on the above.

Paul :)

I think that it is fairly well established that some memoirs were ghost written as described in that link. That thesis also examines the issues with veracity in the newspapers of the day. He quotes sources for his views but I have not checked any of these. An intersting, and apparantly well sourced, article on the 'repression' can be found at PDF link
I don't think that it is disputed that there was considerable repression of Bonapartist sympathies in France after 1815.
The whole issue of 'accuracy of the sources' is one that I would love to have the time to go into it more fully. But as I said, the documents are key to our understanding. I just do not think that we can realistically accept every anecdote without question.

Thanks for finding the quote Paul.

My quick review of Adkin shows that the Chasseurs were on the (British) right, while the red-coated British regiments (the heavies) were in the centre, so it is difficult to reconcile with the possible. Unfortunately Field does not discuss it.

I still find it fascinating, as it describes cavalry tactics you will not see on nay wargames table I know – and clearly the author thought it was a plausible story.

Matthew

Captain de Jugar

So what about the private memoirs. And to say that because a recollection was ghost written doesn't mean that the account is/was inaccurate.

Of course what is needed of an incident is corroboration from other sources, (see my contribution on this thread) but to say that authors of personal or ghostwritten accounts had been censored or or 'got at' in order for their accounts to be 'sexed up' by national secret police, is for lefty conspiracy theorists and Napoleon/Grand Armee worshipers.

Perhaps you could point to where such occurrences had happened.

Andrew Field, in the book under discussion here, makes accusations 'amongst other opinions' of lying (selective amnesia) with absolutely no evidence, which is bad authorship. and any author who espouses personal opinions in their tomes are doing us the reader a great disservice.

And as for the 'academic' author in your PDF link. As far as I am concerned; he is calling my ancestor and a huge number of others who fought in the Peninsula, Southern France and Waterloo, and/or his ghostwriter as liers.

I notice you have avoided the French as being manipulated in the so called manner of which you say the allies were. So tplease tell me; what of the French accounts?

Paul :)

Huh, you were doing well in your discourse on objectivity until you for some reason mentioned your ancestors being called liars. I trust that must have been intentially ironic??