"Waterloo books opiions sought" Topic

are the two books below any good and worth getting

The Lie at the Heart of Waterloo By Nigel Sale

Armies at Waterloo: A Detailed Analysis of the Armies That Fought History's Greatest Battle by Scott Bowden

I have heard the the OOB's in Bowden book are accurate ? regrading units and strengths.

Would anyone mind sending me copies of the Waterloo OOB's from the Bowden book.

any advice etc appreciated

TIA

Sale's book deals with the conclusion of the battle – an aspect often dealt with very briefly – in detail. His thesis is that the 52nd Foot played a greater part in the defeat of the French than it is usually given credit for in most popukar histories. A good read, well argued and well worth adding to your library, IMHO.

Scott Bowden's books are usually worthwhile. I have a few of them but not the Waterloo one. The ones I do have I would recommend.

'The Lie at the Heart of Waterloo' seems to be about how Napoleon's Guard were not just defeated by the British Guards and that others, Chasse's Dutch-Belgians and Colbourne's 52nd to name a couple, were also involved. If you have anything deeper than a peripheral knowledge of the battle you will not be surprised though it might be 'entertaining'. I decided not to buy it.

old smokie

Bowden's 'Armies at Waterloo' is mainly the O.B.s of the three Armies during the Campaign and Battle. There is a brief description of Army organizations and the Campaign, but the O.B.s ARE the greater part of the book.

thanks

@ Camcleod

are the OB's accurate as regards to numbers

Bowden's 'Armies at Waterloo' contains the following:

For the French Army – about 68 pages on the O.B. for the Armee du Nord at Waterloo. These are based on original army returns preserved at the Archives du Service Historique at the chateau de Vincennes. Parade states were taken for the various Corps at different dates and vary from May 31 thru June 16 /1815.

For the Prussian Army – about 44 pages for the whole Army of the Lower Rhine with another couple pages detailing which units/formations were actually at the battle.
The Pr. O.B. is based on a German General Staff work from 1914 and a book on the campaign by de Bas and de T'Serclaes from 1908.

The Anglo-Allied army – about 45 pages for the units/formations at Waterloo.
The O.B. is mainly based on returns published in The Dispatches of Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington and the Supplementary Dispatches of … Wellington.
All British and K.G.L. returns are as of the morning of June 18 1815 and all Hanoverian and Dutch-Belgian/Nassauers
are from June 12 1815. The Brunswick states are those 'guaranteed' by the Duke of Brunswick. Since part of the Army had fought at Quatre Bras some of the unit strengths have been adjusted to account for casualties and those men returned to their units prior to the Battle of Waterloo.

The book also has about 66 pages of Appendicies of O.B.s and tables detailing the units/formations not at the battle.
The rest of the book, about 133 pages are on the Campaign, organization of the three Armies, reproductions of Sibornes maps, various paintings and portraits plus notes and bibliography.
Altogether a very worthwhile book.
Cliff

And there is the Nafziger order of battle collection
link
Use the search guide
link

815EAC
Prussian Order of Battle, Army of Lower Rhine, May 1815
PDF link
815FBA
Austrian Army of the Upper Rhine, June 1815
PDF link
815FAG
Prussian Army of the Lower Rhine, June 1815
PDF link
815FAH
French Forces Suppressing the Vendee Revolt,June 1815
PDF link
815FBM
Austrian Army of Upper Italy, 2 June 1815
PDF link
815FAC
French Forces at Dunkirk, l0 June 1815
PDF link
815FAD
French Forces, l0 June 1815
PDF link
815FAA
French Corps d'Observation des Alpes, 15 June 1815
PDF link
815FBC
Allied Forces at Quatre-Bras, 16 June 1815
PDF link
815FBD
French Forces at Quatre-Bras, 16 June 1815
PDF link
815FBK
Prussian Forces, Battle of Ligny, 16 June 1815
PDF link
815FBL
French Forces, Battle of Ligny, 16 June 1815
PDF link
815FBE
French Order of Battle at Waterloo, 18 June 1815
PDF link
815FBF
Allied Order of Battle at Waterloo, 18 June 1815
PDF link
815FBI
French Forces, Battle of Wavre, 18 June 1815
PDF link
815FBJ
Prussian Forces, Battle of Wavre, 18 June 1815
PDF link
815FAB
Austro-Sardinian Army under Frimont18 June 1815
PDF link
815FBG
National Guard of Paris, 22 June 1815
PDF link
815FBN
Austrian Army of Upper Italy, 23 June 1815
PDF link

I like it!!! A totally brand new game platform and at the same time subliminally educate and "illuminate" the Sheeple, I mean people! Need to get started on the design of that game straight away!!!

Now this is odd. I did reply, but that sure as heck is not my response! How very disturbing and too late to delete…..

This may be a totally legit posting, but nothing to do with me.

I rambled at length about what I disliked and, to my surprise, did enjoy in "The Lie at" book.

I thought I was being so perceptive…..my wisdom is lost.

The above makes even less sense than I did…nothing to do with the topic. HMMMM, must check my antivirus protection!

There could not another Grateful Dead fan who is obsessed with "Waterloo" surely………

I would highly recommend Scott Bowden's book on Waterloo. The information is accurate and well-researched and the book is more than useful.

It is an excellent addition to anyone's military history library.

Scott Bowden's book was certainly a worthy addition to the literature available on the Waterloo campaign when first published. It still remains an excellent book, but a number of important elements contained therein have proven to be wrong. It therefore cannot be described as accurate.

The researchers Bowden used to undertake work in France, notably at Vincennes, did a first class job in amassing material. However, they clearly did not discover all of the papers relating to the French army. This, aligned with the mistranslation of various documents led to several grave errors. One relates to the report of the 10th June transferring the 3rd Line Regiment to the 6th Division (Jerome) in exchange for the 2nd Light Regiment. The latter subsequently formed the vanguard of Bachelu's 5th Division, and the II Corps (Reille). This error, along with various others, was perpetuated in other books, whose writers merely copied Bowden's work, errors included. Mark Adkin did this in his 'Companion'. This raises another issue.

There are a number of authors who have produced excellent work on the French army based on primary (archival) research. Knowledge of French is vital. Clearly, Scott Bowden's knowledge of French is limited. Indeed, there are several writers of Napoleonic history who falsely claim knowledge of French (and German), in an attempt to enhance their reputations and 'claims' to knowledge. We must all be aware of these false claims and the motive behind these falsehoods. I've been delighted to offer material in English based on my own archival research, and translations of French and German documents (being fluent in these languages). I've also been delighted to acknowledge the Dutch translations done by others, from which I have benefitted.

John Franklin
Switzerland

@ John Franklin: I would be happy if you may contact me by email via stein AT napoleon-online DOT de.

Perhaps we may discuss about a visit of our "German"-based symposium about the Waterloo campaign in Celle.

Kind regards
Markus Stein
napoleon-online.de

'Scott Bowden's book was certainly a worthy addition to the literature available on the Waterloo campaign when first published. It still remains an excellent book, but a number of important elements contained therein have proven to be wrong. It therefore cannot be described as accurate…The researchers Bowden used to undertake work in France, notably at Vincennes, did a first class job in amassing material. However, they clearly did not discover all of the papers relating to the French army. This, aligned with the mistranslation of various documents led to several grave errors. One relates to the report of the 10th June transferring the 3rd Line Regiment to the 6th Division (Jerome) in exchange for the 2nd Light Regiment. The latter subsequently formed the vanguard of Bachelu's 5th Division, and the II Corps (Reille). This error, along with various others, was perpetuated in other books, whose writers merely copied Bowden's work, errors included…Clearly, Scott Bowden's knowledge of French is limited.'

If Scott Bowden's 'knowledge of French is limited' how did he clearly and fluently translate the works from French to English of Bressonet and Davout?

Do you know Scott Bowden? Have you spoken to him about this subject?

And if you have not, how would you know this and why are you posting this here?

@Kiley (Brechtel198)

Firstly, I know who and what you are. There's nothing clever in trying to hatchet other work, which is something you do on a constant basis to a number of Napoleonic authors and their books. Your amazon reviews are full of malice and frustration; no doubt borne out of your inability to sell more than fifty copies of the books you produce. It's a pity you feel the need to do this. You'd do better to spend the time improving your own writing skills or learning a second language, like French.

Secondly, unlike you I've actually been to archives in France and undertaken proper research. Whilst at Vincennes I met two of the researchers who worked for Scott Bowden. I subsequently corresponded with him as I could not find some of the references he quotes in his book (and still cannot to this day – surprisingly!). I know you are friends with him, and clearly source documents from his collection. Perhaps he even helps you translate some of the printed French books you can't read! Anyway, it is clear that at the time of producing this work his knowledge of French (like yours) was limited.

Thirdly, with regards to other works, I, like most European historians I have spoken with, assume he used a translator, much like yourself. Now, of course, you are going to refute all these claims (which, let it be known, have also been made by other writers against you). You will no doubt bitch and whine at my comments and personal attack – I don't like you and you had better know this. So the question is, how do we resolve this?

I live in Switzerland, a country in central Europe where the residents speak multiple languages. Even my good friend, the illustrator, Gerry Embleton (another whom you have criticised from behind the safety of your computer) lives here – some thirty minutes from me. Now, I'm sure we can find a way of hosting you between us if you can get yourself here the next time you're doing exensive research in the French archives. Hell, we might even be ble to get several other authors like David Collins to visit (and sponsors to pay for your flight). We can go to Lausanne and Geneva and you can demonstrate your skills with the French language. Perhaps we can come back to Bern or go to Zurich and you can show us your German. What a thrill! But of course, this will never happen. No, you are too happy to sit in your bunker dripping poison on the Napoleonic world. You are a disgrace Kiley, and the rest of us know it.

John Franklin

P.S. I've ordered copies of your new artillery titles and will take them into one of my lectures and discuss the books with my students. I'm sure all sixty will be happy to post their thoughts on Amazon worldwide.

That should read David Hollins, another historian you have attempted to belittle, of course!

Well, Mr. Franklin, quite the polemic, that, on several levels. It certainly made for interesting reading.

Now, since you stated in unambiguous terms that Mr. Bowden's researchers in Vincennes "clearly did not discover all of the papers relating to the French army," perhaps you can enlighten us as to which specific documents they overlooked? Please include the proper bibliographic citations so we will know what to look for.

You also allege that Mr. Bowden mistranslated various documents. Please show us which specific documents were not translated correctly--the original French, and then the incorrect translation you allege Mr. Bowden made.

You do know what a "Situation des Troupes composant…" is, don't you, Mr. Franklin?

I look forward to reading your responses to these questions. And by way of full disclosure, I don't know Mr. Bowden, I have never met, spoken with, or corresponded with him, nor have I ever read a single one of his books.

MaggieC70,

I am satisfied that I have made my point sufficiently. I am not here to undertake research for you or Kevin Kiley (and I'm not interested if you know this perennial hatchet merchant or not). I have given a suitable example of one report which was mistranslated and the implications on other Waterloo books, plus, if you use the search bar within this website you'll see I've reproduced dozens of items from archival sources for the benefit of TMP members. You'll no doubt be pleased to learn that in the next twelve months you'll be able to purchase several other titles I've written on the Waterloo campaign. These will be brimming with new material, derived not only from the French archives, but also swathes of translated documents from the various German archives. In short, proper research and unbiased writing.

John Franklin
Switzerland

P.S. I am attending various events in 2015 at which I will be lecturing. None are in the US, but if you wish to attend any events in Europe, I'll be delighted to advise you of the schedule.

Right. I didn't think you would--or could--produce any concrete examples. Many folks who make such sweeping allegations as you have, when asked to substantiate them, frequently cannot do so. I am not interested in the dozens of items you're reproduced in this website. I asked you for examples of the documents you claim Mr. Bowden's researchers couldn't find. And the report of 10 June--was that a mistranslation? If so, how? You fail to say.

I never asked you to undertake research for me. I don't need you to do that, thanks very much, since I can do it --and have done it--myself.

MaggieC70,

I am delighted to hear that you are able to undertake your own research. I sincerely hope you are able to understand the content of the material you find more easily than my previous post on this thread. It's a pity that you do not wish to read the numerous posts I have placed on this website for the benefit of the members. If you had done so you'd have found numerous items which relate directly to Mr. Bowden, his research, his book, etc., plus the references you say you require. If you follow the link you'll find a thread which relates directly to the report of the 10th June to which I referred, and the errors contained in the translation Mr. Bowden included in his book:
TMP link

John Franklin
Switzerland

P.S. I am not 'Many Folk' but a History Phd and lecturer responsible for various books and numerous articles on the period. Thank you.

Thanks so much for the C15/34 citation from the discussion back in 2010 here on TMP; the 1815 link unfortunately no longer exists, at least according to my browser.

And a Ph.D no less! Who knew? So what have you published besides the Ospreys? I hadn't heard of you in the Napoleonic field before.

MaggieC70,

I'm pleased you found the reference you required. Good luck with your research (and please, post on TMP when you have something of use to offer the members here as I have done on many occasions). The 1815 platform has been removed, as the material is available in printed form or via Kindle. As for finding what an author has written, try searching Amazon or Google.

John Franklin
Switzerland

P.S. I'm still intending to take Kiley's two new artillry books into a lecture and have my students post their thoughts on Amazon. I'll happily do the same with any material you've written.

Actually, I searched both Amazon and Google, and found the three Waterloo Osprey books, the third of which is due for release this week, and the two books your own 1815 publishing venture, now defunct, put out on the Dutch/German/Hanoverian correspondence. So that is the extent of your published output, unless of course Amazon and Google are somehow deficient?

I can't wait to see the reviews posted by your students on the artillery books, and I'm fairly certain other historians of the period will also get a chuckle from reading them. Thanks for the offer for similar reviews of my work, though, but if I had wanted student input, I would have asked my own students.

And I will indeed post here when I have something to say. It is for the members to decide whether it is of use to them, however.

Thanks MaggieC70, I'm sure all the members are eagerly awaiting your contribution.

You may rest assured that no self-respecting historian reads any of Kiley's books without laughing! It's his reviews which make people unhappy.

John Franklin
Switzerland

P.S. What makes you think 1815 Limited is defunct?

When I clicked on the link you provided, the web page was not available. And a Goggle search was no better.

Surely Kiley's reviews are not the only reviews on Amazon or elsewhere that make folks unhappy? Almost every author of any kind of book, whether historical or not, gets the occasional two-star or three-star review. Besides, no review, even one the author has paid for, is at the end of the day anything more than a single opinion. So why the unhappiness, I wonder?

I am not aware of any author paying for a review on Amazon; do you know this as a fact?

John Franklin

@Kiley (Brechtel198)

Firstly, I know who and what you are. There's nothing clever in trying to hatchet other work, which is something you do on a constant basis to a number of Napoleonic authors and their books. Your amazon reviews are full of malice and frustration; no doubt borne out of your inability to sell more than fifty copies of the books you produce. It's a pity you feel the need to do this. You'd do better to spend the time improving your own writing skills or learning a second language, like French.

He should also reappraise his use of sources. He has the habit of regurgitating the same old tired, out of date, secondary accounts and slagging off any author who questions his 'Napoleon world', which includes that amateur, useless, know nothing historian, writer and TV producer, Correlli Barnett.

Well done John, good posts and keep up the good work.

Paul :)

Yes, Mr. Franklin, I do know as a fact that authors pay for reviews on Amazon. I also know that Amazon has just filed suit against two of the sources of paid reviews. One of the most notorious of the review sellers is a company called Fiverr, which stands for $5 USD/review. Amazon is not suing Fiverr, but is removing their reviews as soon as it receives notification of them.

That is interesting! Thank you.

‘The fallacy of argument ad hominem occurs in many different forms, all of which serve to shift attention from the argument to the arguer. Among its more common varieties are, first, the abusive ad hominem, which directly denounces an opponent.'-Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought by David Hackett Fischer, 290-291.

Unfortunately, Mr. Franklin, this is what you have engaged in here and it is most unbecoming and completely out of place in any historical discussion.

Your ‘argument'/disagreement with me is about the reviews that I wrote about your two booklets on Quatre Bras and Ligny, both of them Osprey publications. In them, I said nothing about you personally, and could not have logically because I do not know you and a book review is not the place to get personal. Nor did I say anything personal or derogatory about Mr. Embleton, an artist whom I admire very much. That also applies to postings here or anywhere else. Yet, you have chosen, and admitted that you have chosen, to make derogatory and inaccurate comments about me personally. That is outside the Pale, and, if you are at all religious, is against the 8th Commandment regarding bearing false witness. And if you are not religious, it is still an excellent guide.

If you are an honorable man, you should withdraw that posting and comments and render an apology. I have nothing against you personally nor do I have reason to. I don't believe that your two books are very good and that you have the ability to do much better. I base that on the conversation on this forum about five years ago in which both you and I participated and agreed on certain aspects of the Waterloo campaign.

Whether or not you care for the books I have written (and I have only one new book coming out this year; the other is my first artillery book being republished) is not my concern. You can believe or say what you want, as long as you keep it above the ad hominem and personally insulting.
I do hope you can do that in the future, as what you have written and posted here says much about you, and none of it is complimentary at all, and nothing at all about me.

All this uproar about reviews is interesting. I had to go read all the reviews on Amazon.com.UK and US for the books both Mr. Franklin and Mr. Kiley have written, and Mr. Bowden as well, to see why some knickers were in such a twist. Didn't see much, either way. If anything, everyone comes out pretty well in the wild and wooly world of reviewing.

For a real slice and dice review, go look at the very long one for a bit of historical fiction about Napoleon called "Killing the Bee King," by PJ Royal. Just sayin'…

There was a time when TMP (and various other forums) used to be about shared interest and enjoyment of the subject we all love, rather than a platform for individals who have an axe to grind. I would hate to become someone motivated solely by ego and a desire to force my opinion on others. I hope to offer material which benefits the greater knowledge. Unfortunately, Kevin Kiley does not mean to do this.

It is apparent that Kiley enjoys smearing, snipping and doing his utmost to belitle other work for no worthwhile reason. When someone fights back, then they are branded dishonourable, even unchristian. I think this says everything that really needs to be said about his character.

I will not apologise, nor will I remove my comments. The Amazon reviews – and I'm not merely commenting on those against the first two Osprey books I worked on, but many other hatchet jobs undertaken against other authors (such as his appalling two star review of 'The Waterloo Companion', a book I found most enjoyable) – form part of an unwelcome campaign of malice. They are bias and run contrary to the honest opinion held by the vast majority of people who read them.

This thread was started by old smokie to gain feedback on two books. Whatever points have raised previously (and those observations I have made are not motivated by malice, but are borne out of my research into the issues), I would say that both books are very worthwhile additions to your collection. Purchase them and consider the content. Perhaps post your thoughts here, so that we may discuss points you raise, without anyone stating that they have the absolute answer. For here lies the truth, history is an on-going discussion which has no end.

John Franklin

Thank you very much for proving my point. That was very considerate of you and it is greatly appreciated.

I would highly recommend Fischer's book to you. I have found it very helpful in studying military history. Perhaps you will also.

"…as an author, by now, you should really be used to any negative comments offered…if an author can't cope with any negative comment, then perhaps they [sic] should not read the reviews."

Sage advice from a specific reviewer, and echoed by many others in the Amazon community. The worst possible thing any author can do is to debate with a reviewer about his or her comments, or send in his fans to do the dirty work. Attacking a reviewer indirectly on other forums and groups is not a good idea, either.

Let me put it this way: when an author, like the maker of a product, puts his or her work up for sale, he or she loses all control of it. The consumer who buys the book or the product has earned the right to comment, good or bad, about the item, book or product, purchased.

Often an author, aggrieved about a review, or even several reviews, will not only challenge said reviews but also insist that the reviewer change it, or remove it entirely for all sorts of reasons. This sort of behavior by the author does not help his or her credibility in the long run and often damages it almost immediately.

On the various Amazon reviewers' forums, those who review a great deal refer to any author of any type of work who challenges a critical review as a BBA, or Badly Behaving Author, which is, I assure you, not a good thing. At the end of the day, reviews are written for readers, not authors. Reviews reflect the opinion of the writer of the reviews, who is entitled to his or her opinion, good, bad, or indifferent, of the book he or she has purchased and spent time reading.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Mr. Kiley's reviews--and his run the gamut as do mine, from high to low--no other author has bothered to challenge either his right to post what he thought, or engage in ad hominem attacks. An author tried that on one of my reviews, and her comments were summarily deleted by Amazon, who frowns on that sort of nonsense when it becomes personal.

MaggieC70,

Many thanks for your contribution. I'm sure old smokie will be delighted to read the content of your post. You really have contributed on the original subject matter. You strike me as a subversive; one of Kiley's minions. Of course, the most famous of these is John Walsh (who posts FIVE STAR review after FIVE STAR review of Kiley's work on every Amazon platform that he can access). Are you John Walsh in drag/disguise (a most unpleasant thought)?

John Franklin

P.S. I can of course write to Bill and ask him to ascertain (and to post) whether the answer you post here is true or false.

Here you go John!

Klick on the link and scroll down to post #14

link

If you read all her posts, you will see that she is totally in Massena's (Kiley) camp.

I think she's knocked out some book on Lannes many years ago.

Paul :)

Please write to Bill. Today. Right now. I can't wait for his response. And I am no one's minion, no more, I suspect, than Dibble/Paul is yours.

You apparently don't care for anyone to challenge your view of yourself or your body of work. If your work is good, and I have no idea one way or the other, it will certainly attract the notice it deserves with no assistance from the author.

Geez, can you guys knock this off. This topic is to discuss the two books mentioned and perhaps also suggest some alternatives. If you guys want to email your faults back and forth please do that by private email and that way they will only be read by someone who cares.

I don't what to take sides, but I do want to thank John Franklin for his work in bringing new sources, especially French, to light.

Wow, the system put "bleep" in. I wonder what happens if I say "knock this off."

Perhaps you should have used 'merde' to keep in the 'spirit' of the forum. ;-)

Michael,

Thanks for your comment.

If we go back to the original post by old smokie, he asked for feedback on two books. I think the book by Scott Bowden has been well covered in the comments above, and the errors within noted. However, there has been precious little in the way of comment about Nigel Sale's book.

Those of you who have purchased the book will note that there is a lengthy acknowledgement to the contribution I made in providing the author with documents – more than two hundred and fifty in fact. Among these were a wealth of previously unpublished British, Brunswick, Hanoverian, Dutch and Belgian, and French items. There were a large number of accounts, military service records plus records of family genealogy. I undertook to provide the author this material not for self promotion, but out of a willingness to help. I would not have mentioned this but felt obliged to do so because of the nature of the comments made above.

Whether you agree or disagree with the contents of his book (and I can state that Nigel and I have considerably different views on the events of the final attack by the Imperial Guard), I admire his desire to examine new sources and not just to follow the standard line available in other books. He was happy to benefit from new research (from various researchers).

MaggieC70, I don't see where I have been challenged. All I've read from Kiley and yourself is a lot of hot air. I suggest that you contribute something to the discussion which relates to the two books in question. Post your diagnosis on the content of the two books, the attack by the Guard Imperial, for example, so that we might all benefit from your experience.

Many thanks

John Franklin

P.S. A German expletive is every bit as valid as one in the French language!

Gazzola asks me to post this:

John Walsh Review record for the attention of Mr. John Franklin.

Amazon Uk:
15 x 5 star reviews (2 only for Kevin Kiley)
6 x 4 star reviews (1 only for Kevin Kiley)
10 x 3 star reviews (2 only for John Franklin)
1 x 2 star review
2 x 5 star reviews Napoleonic DVD's
2 x 4 star reviews Napoleonic DVD's

Amazon.com
2 x 3 star reviews (1 only John Franklin)

An apology from Mr. Franklin would be nice.

Didn't TMP do Scott Bowden and errors in referencing/losing credibility etc. years ago? TMP link

Maybe this thread needs to take a more lighthearted turn….

YouTube link

interesting…
I mean the psychology of it all-especially Nap players ;-D

Alfred,

Please do not lump all Nap players in one group. Not all of us know how to read let alone write.

wow. A non-fiction book that wasn't 1000000% accurate in every scintilla of exposition?

Say it ain't so!!

No doubt THE FIRST time ever!! The fall of western civilization is at hand!!

What next? Errors of omission AND commission? Sloppy editing? Dogs sleeping with cats?

BTW, thanks to ALL the authors of the 1000+ books on the Napoleonic era for giving me, a mere sinner and non-profound mortal some interesting thoughts to read and reflect on! That goes to Messrs Kiley, Franklin and Bowden [among many others]. Thank you gentlemen, and Blessings on you all!

Bill/Gazzola,

If the information you quote is correct – and I will check it – I do indeed apologise. May I ask, is there a reason John Walsh felt the need to post his review of my books on two platforms (both Amazon co.uk and .com)?

Whirlwind,

Yes, there have been a number of previous discussions about Scott Bowden's Waterloo book, and the various errors have been covered prior to this thread.

Cerdic,

I would be very happy to adopt a more light hearted approach to this thread., and will now retire to my continued research.

Many thanks

John

P.S. Dogs sleeping with cats!!!