"myths and outright lies!" Topic

Just read a chapter of Barbero's 'The Battle' and in it he described another erroneous myth;
That Rielle's corps at Waterloo was wasted by attacking Hougoumont and Rielle was held up the whole day by a few units.
In fact Rielle's corps was used in a much wider context than just attacking the buildings, as large amounts of French Infantry moved up the ridge, and Wellington was forced to use some 22 infantry battalions, plus most of his artillery in that sector, in the fight to keep hold of the chateau (and supply it with ammunition).
When taken in proper context and outside of the myth, the use of Rielle's corps in this manner was part of the plan all along; pin Wellington's attention on his right flank, carry out the main attack on the left flank, force Wellington to use all his reserves in both sectors, capture Hougoumont and La Haye Saint, then deliver the battle-winning attack in the centre between those two strongholds.

Quite a standard Napoleonic strategem when you think about it, rather than an abberant blunder.
Barbero states that it was not the sucking in of Rielle's divisions that was the problem, but rather the failure to take the Chateau. That, and of course the arrival of the Prussians which drew so many resources away from the final attack!

Another myth could be that the Austrian army was useless and always beaten by the French in the Revolution and Empire period.
If you don't include the battles where Napoleon was personally commanding, the Austrians won at least half of the battles they were involved in, particularly in the Revolution phase. Having studied the patterns and themes during the Revolution the main determining factor was probably the numbers that were concentrated at any given battle and the ability of the commanders, rather than tactical innovations or doctrine. I'm not saying these other things weren't important as well.

Another myth could be that the Austrian army was useless and always beaten by the French in the Revolution and Empire period.
If you don't include the battles where Napoleon was personally commanding, the Austrians won at least half of the battles they were involved in, particularly in the Revolution phase. Having studied the patterns and themes during the Revolution the main determining factor was probably the numbers that were concentrated at any given battle and the ability of the commanders, rather than tactical innovations or doctrine. I'm not saying these other things weren't important as well.

Its a shame that the very capable troops of the Austrian army often are poorly rated in games. I think they showed they are made of sterner stuff at Aspern Essling and Wagram. But their reputation suffers due to a select few inept leaders coupled with the Aulic Council making things even harder.

Ashenduke

Maybe we should give a historian of Chandler's stature the benefit of the doubt, but I have seen this idea overplayed so many times by British historians. Certainly Wellington almost never fought a defensive battle without a reverse slope available to cover a large part of his line. But the French soon wised up to this and developed their own countermeasures – though not sufficient to actually lead to victory.

There's also a suggestion that "Continental" commanders pompously exposed there men to needless casualties – and the story about Blucher at Ligny is used as evidence. In fact the charge can only really be levelled at the Russians with any justice. I also think it was quite common practice to ask troops to lie down if under bombardment (though I can't quote chapter and verse).

I agree with you about the Austrians, though surprising few Austrian officers can be described as wholly inept (Mack perhaps, maybe Weyrother). Archduke Charles was clearly overawed by the personal presence of Napoleon. The most interesting case though was the performance of the Austrians (generals and men) under Suvorov, when they proved at least equal to the French and Russians – but lost so many men that their higher command lost their nerve.

Having said all that Austrian performance in Bavaria in 1809 showed clear flaws.

Just reading up a bit on Ulm and came across this on wikipedia on the topic of the different calendars.
link

dcjack.org/kagan%20on%20ulm.html

A bizarre historical myth about Napoleon's victory at Ulm, 1805

You can't believe everything you read, nor everything you find on the Internet, even when found in responsible sources. Here's a remarkable example of a historical myth that will likely be impossible ever to stamp out.

In 1805, Austria, Russia, Sweden, and a number of minor states launched the war of the "Third Coalition" against Napoleon's France. In September, an Austrian army invaded Bavaria, an ally of France, and marched without significant resistance to the German city of Ulm, on the Danube. There they stopped, their mission being to guard the Alpine passes from southern Germany to Italy, to prevent any French forces from reinforcing the French armies in northern Italy. This Austrian army was to be joined by a Russian army in late October.

Napoleon was quick to take advantage of the situation, launching his attack on the Austrian army in early October, well before the Russians arrived. The French army, descending on the rear of the Austrian army from the north, cut the army off from its supply lines to Austria, then encircled it, trapping 30,000 Austrian troops in Ulm. On October 20 the Austrians surrendered. The French army then turned east to face the Russians and the remaining Austrians, defeating them in the Battle of Austerlitz on December 2. This was perhaps Napoleon's greatest triumph, marred only by his naval defeat at at Trafalgar on October 21. That defeat ended any possibility of an invasion of England, but Napoleon reigned supreme on the European continent.

Now, how was it that Napoleon was able to find the Austrian army alone at Ulm, with the Russian armies still in Austria, far too distant to offer any help? Had Napoleon been a few weeks later, or the Russians just a few weeks earlier, he might have had to confront a combined Austrian-Russian army at Ulm, and the outcome of the battle, and the war, might have been entirely different. How was it that the Austrian army was so far ahead of the Russians, the Russians so far behind?

The myth is this: that they were simply confused by dates, due to the conflict between different calendars in use at the time, and the Russians were supposed to be at Ulm alongside the Austrians. Here, from Napoleonic Wars: Battle of Austerlitz:

"But where were the Russians? In a staggering display of administrative ineptitude, the Allied staffs had failed to recognize that while the Austrians followed the Gregorian calendar, the Russians still employed the older Julian calendar. In 1805 the difference was 12 days. So while the Austrians expected the Russian army to arrive on October 20, the Russians did not expect to join the Austrians until November 1."

That explanation for the Russians arriving too late to help the Austrians is certainly pleasing, in its elementary simplicity. And yet, to believe it, one has to imagine that the Austrian and Russian military leaders were astoundingly foolish. How could they not be acutely aware of the difference in calendars, given their regular meetings and discussions, in Vienna and St. Petersburg? The problem of differing calendars must have come up myriad times during their war planning. It's not credible that they would suddenly fail to remember the difference at the crucial moment.

The truth is much more complicated. The Austrians did not imagine that Ulm would be the site of a great confrontation with the French armies, so they weren't prepared to face the full force of Napoleon's Grande Armée. They believed that the main battles would take place in northern Italy, where Napoleon had established vassal states, and where the two principal powers, France and Austria, confronted each other. The Austrian army racing through southern Germany, to Ulm, was intended mainly to block the routes through the Alps for French forces in central Europe to come to the aid of their armies in Italy. Even when a large portion of the French army appeared in northern Germany, the Austrians still considered themselves safe from attack, because the path of that army was blocked by the principality of Ansbach, a Prussian state, neutral.

Wrong, of course. Napoleon chose to make Germany the main battleground, not Italy; and he sent his army racing through Ansbach, ignoring Prussian neutrality, and so made himself an opportunity to encircle, overwhelm, and capture the Austrian army. Frederick W. Kagan covers this in exhaustive detail in his definitive work on the campaign of 1805, The End of the Old Order: Napoleon and Europe, 1801-1805.

Why, I wondered, did Prof. Kagan not mention this matter of calendar confusion, and its supposed role in leaving the Russian army far to the east while the Austrian army was being captured by the French? Well, I e-mailed Prof. Kagan for an explanation, and he was kind enough to reply virtually immediately:

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:56:05 -0400
From: "Fred Kagan" <FKAGAN@AEI.ORG>
Subject: RE: Battle of Ulm
To: "Jack McKay" <jack.mckay@VERIZON.NET>
Thread-topic: Battle of Ulm

Dear Mr. McKay,

I'm happy to have an opportunity to think about 1805, thank you! I thought I had addressed that issue in a footnote, but perhaps not.

It is a myth. I have seen with my own eyes the march-plans the Austrian general staff developed showing where the Russian forces would be on each day--and using the right calendar. And I have seen no evidence whatever in the voluminous correspondence between the Russians and the Austrians and within the Austrian army and court that anyone was confused about this. It is a bizarre myth, particularly considering that Russian and Austrian armies had been fighting in close proximity for many years both against France and against Turkey, and all Russian correspondence directed to non-Russian recipients carried both dates as a matter of course.

I think that there is a contemporaneous French source that mentions this, and, of course, David Chandler picked it up in his Campaigns of Napoleon. But it is entirely without foundation.

Regards,
Fred Kagan

So, it's "a bizarre myth", "entirely without foundation". But will this truth ever catch up to, and overcome, that appealingly simple tale of calendar confusion?

Jack McKay's home page

March 13, 2008

Very intertesting. And logical.

Something always bothered me about the different calendars story. The Austrians and Russians had fought closely together just a few years earlier during the war of the 2nd coalition. The Russian Suvarov acted as C-in-C in Italy with the Austrians running headquarters administration (under the Austrian Chasteler). Russian and Austrian armies had also worked as a coalition at the Battle of Zurich in the same year.
It is inconcievable to me that two Nations that had worked together just a few years before would make such an elementary mistake in 1805.

some thing like this? ingesloten Napoleon bedacht een plan om uit de opgezette val te ontsnappen: het leger van Tsjitsjagov werd misleid door desinformatie en trok zuidwaarts langs de Berezina. Op 24 november werd gestart met de voorbereidingen tot het bouwen van een brug in Stoedzjenka, verder stroomafwaarts, onder bevel van generaal Aubry. Op die plaats was de rivier 20 m breed en voorzien van een wad met een maximale diepte van twee meter. De oevers waren evenwel laag en drassig en waren doorsneden door ondiepe zijarmen waardoor de brug aan beide zijden een stuk langer moest worden.

arrived next day General Jean-Baptiste Jean Baptiste Eblé, with four hundred mostly Dutch pontonniers. In the morning of 26 november constructed Captain George Diederich Benthien in the icy water and his Dutch pontonniers the first of the 23 bridge yokes. In these extremely difficult circumstances, with some by the strong current dragged or were they that morning perfectly supercooling succumbed, exemplary of their task. The bridge with a length of one hundred meters by four meters wide, in height ranging from one to three metres, meant in these circumstances, an exceptional problem. The Corps of Marshal Oudinot crossed the Berezina and developed first on the left bank to the South to repel an expected attack of Tjitsagov.

grts serg joe

link link grts serg joe:)

I stated before the crossing of m was done by the berezna was done by a dutch genral of the pontoners but now more info.
It was a captain diederich and his men abot 400 left hey were told to work 15 minutes in the water after there were just 150 left . Berezina .

Not general eble is a French hero there were others to!berezinebridgeberezina.

ik stelde voor het overschrijden van werd gedaan door de Berezna werd gedaan door een Nederlandse genral van de pontoners maar nu meer info.
Het was een kapitein Diederich en zijn mannen abot 400 links hey kregen te horen dat 15 minuten in het water werken nadat er waren slechts 150 vertrokken. Berezina. Niet algemene Eble is een Franse held er waren anderen
Brug over de berezina. generaal is dus niet de enige franse held , dit dit is een van de legendes die het beste uitkomen.

Het zelfde met de austerlitz meren !
grts serg joe

et zelfde met de austerlitz merengrts serg joe

???????????

Brownbear,

I believe that "serg joe" alludes to the extensive and important participation of Dutch technical troops in the heroic bridging operations undertaken to save the French/Allied army at the Berezina.

To him, there exists a myth that this was a task undertaken by French troops only, and he senses that the leadership of key Dutch officers has been overlooked in favor of their French colleagues, such as general baron Eblé.

To me, this is not so much a "myth" and incomplete or abbreviated treatment of the action at the Berezina. More detailed studies (in Russian, English or French at least), in my opinion, do not neglect the rôle played by the Dutch.

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

ik stelde voor het overschrijden van werd gedaan door de Berezna werd gedaan door een Nederlandse genral van de pontoners maar nu meer info.
Het was een kapitein Diederich en zijn mannen abot 400 links hey kregen te horen dat 15 minuten in het water werken nadat er waren slechts 150 vertrokken. Berezina. Niet algemene Eble is een Franse held er waren anderen
Brug over de berezina. generaal is dus niet de enige franse held , dit dit is een van de legendes die het beste uitkomen.

I suggested crossing was done by the Berezna was made by a Dutch general of the ponto-tensioners but now more info.
It was a captain Diederich and his men left abot 400 they were told to work 15 minutes in the water when there were only 150 left. Berezina. Not general Eble is a French hero, there were others.
Bridge over the Berezina. General is not the only French hero, that this is one of the legends that best true.

The same with the Austerlitz lakes!

- isn't Google Translate wonderful?

Yes it is

Not alwas but stil I'm working this out! grts serg joe

Did pontoneers worked at the austerlitz lakes?

no,
But the myth is this the retreating alied army most, of them escaped over the frozen and not faling in it al depends what you want hear. grts serg joe

Please let us get this in the right perspective : if English is serg joe's ESL then you are wrong, English is my third language and, yes I do make mistakes but I do'nt write gibberish. Furthermore he writes, and I quote : "there is a saying in the Netherlands you are not much if you ain't dutch!.
gents ,take that to the bank? YOU SHUP UP NOW? GRTS ERG JOE"
Well, this is plainly rude.
Now it is assumed that Dutch is his first language, and in this case you should know that, and I quote again : "ik stelde voor het overschrijden van werd gedaan door de Berezna werd gedaan door een Nederlandse genral van de pontoners maar nu meer info.
Het was een kapitein Diederich en zijn mannen abot 400 links hey kregen te horen dat 15 minuten in het water werken nadat er waren slechts 150 vertrokken. Berezina. Niet algemene Eble is een Franse held er waren anderen
Brug over de berezina. generaal is dus niet de enige franse held , dit dit is een van de legendes die het beste uitkomen" , is just as much gibberish in Dutch as all you have read of him in English.
To Joe I would like to say : Gelieve de mensen hier niet voor de gek te houden en wees aub steeds beleeft.

And now waiting for the wrath of Serg J or Serge Joe

If you're after myths then how about the idea that Napoleon was a shorty?

Leigh

The two trestle bridges built across the Berezina at Studienka were constructed by the 1st Pontonneer Battalion along with attached engineers and sailors who didn't have the equipment to build the bridges.

General Eble was in command of the bridging operation.

The pontoon bridge train was ordered to be burned at Orsha, over the protests of General Eble, but he managed to preserve and maintain enough tools, vehicles, and charcoal to enable his men to construct the component parts of the bridges at the crossing site.

Eble accompanied his pontonneers into the water to supervise the construction. Casualties among the pontonneers were very heavy because of hypothermia and exhaustion. Eble himself died in Konigsberg at the end of the retreat from exhaustion.

General Eble was an artilleryman, and not an engineer, and the pontonneers were also part of the artillery arm, and were not engineer troops.

B

Kevin,

All of that is nice but how does it pertain to determining the question of Dutch participation in the bridging affair?

Cheers,

The Bandit

There were three units that participated in building the bridges.

First, the 1st Pontonneer Battalion.

Second, the sailors that were mentioned.

Third, Chasseloup's engineers.

So, with those three units now available, research can be done to determine which, if any, were Dutch.

Now, taking a look at the formation of the French pontonneer troops during the Wars of the French Revolution it can be found that the original pontonneers were Rhine River bargemen. Were any of those Dutch? There's a start for you search, if you're interested. That's called historical inquiry.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Do you have any more critiques to offer?

B

Kevin,

Alexandre had said:

I believe that "serg joe" alludes to the extensive and important participation of Dutch technical troops in the heroic bridging operations undertaken to save the French/Allied army at the Berezina.

To him, there exists a myth that this was a task undertaken by French troops only, and he senses that the leadership of key Dutch officers has been overlooked in favor of their French colleagues, such as general baron Eblé.

To me, this is not so much a "myth" and incomplete or abbreviated treatment of the action at the Berezina. More detailed studies (in Russian, English or French at least), in my opinion, do not neglect the rôle played by the Dutch.

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

You made a short statement regarding what units built the bridge:

The two trestle bridges built across the Berezina at Studienka were constructed by the 1st Pontonneer Battalion along with attached engineers and sailors who didn't have the equipment to build the bridges.

Then you made a series of statements about General Eble.

I asked for the connection and you get rude. I was hoping you'd address how what you said either appeared to ignore Alexandre's statement or conflict with it. I was hoping you'd tell the rest of us why you are right rather than just making rude remarks towards me.

Cheers,

The Bandit

dear bandit
It was not intended to be rude to you but sometimes emotions get in the way. sory about it.
grt serg joe

serg joe,

I made my statement to Kevin not you.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Well, let's try some specifics in hopes of calming the waters, if not actually bridging them ….

Dutch troops were integrated into the French army when Holland was annexed by France in 1810.

Of the pontonniers at the Berezina, the following were mostly Dutch:
…. 7e compagnie du 1er bataillon de pontonniers (2/94) – capitaine Jean-Jacques Busch (Strasbourg 1773 – Strasbourg 1822) – from the armée pontoon park, from which 6 other compagnies also were at the Berezina *
…. 11e compagnie du 1er bataillon de pontonniers (2/83) – capitaine George-Diederich Benthien (Wittingen 1767 – 's-Hertogenbosch 1836) – from the IIe corps, this officer had previously served in the Dutch service

*1ere (capitaine Braun, ex- Delarue) & 9e (capitaine Baillot) compagnies du 1er battalion et 2e (capitaine Gauthier), 3e (capitaine Dormon), 4e (capitaine Pichon) & 5e (capitaine Andrieux) compagnies du 2e bataillon

There were also Polish engineers and a company of Polish pontonniers (capitaine Buyalski – 3/118), from Ve corps, at the Berezina.

Also in the campaign :
- 6e compagnie (capitaine Wolffügel) du 2e bataillon – parc d'armée parc
- 1ere compagnie (capitaine Gillet) du 2e bataillon – IVe corps
- 2e compagnie de pontonniers italiens (??) – IVe corps
- 8e compagnie (capitaine Heckman) du 1er bataillon – IIIe corps
- 5e compagnie (capitaine Bazeille) du 1er bataillon – Ier corps
- 3e compagnie (capitiane Noailles, ex- Braun) du ler bataillon – garde impériale
- compagnie d'ouvriers-pontonniers de la garde (??) – garde impériale (actually a double-sized company)
- détachment de pontonniers prussiens (lieutenant en 2e Leiben) – Xe corps
- compagnie de pontonniers autrichiens (??)

Actually, if you look at the biographies or service records of the "French" officers of technical troops in 1812, you will find quite a few who were not born in what we now think of as "France". There had been quite a few annexations by then.

Sources:
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
PDF link
link
link

Or, you could just buy a great book, in English:

The Battle of the Berezina: Napoleon's Great Escape
by Dr. Alexander Mikaberidze
link

"That's called historical inquiry."
:-)

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

Bandit,

I wasn't being rude. You asked, and I explained it to you. I would have thought that the posting spoke for itself as to why I posted it.

If you cannot accept that, and appear to do nothing but attempting to provoke an argument, then I cannot help you.

B

'"That's called historical inquiry."
:-)'

Yes, it is. Well done.

The Great Retreat by Paul Britten Austin also has quite a bit of useful information on the Berezina, the bridges, the crossing, and the battles on either side of the river.

Sincerely,
M

Kevin,

I wasn't being rude. You asked, and I explained it to you. I would have thought that the posting spoke for itself as to why I posted it.

If you cannot accept that, and appear to do nothing but attempting to provoke an argument, then I cannot help you.

I'm not provoking an argument, your posting didn't appear to speak for itself so I asked, you replied with this:

Do you have any more critiques to offer?

Yet, I didn't offer any critique, I asked a question – so your response appeared defensive as you wrote it.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Alexandre,

Thanks for the info!

Cheers,

The Bandit

The greatest lie to emanate from the Napoleonic period was Pitt's assertion that income tax to pay for the prosecution of the struggle against France would be a temporary measure.

Where do we apply for full refunds?

LOL very good point La Fleche.

Bandit,
I do think Kevin's first post addressed the question, and your response could be interpreted as a bit rude. So Kevin's subsequent irritable response was justified IMO.

There were three units that participated in building the bridges.

First, the 1st Pontonneer Battalion.

Second, the sailors that were mentioned.

Third, Chasseloup's engineers.

So, with those three units now available, research can be done to determine which, if any, were Dutch.
Now, taking a look at the formation of the French pontonneer troops during the Wars of the French Revolution it can be found that the original pontonneers were Rhine River bargemen. Were any of those Dutch? There's a start for you search, if you're interested. That's called historical inquiry.

Seems like a reasonable post to me. Alexandre then wrote an excellent post in response (I haven't had time to check out all the links yet though).

So we're all happy, yes?

The one thing that is certain is that very professional and even heroic action was taken at the Beresina, and a large part of the army was saved. I don't think any deliberate lies have been told about this action. If there is any confusion then is probably due to subsequent confusion rather than deceit. I.e. mis-info rather than dis-info.

There is a great scene in "the Cheap Detective," one of the more outrageous comedies ever made and a great send-up of all the "Bogey movies."

In it john Houseman who plays "Jasper Blubber" (the Sidney Greenstreet character) is sitting in a bar with Peter Falk (who plays the Bogart character.)

Houseman says to Spade "Mr. Peckinpaw I want to convey to you an Astounding Fact, in 1903 four Albanian fisherman conquered the whole of China!"

Falk says "Really, I didn't know that!"

Houseman responds- "That's because you didn't study history in Albania."

TW,

I do think Kevin's first post addressed the question, and your response could be interpreted as a bit rude. So Kevin's subsequent irritable response was justified IMO.

Well, questioning Kevin is sometimes seen as rude, yet Kevin questioning others is the norm. I believe if we were sitting at a table drinking beers and after a bunch of information that didn't mention the Dutch was spewed forth someone asked:

All of that is nice but how does it pertain to determining the question of Dutch participation in the bridging affair?

…you'd say the response should be snide? Heck, I'd say a response of:

"Some of those French units I named may have had Dutchmen in them, it was common," would have closed the matter cleanly enough.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I support Alexandre's suggestion to buy the book by Alex Mikaberidze – about the Beresina.

My goodness, it doesn't take much to spark an argument or passionate discussion (take your pick) on this board. I think I will start randomly posting seemingly unrelated topics to the Napoleonic board and sit back and watch it morph into WWIII. Lets start with ice cream and move then on to tape dispensers.

Some more specifics, perhaps ?

The commander of the italian pontooners serving in IVe corps was capobatlaglione del genio Giuseppe Marieni di Val Brembana (1774-1813). However, for the reteat from Moscow, this company was consolidated with Italian Guard sailors under the command of tenente di vascello, comandante la marina della guardia italiana Jean-Pierre-Jacques Tempiè (1772-1855).

The esteemed Steven H. Smith has posted the following on the Polsih pontooneers:
link

Here he provides details for the "French" pontooneers:
link

See also:
TMP link

One sees at once why the good Mr. Smith is so esteemed!

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

I'm sick of ice cream always being placed above tape dispenser's, we all know ice cream downplayed the importance of tape dispenser and historians have perpetuated that lie in countless writings.
Tape dispenser is easily top ten all time random topics with ice cream being severely overrated.

The pontonniers-ouvriers de la garde impériale (4/236) had these four officers:
- capitaine commandant Oudin (1781-1813)
- capitiane en 2e Lavillette
- lieutenant en 1er Jean-Pierre Guettmann (1767-1827)
- lieutenant en 2e Guichard
Together with the 3e compagnie du 1er bataillon de pontonniers (2/115), capitaine Georges-Louis Braun, a special équipage de pont was formed for the French guard and their Emperor.

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

'To him, there exists a myth that this was a task undertaken by French troops only, and he senses that the leadership of key Dutch officers has been overlooked in favor of their French colleagues, such as general baron Eblé.'

The 'key Dutch officers' worked for Eble, who was the commander of the pontoon train of the Grande Armee in Russia. Further, he was in command, and directed, the construction of the two trestle bridges across the Berezina at Studenka.

And, it was his personal example to his pontonneers that kept them at their work in freezing water and under fire. Eble accompanied every shift of pontonneers into the water when the bridges were being constructed and when they had to be repaired.

B

And I wonder, how is this relevant to the history of the Napoleonic Wars?

Let's just say that without disobying orders to destroy the waggons and the pontoons, Eble at least saved the waggons with the necessary tools for the multination pontonniers to build the epic two bridges at the Beresina – the Grande Armée of 1812 wasn't French but mulitnations, in fact an Allied Army.
Needless to say Mikaberidze discussed this all very well in his book about Napoleon's Great Escape.

'And I wonder, how is this relevant to the history of the Napoleonic Wars?'

The crossing of the Berezina? Eble? The Dutch pontonneers?

They are all relevant as they are a part of the history.

B

der sirs,
first of al I did not use kapital leters to expres , my anger. But I got an new key board a german one , and the cablock works different so the leter came out strange not looking to them. grts serg joe

And the bridge material? It was used acording to eye widneses ,the village of studenkia the wouden beams were taken. grts serg joe

They are all relevant as they are a part of the history.

No. That they were Dutch, or French or German… or whatever. Their birthplace has nothing to do with the history of the Napoleonic wars besides massaging the nationalist feelings of modern readers.

Hey! They were (insert favoured nation here)! Aren't we cool?

Say they were Dutch. Big deal. The Netherlands were part of the French Empire since 1810. What it is so strange that there were Dutch soldiers fighting in the Grande Armee ranks? Did their birthplace anything to do with their technical expertise? Did give to them some mystical powers to overcome water obstacles?

And yes, the crossing of the Berezina was anecdotical. Funny stuff to read, full of drama and heroism. Actually, it is more interesting as a way to research how heroism was (is) understood in Western countries, than for its impact in the campaign.

The beams were also dutch?

Bas,

I'll have to disagree with you here and I have no nationalistic 'feelings to massage.

And the crossing of the Berezina is much more than 'funny stuff to read.' The action was important in a few areas, not the least being it allowed the French to leave Russia as victors in the last battle, defeating to Russian armies while conducting an assault river crossing in the face of the enemy.

B