"Where abouts of GdB Picquet's Brigade Jun16, 1815?" Topic

I have been looking to determine the where abouts of the dragoon brigade (2nd & 7th dragoons) of the 11th Cavalry Division under Picquet and have come up empty.
It appears that its sister brigade under Guiton (8th & 11th Cuirassiers) arrived approx 3:30pm to charge within that hour.
So the question being….
Has anyone come across what Picquet's division was doing and why it was not present for any charges at Quatre Bras?
And what was the source for that information?

I have come across information regarding the "dislocated 1st Hussars" who were sent west to reconnoiter the country side towards Nivelles by Lefebvre-Desnouettes.

thanks for your response!

MG

MG,
As I recall, John Franklin, in his recent book, mentions them being present at QB along with Guiton.
This was the first time I'd read that they were on the battlefield. John's research is excellent – hopefully he'll comment here.

According to Field Ney ordered them to stay at Liberchies, 5km southwest of Frasnes, along with Roussel d'Hurbal's division of Curiassiers and Carabiniers. The reasons are unclear.

This force could have been called in.

De Bas and Charras, both older secondary sources, have Kellermann's other 3 brigades at Liberches, southwest of Frasnes, in reserve. At 3:00 AM on the 16th Ney had ordered Kellermann (at Chatlet, south of the Sambre) to move north along the highway but Kellermann didn't receive orders from Soult transferring him from Grouchy's command to Ney's wing until 7:00 AM and traffic along the highway held him up.

Kellermann wrote a response to Gourgaud but I don't know where to find it (on line) and if it concerns Quatre Bras.

François Ètienne Kellermann, "Observations sur La Bataille de Waterloo en Réponse à un écrit Intitulé Campagne de 1815 Fait à Sainte-Héléne et Publié Sous le Nom de Gal Gourgaud "
Revue du Souvenir Napoléonien
64, no. 438 (2002).

Ligniere,

Many thanks for your kind words and confidence. I did indeed incorporate details of the role played by the 2nd and 7th Dragoons at Quatre Bras in the recent Osprey book (and was subjected to a barrage of derision as a result). As you know, I'm always happy to assist genuine enquiries, but I've already become tired of arguing with people who have never undertaken research in the French or German archives, and yet make absolute statements regarding the events during the Waterloo campaign.

Placing this to one side, I would firstly like to request that members read the following: link

I have been fortunate to have shared material with Paul, not least details of the losses sustained by the 2nd Dragoons (including among the horses) on the 16th June, which are among documents not found by Scott Bowden's researchers at Vincennes. (As he could find no returns he deduced that the brigade was not engaged.)

Secondly, new research undertaken at the Archive Nationale de France, among the papers of the Legion d'Honneur (LH), not available to Andrew Field, has produced two lenthy accounts and several other items which confirm the role of the brigade at Quatre Bras. I am not at liberty to publish these at this moment in time, as they will appear in another book on the campaign, by another author. However, these confirm the cavalry were called forward before 4pm. The LH reference is given in Paul's review.

Thirdly, a number of the Brunswick, Nassau and Netherlands accounts which I have published, and included in various posts on TMP from the Osprey website, clearly identify French cavalry as dragoons or light dragoons. I can post links to these articles again, here, if you so wish.

Furthermore, having discussed this matter with luminaries like George Nafziger (who offered other material and ascertains the brigade was at Quatre Bras – see his OOBs elsewhere on this website), I concluded that they were indeed at Quatre Bras, and engaged. Please note that I decided not to include Donop's Brigade in the book, despite evidence from these sources that this body of cavalry arrived in the early evening (before 9pm).

I hope this clarifies my position.

John

"I am not at liberty to publish these at this moment in time, as they will appear in another book on the campaign, by another author."

You better not leave us with just that small bit of information! :)

John,
Given the limitations in the format of the Osprey series I applaud the risk you took to bring to light this new research, which, as Paul Dawson points out, seems to be well supported by other written evidence – if Reille, a corps commander, reported that they were there, and the 2nd Dragoons lost 26 men on the 16th, that would seem to be pretty much a slam dunk – what's the alternative, that Reille couldn't differentiate between a dragoon and a chasseur, or that 26 lads fell off their horses.
In my opinion, research, and especially research that uncovers new information, should be applauded not criticized.

Michael,

I cannot say more at this moment, I'm sorry. My obligations are many and I will not break my word. As soon as the book by the second author has been released you may rest assured that I'll post the content, not least to refute some of the comments made by others, which I've mentioned above. If you wish to source the original accounts from the AnF, you may do so by going through the original hand-written documents in the LH files given in Paul's review.

Kind regards

John

Gentlemen!
I applaud your support on this.
I now can, with much confidence, make the finishing touches for my QB re-fight at upcoming HGMS event and do so with a good sense of accuracy.
It looks like I could invest in John's work in the osprey books. I shall look them up and place an order!

many thanks

MG

Many thanks John. I am ordering your Ospreys. Genuine new research and an open mind! We need more of this for history of this era, even in a battle supposedly as well researched as the 1815 ones. I'm afraid I find myself only able to bring the second of these things into play!

Matthew

Matthew,

I thank you for your positive comments. Every author wants to see their books sell, but my reply to marshalGreg's post was not intended to be an advertisement. However, the point you made earlier in this thread was a good one: if you were Ney, why wouldn't you call these horsemen forward (it makes no sense)?

Kind regards

John

P.S. I correspond with Andrew Field and highly recommend his books on the French at Quatre Bras and Waterloo.

if you were Ney, why wouldn't you call these horsemen forward (it makes no sense)?

Another angle might be, why would Kellerman be on the field, and involved in a brigade assault with Guiton, if a majority of his corps were not present?
The logical, common sense, sequence of events, presumably, would have been; Ney orders Kellerman to advance north in support of Reille. Kellerman, instructs his division commanders to advance. Kellerman takes the lead alongside L'Heritier, the division commander, and presumably Guiton's Cuirassier brigade, followed by Picquet's Dragoon brigade. The noise of battle, on top of Ney's order, should have been enough to draw Kellerman and whatever forces he could muster towards Quatre Bras. It wouldn't have been like Kellerman, to advance toward battle with one hand tied behind his back.

I think Paul alluded to the problem the French encountered at Quatre Bras in his review of my book, namely a lack of command structure. The terrain between Gemioncourt and Piraumont also restricted the movement of the cavalry in this area, and according to Comte Reille, forced the French horsemen to focus their efforts more towards the Bois de Bossu.

Ney realised that the Allied units had been reinforced, especially when the Brunswickers began to advance, and it was during this episode, a little after 4pm, that the Duke of Brunswick was mortally wounded by a shot fired by a French Dragoon. He clearly called the brigade forward prior to this action.

John

John,

It is very interesting to see you posting here on this subject; the information that you have given is compelling with regard to the presence of the dragoons and will hopefully silence both Kevin Kiley and John Walsh, whose attacks on you on Amazon were outrageous, especially as the former's arguments were, as usual, based on outdated English language secondary sources.

Londongamer,

I appreciate your support. It is rather depressing to read such reviews, but as my editor said: 'All dogs have fleas!' I hope the articles I've written to coincide with the release of the third volume (please note I did not say final book) prove interesting, especially as there's new material on the British, Hanoverians, Prussians and French for you all to consider. (The attack by the Imperial Guard features heavily in the French piece.)

Kind regards

John

P.S. I hope you're going to Salute this Saturday. I'm hoping to come over myself. But my friend, Mike Robinson, author of the book 'The Battle of Quatre Bras' can't make it unfortunately. (He's stuck in the Caribbean!)

Stuck in the Caribbean. .. how awful for him…

Londongamer

It is very interesting to see you posting here on this subject; the information that you have given is compelling with regard to the presence of the dragoons and will hopefully silence both Kevin Kiley and John Walsh, whose attacks on you on Amazon were outrageous, especially as the former's arguments were, as usual, based on outdated English language secondary sources.

Good to see that I am not the only one who thinks this about Kiley, A.K.A Brechtel198, (Massena @ A.C.G). Gazzola A.K.A John Walsh, makes for the perfect lapdog.

I do believe that on many a dark night some years ago, Kiley used to sit by the fireside with John Elting, who used to tell him stories about their messiah Napoleon Bonaparte, whilst sucking on his Wurthers Original; or was it his Fisherman's Friend?

Paul :)

Paul,
I have to say that I admire Kevin's willingness to defend his friend and mentor's reputation. There is something quite noble about it, even though Elting's work has been overtaken by more objective researchers with access to sources of which he could only have dreamed and an ability to understand the languages in which they are written.

As for Werther's Originals, I am not sure that comment was really necessary.

John,

I find it hard to feel sympathy for anyone who is stuck in the Caribbean, unless he has the misfortune to be in Trinidad, in which case I feel his pain.

Sadly, Salute is impossible for me as fate, in the form of my employer, has intervened. I hope that everyone attending has a good time; just remember to take a good torch and very well soled shoes:).

Londongamer,

Mike works in the air industry and his employer thought he should remain in Antigua, rather than attend Salute! Pity, as there are several interesting games (such as Quatre Bras) being played on Saturday.

Kind regards

John

P.S. Well soled shoes at the ready.

John's two Ospreys arrived this morning! Looking forward to reading them. I can already see the maps are beautifully clear.

One thing that comes through from Field's book (which I thought was excellent) is that Ney had practically no staff support, and had arrived on the scene only the day before. We should not expect him to have a tight grip on where all his forces where, especially as he liked to be in the thick of the battle.

He was short of infantry, not cavalry. So it's not at all surprising that he did not call for the second division of heavies. He only threw Guiton into the fray out of desperation (and against Kellermann's advice). What he wanted above all was d'Erlon…

Matthew

Matthew,

Thanks for ordering the two books. I hope you enjoy them. May I encourage you to place reviews on Amazon once you have finished reading them. This in itself will assist others in their search for material (and go some way to reduce the effect of the bias and malicious reveiws placed by others). Indeed, I would like to encourage all of you who have read the Osprey books I've written to post reviews on Amazon reflecting your honest opinion of the content.

Kind regards

John

Interesting about the Dragoons presence, although if they only lost 26 men they could not have been in action for long or perhaps arrived near the end of the battle?

How many charges did Guiton's brigade make at quatre-bras? I thought it was one big charge that ended at the crossroads with the brigade almost annihilated – the book by Mike Robinson gives the impression that there were several different ones by the cuirassiers.

Parade states taken 15 June 1815 record 8th Cuirassiers as 32 officers/427 other ranks and 11th Cuirassiers as 24 officers/308 other ranks. Officer casualties on the 16th June were 13 (all wounded) and 4 (1 killed and 3 wounded) respectively.

Extrapolation gives:
8th Cuirassiers – 186 casualties all ranks (out of 459)
11th Cuirassiers – 55 casualties all ranks (out of 332)

Interesting that the 11th Cuirassiers (unarmoured) suffered significantly lower losses than their sister regiment.

These are obviously only extrapolated figures. I would welcome any regimental returns update the numbers.

Allan

Indeed, I would like to encourage all of you who have read the Osprey books I've written to post reviews on Amazon reflecting your honest opinion of the content.

Done! The Quatre Bras book is very good…

Whirlwind,

I have just read your review, and I greatly appreciate your positive comments. May I add something which appears to be overlooked in one or two of the reviews of the first two books:

Every author hands their work to an editor and the editor makes key decisions on behalf of the publisher. Some of these change the content dramatically. Osprey have a particular formula within which an author has to produce their manuscript. Many items listed within the 'Osprey Guidelines' are discussed and amended accordingly. In the case of the first three printed books I have written for Osprey, this relates to areas such as the notes and references. Another issue is the lack of space within a single Osprey 'Campaign series' title. The number of illustrations (sixty-five) are pre-specified, and this means finding a balance between the action and the location. There are certainly more images covering points on the battlefield in the third volume than the first two, and this is reflected in the 'Battlefield Today' section.

Finally, the OOBs within the three books were massively reduced to enable the content to fit within the very limited space allocated to the subject. This of course means we are all disappointed to some degree (I as the author who has undertaken all the research and writing), the publisher, as they cannot accommodate this material, and you, the reader. Osprey intend to overcome this by issuing a larger version of the various books in the future. I cannot say more at this time, but I believe the end result will remove any of the 'fair' criticisms of the content.

Kind regards

John

P.S. Whirlwind, if you send me a private message through TMP with your E-Mail address, I'd be more than happy to supply you with the full 'expanded' OOBs for the Quatre Bras book, which I originally supplied Osprey.

John
There are a number of us that would like to see the results of your research into the OBs.
Would it be possible to offer them to the Napoleon Series where we could all have access.
I believe John Gill did this with some of the lists that had been edited from the 1809 trilogy. So there is some good precedent.
Thanks in advance.

Ligniere,

I am more than happy to supply you with the 'expanded' OOBs for Quatre Bras, and for you to make them available to members of TMP. Of course, I would like to have some acknowledgement for my work as the source. Send me a private message with your E-Mail address and I'll send you my originals for Quatre Bras (I'm not able to send everything as Osprey will use these, as mentioned in this and another thread).

John

John Franklin,

Thanks for the offer. I don't think I can PM you since you aren't a supporting or sponsoring member, but my e-mail address is j*w*h*0*7*1*4@yahoo.co.uk (minus the stars of course).

Interestingly, every positive review of the book has one person rating the review as unhelpful. It almost looks like it is just one single person!

Whirlwind,

I have sent you an E-Mail with the 'expanded' OOBs that were submitted to Osprey for the Quatre Bras book. You'll see that the editorial process (because of the limited amount of space) dramatically effective this, and other material which I supplied.

I am happy for you to post these details on TMP, or for you to share them with other members, as you see fit. Naturally, I'd appreciate the content being acknowledged as a result of my research.

Kind regards

John

P.S. I will not dwell on the issue of individuals being responsible for a stream of negative behaviour on Amazon towards the first two Osprey books. This matter is now with higher authorities.

I should be most interested in those OOB details, if Whirlwind can make them available! And happy to acknowledge John's work wherever appropriate!

Matthew

Many TMP members will have missed the post I placed on another thread concerning the OOBs for Quatre Bras, and so I thought it might be useful to add it here (below):

'Goodness,

I have returned with my two teenage children from a weekend at a climbing camp here in Switzerland to find my inbox full and a thread on TMP bearing my name. I'll post some answers, but there is an important announcement:

Osprey have already written to inform me that they own this content and have asked that the thread be removed immediately. I have forwarded this message to Bill accordingly, and assume the content will be withdrawn shortly [which it now has been].

Now, with regards to the French Horse Artillery (and Rettberg's battery) there is a very simple reason for their inclusion: they are simple 'cut and paste' errors which my friend Mike Robinson spotted when he read the draft manuscript in the summer of 2014. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of attaching the original files, not the amended versions, to the E-Mail I sent to Whirlwind. I apologise for the confusion. The Reserve Artillery should read:
 
1er Compagnie du Régiment d'Artillerie à Cheval de Vielle Garde (Capitaine Huet)
5 officers and 99 men (four 6-pound guns and two 5.5" howitzers)

7e Compagnie de l'Escadron du Train d'Artillerie de la Garde (Lieutenant Fillon)
2 officers and 79 men

2e Compagnie du Régiment d'Artillerie à Cheval de Vielle Garde (Capitaine Nasse)
5 officers and 96 men (four 6-pound guns and two 5.5" howitzers)

7e Compagnie de l'Escadron du Train d'Artillerie de la Garde (Lieutenant Cercelet)
2 officers and 74 men
  
This information has been taken from the records held by the Service Historique de la Défense, l'Armée de Terre, Château de Vincennes, and in particular carton Xab 74 (Situation d'artillerie Garde Impériale 16 Juin 1815).
  
The composition of the French OOB (which in line with the Osprey book conventions doesn't necessarily mean the units were engaged – see British cavalry – just that they appear on a 2D Map or 3D BEV within the book) has been derived from numerous accounts (far too many to appear here) and a multitude of reports held at Vincennes, including those in cartons:

C15 / 4 (Armée du Nord 1er-10 Juin 1815)

C15 / 5 (Armée du Nord 11-20 Juin 1815)

C15 / 22 (Registre de Correspondance du Lt Gal Reille du 25 mars au 31 aout 1815)

C15 / 35 (Armée du Nord 1er, 2e, 3e et 8e Corps)

C15 / 38 (Livret de l'Orgainsation de l'Armée 15 avril 1815)

C15 / 41 (Commission Bertezene Pour le placement des officiers 1815)

The officers details have been checked against the service records contained in the series of cartons marked 2YE (1791-1847) and 3YF (1818-1856); while the records relating to the aide-des-camp were checked against the indexes marked XEM167 and XEM168 (1815.)
 
These repoorts have been checked against AFIV 1939 Registre d'Ordres du Major-général 13 Juin au 26 Juin 1815, which is held at the Archive Nationale de France. 
  
 
I'm not going to bother to answer the comment about the involvement of the 2e and 7e Dragons. I've covered this elsewhere already. Losses for the troops were recorded in the series of documents numbered YC20 137, while the losses among the horses was noted in E31 6. (All missed by Scott Bowden's researchers, as mentioned on another thread [here on the thread].) The TWO STAR reviews Kiley afforded both books on Amazon reflects his low opinion of the content, and his desire to drip his particular brand of poison on as many different platforms as he can has been noted. TMP members have to make their own decisions about the merits of the book – within the constraits of a 96 page format which limits the amount any author (or editor) can squeeze in.

Many thanks

John Franklin
Switzerland

P.S. I know Andrew Field and correspond with him regarding my research in the French archives. He has acknowledged the new information, which did not have, in a number of highly complementary posts about my research and published worh within the Napoleonicwarsforum.'

John,

Many thanks for the clarification.

Allan F Mountford,

As mentioned in the post above, you'll find a return of the losses sustained by the French at Quatre Bras in the series of files numbered YC20 (a large series of files), and those of the horses in E31. (Losses for the troops at Ligny – Fleurus as it's called in the records – can also be found in these returns). I hope this helps.

Kind regards

John

Good Morning John. I'm assuming that French losses are officers only? Are you able to present your OOB findings anywhere? If not, do they differ much from Bowden's or Adkins' figures?

Hello Michael,

The YC20 series I've mentioned contains the losses as complete lists, of all ranks (with regards to Quatre Bras these are the numbers missing from Comte Reille's after action report). Apparently, Osprey will publish all of the material I have amassed in a 'complete' book and this is why they do not want the OOBs to be published.

The numbers differ slightly from those in Scott Bowden's book – which as I've stated before, is an excellent source. You must remember that Adkin's figures are estimates, based on a percentage of the losses sustained by the French at Quatre Bras and Ligny. The figures are not based on returns. It is also obvious that no cross checks have been made with regards to the officers given in his study. Adkin clearly made the best attempt he could to read the names on the 10 June returns from C15/34.

Kind regards

John

Dear John
I look forward to your book with all the material you have amassed. I have always been facinated by the lack of good data upon the losses of the French Army after Ligny.

I do not know an author who has yet accounted for the high losses at Waterloo. I wish you well in you future publications.

The losses for the Prussians have classically been double counted.
Stephen

It is very interesting to see you posting here on this subject; the information that you have given is compelling with regard to the presence of the dragoons and will hopefully silence both Kevin Kiley and John Walsh, whose attacks on you on Amazon were outrageous, especially as the former's arguments were, as usual, based on outdated English language secondary sources.

If it isn't too much trouble, would you mind posting the 'outrageous attacks' that you accuse me of?

I did not make any personal comments about the author (Franklin) is either of the reviews of his two Ospreys. That being said, you are misrepresenting what was said and that is disingenuous.

On the other hand, the author in question (Franklin) became personal in his comments, including two on TMP. Some of the 'outrageous attacks' by the author in question were accusing me of being 'poison', a 'disgrace', and 'full of malice and frustration.' Further, in one posting on TMP he himself admits to writing a 'personal attack' against me.

So, if I were you, I would actually check material before making an inaccurate accusation against someone you don't know. And before making accusation which are wrong, at least have the courtesy and character to ask first.

And the comments posted about Col Elting and his work are nonsense and I am surprised that the forum members actually let them stand

Kevin,

Your comments are on Amazon and are available for everyone to see. However, you should note that my comment about the outrageous attacks was directed at John Walsh, not you.

Do you really think that Elting's work has not been overtaken by more recent researchers with access to new sources and the ability to understand some of the languages in which they are written? I think the forum members let my comments stand because they know that they are true.

Given your performance on the "Guards" thread, maybe you should take your own advice, which you are so good at giving out, and check material before using it; after all, you wouldn't want to find that your own sources contradicted your claims, would you?

My research was solid and clearly demonstrated. That you cannot accept it reflects on your 'interpretation, and not on the material presented.

As for Col Elting's work I don't see where either Swords or the Atlas has neen 'overtaken.' The most recent book on the Grande Armee, and that was only on the infantry, is quite good, but not as either as good or as informative as Swords.

What I do believe, however, is that any criticism rendered on the British Army or anything associated with it, brings about refuttals, ad hominem attacks, and inaccurate information.

Kevin,

Your "research", as posted in your review of John's book, was based on Field and Bowden (as stated by you in your review), whereas John's research, which you were criticising, was based on French archival sources that seem to clearly demonstrate the presence and involvement of the two dragoon regiments.

Your "research" in the "Guards" thread was actually hilarious as every piece that you used demonstrated that Bowden, whose version of events you were supporting, was wrong.

That is why I do not, rather than cannot, accept it. You seem to make a habit of assuming the motives and methodologies of others and then arguing against those, rather than trying to understand the facts.

As for your comments about Elting, I do not believe that anything that I could post could do more to point out the absurdity of what you have written than your own words.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. And whether or not you accept it is of little or no value in the discussion or in the pursuit of historical inquiry.

Kevin,

Even by your standards, that is an amazingly pompous and arrogant statement.

You really do provide a lot of amusement.

You were saying about 'outrageous attacks'?

John

Thank you for the information on the records of French losses at QB. I had believed they did not exist, but I'm delighted to learn that I was mistaken.

Thanks again.

Allan

Kevin,

You find that outrageous? What a sheltered life you must have led to make you such a sensitive soul.

I stand by what I said; your statement was both pompous and arrogant and you certainly do provide amusement.

Gazzola writes:

have informed Osprey of Mr. Franklin's hate campaign against me and for his various accusations and claims. One claim is that he says he has spoken to a Director at Osprey who said any work I submit to them would be rejected. I have asked Mr. Franklin to name the Director. He has not done so. I have asked him to provide evidence to support another claim. He has not done so. Mr. Franklin has already been forced to apologise for a false accusation against me on TMP. I find his hate campaign against me very sad and disturbing, especially since they are over my 3 star reviews of his work, which means I like them in Amazon terms. I have criticised his book, not the man, and I have raised some questions about lack of sources and casualties, which I'm pleased to see have been addressed. He has placed Osprey in a very difficult situation but hopefully he will apologise and learn not to take critical reviews personally. I have nothing further to say on the matter and will leave it up to Osprey to take Mr Franklin to hand.

On another thread Erwin Muilwijk placed an important comment about this website being for people interested in wargaming. No one is interested in people who whine about their hurt feelings through the editor. I would like to concentrate on my research and writing (as I have additional Osprey books to write, so pleased are they with my work), rather than having to deal with people who have nothing better to do than post negative comments and mark positive reviews of books on Amazon as unhelpful. It is unfortunate, but as the series editor at Osprey said to me: 'all dogs have fleas!' A good analogy of the two individuals in question.

John Franklin