"Errors in Adkin's Waterloo Compendium? Surely not!" Topic

I've heard suggestions here that there are errors in Adkin's Waterloo Compendium, but rarely with any specifics. A recent topic raised this again. TMP link
I, long ago, noticed the holed cuirass as that of a carabineer, called Faveau, not a cuirassier. I also commented on the white overalls on the Foot Guards as an error (I think we laid that to rest earlier this year). TMP link
But this book is still gospel to me. My first edition is slowly disintegrating and, if there is a revision, bring it on! (I do have a spare, to keep at home)
The only concrete responses are from 4th Cuirassier, matthewgreen and Michael Westman, as below……….are we missing anything else?
I recall the phrase "riddled with errors", but cannot cite the reference, from here.

(1) 4th Cuirassier
the white overalls on the Guardsman
As in, British Foot Guardsman? IIRC there are two primary sources for that – a surviving equipment issue record and a Denis Dighton painting.

(2) matthewgreen
Errors or suspect items in Adkin:
French OB Bachelu's Div, 2nd Legere not 3rd Ligne. Jermone's Div – other way round.
Grand Battery. According to Field most likely started battle on Belle Alliance ridge, though elements may have advanced forward later.
French 6in howitzer illustration. This looks like replaced "Gribeauval" 6in howitzer, when my understanding is Guard used version based on Prussian 10pdr, which had bigger barrel.
Hougoumont. Suggests that both Foy's brigades attacked, rather than one (Field my source again) – 2nd brigade joined Bachelu's attack on main line.
Not entirely sure he has woods, buildings etc right for Plancenoit and approach – though I want to do more research on that.
But, it has to be said, pretty good overall and it's where I go to first for information.

(3) Michael Westman
I think I remember the only real mistake that Adkins' book has is the French artillery (the grand battery) on the intermediate ridge between the two lines, in contrast to the French reports. He has these really pretty diagrams of the batteries, how they looked all set up. There may have been some French artillery that moved up later in the battle to that ridge but not initially. (The three 12pdr batteries by the chaussee did move up during d'Erlon's advance.)

I will burn this well-laid out, helpful, user friendly, insightful tome immediately!!!!

The 2nd Light and 3rd Line were switched at the beginning of the campaign. Scott Bowden's Armies at Waterloo (which is the original "Bible" for order of battle research, and which is usually the starting point for all orders of battle for the campaign) had these two regiments going the other way. John Franklin discovered the mistake. So this has been a common mistake since Bowden's book.

I don't think anyone can be sure of what units outside of Jerome's division fought inside Hougoumont. Foy said his division operated at the edge of the Hougoumont hedges and his division provided battalions from time to time to support or replace Jerome's division in the wood. Jamin's brigade of Foy's division attacked along with Bachelu's division at the end of the cavalry attacks. So Jamin's brigade was obviously in hand around 5:00 – 6:00.

@deadhead

I am less convinced by Mark Adkin's book than many here, because I do not feel he undertook the necessary research. He merely copied the work of others like Scott Bowden and the ubiquitous Philip Haythornthwaite (who provided a great many elements), and therefore copied their mistakes. I could list dozens in the section on Hougoumont alone (which is almost a complete copy on Haythornthwaite's chapter on Hougoumont from 'Waterloo Men' by the Crowood Press). One example being Sergeant Ralph Frazer, who confronted (some suggest unhorsed), Colonel Cubierès of the 1er Léger during an encounter in the West Lane. Examination of the extant records at RHQ Scots Guards confirms that Frazer was a member of No.3 Company, not the Light Company, which is why he had a pike, not a fusil. I could of course go on, but will desist here.

@Michael Westman
I wasn't aware that I discovered this Michael, although it is noted in one of the books I've written due for publication next year. I found many of the notes made by Scott Bowden's researchers in a file at Vincennes when going through the relevant carton, and it is clear that the researcher merely copied the report of the 10th June 1815 for the II Corps (Reille). If they had gone back over the returns for the previous two months they would have been able to follow the evolution of the corps more easily. The details of the engineers attached to the divisions are also incorrect, and the numbers in Bowden's otherwise excellent book are further inaccurate as they do not include those detached for the ceremony of the Champs de Mai (who had not returned from Paris).

John

Never imagined we would see such authoritative responses! Marvellous thing about this forum….you can pick brains of the real experts who have looked at primary sources.

@John Franklin…your reply made me wonder why I only have the Netherlands and Hanoverian Correspondence volumes. I wondered why I never bought the Prussian one, as I remember it was promised. Did it ever appear?

@deadhead,

The current answer is no. The publication was cancelled for several reasons. Nielsen, the company responsible for allocating ISBN numbers to books worldwide, were notified and as such all book stores and outlets (including Amazon) should have removed the title from their listings.

I cannot say too much at this stage, but there will be new books on the French and Prussians early next year, and a 'Complete' book containing ALL the material I have amassed in April 2015. There will be an announcement by the publisher of these titles shortly, together with an announcement by Fonthill Media about a new book I am writing for them.

John

Good information by John Franklin, clearly Adkin alone won't do for Belle Alliance – but despite its pitfalls became a scrosanct bible for this battle

I looked at Adkin's book over the weekend. He also has the initial French "grand battery" as having 80 guns instead of the 54 it actually had.

I also found a pretty major gaffe, though it might be thought of as a minor detail. He has the initial French deployment I and II Corps) as battalions in columns of attack. They were probably in line, though they may also have been in columns, but if so, certainly not in columns of attack. He then makes the statement on page 195, "At Waterloo the voltigeur company was invariably sent forward at the outset of an advance to provide a skirmish line….and when it did so the Grenadiers remained centrally at the rear as a reserve during the advance."!!!

Though this could be done, I'm not aware of any army following up a divisional column (two platoons in line abreast) with one platoon in the rear. If the voltigeur company was sent out, the battalion could only form column by platoon.

Now these are the kind of expert answers I had hoped for, but frankly did not expect……..

These will all need much research, but are very thought provoking. This is decent history at work!

Michael

Actually, it was only when both the elite peletons were absent that the battalion must form a colonne de peleton. Absent a single elite peleton the remaining elite peleton could form at the centre rear of the battalion, albeit a colonne d'attaque not a colonne par division.

Allan

Thanks Alan. I didn't realize that the colonne d'attaque could be used with just the grenadier platoon at the rear. (I'm thinking about the column deploying on the center division eventually.)

The wording in Napoleon's 1808 Decree can be interpreted as meaning either that battalions must operate in columns of peleton, as opposed to division, whenever both elite companies are detached or only one of them.

However it is impossible for a six company battalion, formed in divisions, to form square from a column, using the drill in the 1791 regulations, unless all six companies are present. I therefore believe that a column of peleton would have been formed whenever a single elite company (eg voltigeurs) was detached. A column of two divisions, with an odd company hanging around at the rear, cannot form a square.

Rod