"Artillery and Formations" Topic

Actually, I can't find the passage about "glory" in de Caulaincourt's memoirs at all. Maybe Kevin can point out the passage :
link

Instead, there is a rather detailed account of how bad the situation was for the French, and the actions at the Berezina and afterward, until de Caulaincourt decamps to Paris with Napoléon.

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

You can read this all again here if you like (TMP Oct 09): TMP link

I found the Berthezene quotation in The Anatomy of Glory by Henry Lachouque on page 264.

It is taken from Berthezene's memoir, Souvenirs Militaires de la Republique et de l'Empire, Volume II. Volume I is available on Google Books, and Volume II on Gallica.

As Caulaincourt has two books in print, you might wish to try both.

B

If the Berezina is a French victory, then Coruña, Dunkirk and the French retreat from Leipzig must certainly also be victories, as you say. (The evacuation of the Red Devils from Arnhem is surely another great victory, n'est-ce pas?)

Yes, I don't see any need to shy away from that. Within the 'Market Garden' operation, although clearly a German victory overall, there were allied victories in individual phases and actions within that – the successful escape of the survivors of 1st Airborne being one. Leipzig is more difficult since it seems that the French were expecting to save rather more of their force than they actually did (and I didn't know that the Allies were expecting to totally destroy Napoleon's Army on the 19th)? But with those caveats, yes, escaping with more than you expect is still a victory, in the midst of a campaign defeat.

I haven't seen any two sources that agree on how many were left behind at the Berezina and how many escaped, but if Napoleon got away with about half of his people, then that makes the Berezina almost as great a success as the rescue of the Titanic's passengers.

Well if you thought that the odds were that none were going to get away, then half (I thought the Titanic had a third of its passengers rescued?), thought hardly a great comfort, is still a result of sorts. If you think that more could and should have been saved, then it isn't. Persepective and expectation is important, I reckon.

But, as you say, consistency is the thing, otherwise it is just special pleading on behalf of your favourite side.

As Caulaincourt has two books in print, you might wish to try both.

Can you recall which one of those two it was in, please? It would help us all to find it.

The Berthezène quotation, if you have faithfully recorded it fro The Anatomy of Glory, is out of context, and deceptive.

First, in the original text, there is several paragraphs separating the "It has been said that the bridges presented a hideous spectacle due to the crowding and confusion" and the rest. Second, the remainder does not start with "In reality", as if put in opposition to first part.

What the general baron Berthezène says is that it was indeed really bad before the bridges, but maybe not so bad as *romance" (i.e. fiction) writers have made it. Actually, the most pointed message of the passage is that he does not really accept general Partouneaux's excuses for the surrender of his division.
See :
link
pages 169 and following

Again, an example of the pitfalls of relying on modern English-language secondary sources.

Maybe you could check these yourself, Kevin, before you trot them out here?

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

It isn't out of context because it describes what occurred. There is more to it and I stated where you can find it. The point is, with the quotation, is that too many only consider the problems with the bridges and the fate of the stragglers, and not on the fighting to keep the bridges intact and open.

The most important part of the quotation is regarding the military operation of getting the army across the river and away from the Russians after the fighting defeated the Russians trying to stop the operation.

You can find Caulaincourt's quotation also in the Anatomy of Glory, page 265.

B

"As Caulaincourt has two books in print, you might wish to try both."

Is this a game of hide and seek ?
Where did the quote come from, Kevin? You posted it.
De Caulaincourt did not write The Anatomy of Glory. So, where did the quote come from? You offered it, you should be able to identify where it originally came from, right?

By the way, I think it is from the preface by Jean Hanoteau to excerpts from the memoirs published in 1933 and republished in 1963. I do not think the words are from de Caulaincourt. But, please prove me wrong. The quote was yours, after all, and you think we should pay attention to it.

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

The Berthezène quotation is out of context because it opposes two ideas that in the original text were not stated to be in opposition. It does this by adding the linking phrase "In reality" which *is not even there" in the original.
As such, the quotation substantially misrepresents what the baron Berthezène wrote.
Sorry, but you proffered this one here, and quite plainly, it just does not say, in the original, what you claimed it to say. Anybody can go to the linked text and see this. Even you.

Amcialement,
- Alexandre

Kevin,

This is just a bunch of poo. You routinely lecture all of us on quotations and source material, now we're asking you where a quotation that you are relying on can be found and you provide a secondary source from which you pulled it. OK, great, we say we can't find it in the appropriate primary source and you say, 'go look in more of em.'

No. How about you go look in more of em, you claim the quotation is accurate and real, then provide the original source of it so we can see it to and determine for ourselves the correctness of your interpretation.

You are hard on others when their sourcing doesn't match up to your standard, now your own sourcing doesn't match up to your standard.

Poor show.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Poo?

Oh, good Lord, back to the schoolyard, are we?

I gave you the sources for the quotes. And the sources are as far as I can find, reliable.

If you don't believe they are, then demonstrate it.

I also gave you the Berthezene reference if you care to look it up on Gallica.

All you are engaging in now is obfuscation which is terrible. And that type of behavior is also intellectually dishonest. However, you may do as you wish.

B

'I do not think the words are from de Caulaincourt. But, please prove me wrong. The quote was yours, after all, and you think we should pay attention to it.'

I believe the quote is from Caulaincourt. If you don't believe it, that's your problem and yours to prove it is from someone else.

I gave you my source, so if you don't like it, then that's too bad.

Again, if you don't agree then prove me wrong. What you think is of no importance to me.

B

Kevin,

Oh, good Lord, back to the schoolyard, are we?

Yes, listening to you, I believe we are:

If someone makes a claim and Kevin doesn't believe it, Kevin says it is up to them to prove their claim.

If Kevin makes a claim and someone doesn't believe it, Kevin says it is up to them to prove it false.

That is rather schoolyard like.

Again, if you don't agree then prove me wrong. What you think is of no importance to me.

How about you prove you're right. When does the burden fall on you to meet the standard you apply to others?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Generally speaking, if you don't agree with what someone's has posted, and stated where the material has come from, it is up to those who disagree to disprove it.

If you don't wish to do that, which is entirely up to you, then the discussion is over, and the point is now moot.

I gave you two quotes, and I stated where I found them. Merely disagreeing with them does not prove them incorrect, out of context, or wrong.

That's where we are. Either post something, besides insult, that continues the discussion or move on.

B

Kevin,

You found them in a secondary source, we asked what primary source the secondary source pulled them from – does your secondary source not attribute them or do you just choose not to answer?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Mike,

Re: rounds used, rates of fire and/or time taken, it`s back to Senarmont`s report here:

Je portai mes deux batteries pour prendre position à 200 toises au plus de l'ennemi, et après une vingtaine de salves, cet ennemi ne bougeant pas, quoique nous vissions ses rangs s'éclaircir do minute en minute, je fis marcher les deux batteries à la prolonge et leur fis prendre position à 60 toises au plus de la ligne russe. Le terrain étant en triangle, et nous, marchant vers la pointe, nous nous trouvâmes réunis. Ce fut alors que nous fîmes pendant vingt-cinq minutes le plus terrible feu de mitraille que j'aie jamais vu.

At 200 toises 20 rounds fired (per gun?)

At 60 toises, 25 minutes of fire – but I think we would agree that if firing for this period of time it was not entirely composed of canister. However, the best part of 368 canister in the action were fired here.

Hide and Seek and ….. FInd!

The passage is from an article from 1928 in the Revue des Deux Mondes (a more popular or social periodical than strictly academic) by Jean Hanoteau entitled "En traîneau avec l'empereur".
link

The origination of the text with de Caulaincourt is third-hand at best.
De Caulaincourt collected his papers and began to write some pieces of memoires in the years 1822 and 1825. In 1837, these manuscripts were used a basis for the publication of a so-called "Souvenirs de duc de Vicence" by one Charlotte Sor, a woman who had met the general at a thermal baths near the time of his death and who had then acquired certain of his papers, in amongst other "confidences". These papers themselves being lost, the publication of Mlle Sor cannot be said with any care to be really the words of de Caulaincourt. As one recent publisher of these works wrote, ""Il s'agit en réalité d'un texte apocryphe et sans valeur""
link

Parts of the publication of Mlle Sor were then again re-edited/re-written by M. Hanoteau, then an author/publicist working for the French Army, for publication in the Revue des Deux Mondes in1928.

The passage, with its "gung-ho" wording, has been atributed to de Caulaincourt many times since then, and occassionally to others. Lachouque used it in his original French text in 1957 for "Napoléon et la Garde Impériale" and it migrated thence to The Anatomy of Glory in English.

Occassioanlly the passage is introduced as "S'adressant aux soldats ….", for example in Lachouque's "Napoléon 20 ans de campagne" (1964). One supposes that the document of de Caulaincourt that most nearly might have had such language as in the passage quoted by Kevin was some sort of morale raising piece for his staff or for fellow Bonapartistes during the Restauration. But at third- or fouth-hand, after several re-editings/re-writings, it is impossible to tell what de Caulaincourt really wrote and in what context.

Anyway, once agian we learn the risks of relying on modern secondary English language sources instead of tracing the original text and its publication history.

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

P.S. Mlle Sor's "confidences" from the ailing general at the baths were exactly what you more dirty-minded fellows were imagining.

Bandit,

It was actually a translation of secondary source that Kevin was quoting.
And, no, neither the translation nor the secondary source provided a source citation.

The reason for this is that the actual source for the passage is quite "problematic", not that this will even for a moment stop Kevin from trotting this liitle piece out to show people how great and glorious were the French.

Amcialement,
- Alexandre

Alexandre,

And, no, neither the translation nor the secondary source provided a source citation.

The reason for this is that the actual source for the passage is quite "problematic", not that this will even for a moment stop Kevin from trotting this liitle piece out

It sure didn't… from Kevin:

I believe the quote is from Caulaincourt. If you don't believe it, that's your problem and yours to prove it is from someone else.

I gave you my source, so if you don't like it, then that's too bad.

Again, if you don't agree then prove me wrong.

I wonder if he'll reply to this directly and how. He was giving me a hard time just recently… in this thread… for source quality and how one should vet them really well…

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit,

Kevin's ideas about sources do seem peculiar to me.

Well, my own equivalent of Mlle Sor appears to asking about "confidences" (or maybe she wants to go shopping …. she is calling on a bad line and speaking Russian really too quickly for me ….. but it is usually the one or the other with her).

I bid you "good day", Bandit, in whatever time zone you find yourself.

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

Alexandre,
You must be careful. I bid you "Good day" has taken on idiomatic meaning since the television show "That 70's Show". It was a pet phrase of the exchange student regular who used it to dismiss a conversation when he was angry. Old world politesse masking true emotions.
Of course, it might come in handy elsewhere in this conversation.

Alexandre,

For what it's worth I took it positively, hopeful that it was his intent ;-)

Cheers,

The Bandit

Test only – please ignore.

link

Test only – please ignore.

link

Test only – please ignore.

url=http://postimg.org/image/wtr69wa3d/]

Test only – please ignore.

[URL=http://s1204.photobucket.com/user/allan9991/media/Bataille_de_Friedland_Map.png.html]

Wow, I've been unavoidably focused upon work for the past two months, can't believe this thread is still going. I'll take some time to read through.

Archeopteryx,

It isn't. Thread ended Feb. 22, 2014 but Allan F Mountford put up four test posts this week that all state "Test only – please ignore."

Cheers,

The Bandit