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

Dear All,

Posted below is Kevin Kiley's 2 star review of the John Franklin's work. Could somebody please point out to me, perhaps by requoting, where he has been 'outrageous':

This book was a disappointment. Given that this year would see a plethora of books on the Belgian campaign of 1815, this book held some promise of being an excellent account, but it fell short.

First, Napoleon is shown under the sub-title of ‘Opposing Commanders' when he was not present and was fighting his own battle against a numerical superior Prussian army at Ligny on the same day. That being the case, Marshal Ney, who is listed, should have been accompanied with the corps commanders subordinate to him at Quatre Bras-General d'Erlon, the commander of the French I Corps, General Reille, the commander of the French II Corps, and the commander of the III Cavalry Corps, General Kellermann (the Younger). Giving more space to these three principal commanders on the French side would have been very helpful.

Second, Napoleon is described as both ‘maniacal' and being ‘convinced of his own infallibility.' Both characterizations are off the mark and seem to me to depict a lack of study of Napoleon's character and a residual reliance on the allied and English propaganda of the period. Having studied Napoleon and the Grande Armee, as well as the period in general, for over forty years, I have never seen anything by Napoleon where he considered himself ‘infallible.' To my mind, using a term such as ‘maniacal' is nothing but psychobabble and has no place in a historical study.

Third, the inclusion of a cavalry action by the two dragoon regiments belonging to the III Cavalry Corps is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. In the narrative, they come onto the field before their commander, Kellermann, and Guiton's cuirassier brigade. This apparently did not happen. No other source supports the idea-neither Henry Houssaye's work on 1815, William Siborne's nor John C Ropes histories of the campaign, nor any other that I have read on the subject. If ‘new' evidence has been found, then it should have been referred to in the text as foot-or endnotes were not used. Andrew Field's new work on Quatre Bras from the French perspective specifically states that the dragoons were not present and that the idea undoubtedly came from the fact that one of the two cuirassier regiments in Guiton's brigade were not wearing cuirasses during the campaign. At a distance or in the blood, mess, and confusion of combat could have been mistaken for French dragoons. Further, in Scott Bowden's work on the Armies at Waterloo there are no casualties incurred by the two dragoon regiments, the 2d and 7th. Not only were they not engaged, but if they reached the battlefield at all it was after 1800.

Lastly, there are no casualties listed for either army, which is a major fault. The information is readily available and should have been included in the text. This volume is average at best and could have been much better. As it is, it cannot be used as a reference for further study or for anyone searching for a source for the battle. The volumes named above are highly recommended and should be consulted for Quatre Bras before this one.

For reference, since outrage is necessarily subjective, the smutty third former type comments about sucking posted above are what I would term 'outrageous'…

Looking forward to your advice!

Londongamer has been DH'd for a comment made elsewhere, Sparker, but he did post earlier,

However, you should note that my comment about the outrageous attacks was directed at John Walsh, not you.

Houssaye, Siborne, Ropes, Field, Bowden ??? Really ???
Hmmmm …. how about outrageously uncritical use of secondary and tertiary sources, some in translation?

Let's start with the best of the list, Houssaye. I imagine Kevin read the translation, but the original actually gives Houssaye's sources quite explicitly. The part about Kellermann's charge with one brigade is uniquely cited to the "Relation de Kellermann".

There are three isssues ….

In the first place, Houssaye liberally and enthiusiastically re-wrote what the sources actually said. I suppose that having a romance novelist like Houssaye invade their academic domain bothered some of the French academiciens, but the problems with Houssaye's use of sources have been well known for over 100 years! Here we have a specific discussion published in 1919 of Houssaye re-writing Kellermann's "Relation" with regard to the charge at Quatre Bras :
link
What the "Relation" was originally saying was that Kellermann had only 1 brigade of cuirassiers when ordered to charge by Ney.

But that is not the end of the problems. The "Relation de Kellerman" is actually, as Mr. Westman guessed, the following:
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"
And this was printed in Revue du Souvenir Napoléonien No. 438 in 2002.
So, this was not a contemporary report by Kellermann, but actually a polemic in repsonse to Gourgaud written after the later's defense of Napoléon which appeared in 1818.

But the situation is even a little worse. The document in question was a manuscipt found in the (then) Vincennes archives. Here is the modern catalog entry : link
The problem is that this was a manuscript (41 pages, by the way), not ever finished or published or donated for posterity or anything else by Kellermann. It had been sent to the officer who served as his chief-of-staff during the Cent Jours, the colonel of cuirassiers baron Charles-Antoine-Benoît Bataille de Tancarville, presumably for fact-checking, only to be found among the baron's papers after his death in 1864, and then donated to the army archives.

Anyway, that's how we got to "charging with one brigade" in the secondary, and then tertiary, sources.

------------------------

Ropes does only writes of the "heavy cavalry of Kellermann", without further detail. He seems to be just following Siborne anyway. Field and Bowden appear to just follow Houssaye, adding nothing and in this respect acting as tertiary sources.

Which leaves Siborne. I don't know why we are directed to a British secondary source for the details of the French cavalry deployment at Quatre Bras.
But, he has been cited as an important "source" for us to read, and I suppose we should follwo this guidance : link
Siborne specifically says the entire 11e division de cavalerie arrived, both Guiton's cuirassiers and Piquet's dragoons. And that the latter brigade was held as a reserve or second line when Kellermann first charged.
So, I suppose that Kevin didn't read actually Siborne before alluding to him in his negative review. I linked Siborne's work. It's in English. No one else has to make this particular mistake.

-------------------------

The detailed daily journal of the general Foy has been in print since 1900, and speaks directly of the whole of the 11e division de cavalerie. See pages 270 et. seq here : link
There are also Allied eye-witness reports (2 if I recall correctly) of French dragoons at Quatre Bras, but I do not have them at hand.
And now, thanks to Paul Dawson and John Franklin, we have archival confirmation of their participation.

It is not so fun, so "glorious" as the story given to us by the (ex-?)novelist Houssaye, but the archives speak very strongly.

I give Kevin's review 1 star. His punctuation was quite good.

- Sasha

P.S. In French it is "Grande armée", not "Grande Armee". "Grande Armee" is neither English nor French.

what I don't understand is that people have the urge to write reviews who clearly have no clue about the subject.

Good work John Franklin, any yes I bought your Quatre Bras book, one of my few recent buys on this campaign.

@ Alexandre

Excellent posting, I checked Foy ( to check you, and yes, smack on – on page 270 )

"Nous avions avec nous la division de cavalerie du général Lhéritiere."

what I don't understand is that people have the urge to write reviews who clearly have no clue about the subject.

On the contrary, I think anyone should feel free to write a review about how they feel about a book including those coming to it with little or no prior knowledge. What causes dramas is when:

1. a reviewer attempts to criticize a book on the basis of knowing the facts better;

2. but then refuses to change or moderate criticisms when it becomes clear that the reviewer has relied on secondary sources which were themselves mistaken. I think if we are wise, we should be more sceptical, not less, of secondary sources which are in accord with our preconceived opinions.

I think the main point of reviews is to help people who haven't bought the book yet to make up their mind whether to do so or not. So, in this specific case, I think it is perfectly reasonable to mention that the orders of battle are outlines rather than detailed, that the issue of precise losses isn't dealt with, that the sources for certain things aren't given because of the format and so on. In this particular case, the author has very kindly indicated that these details will be covered elsewhere, which is very good to know, but doesn't change anything about the actual published book: if I wanted those detailed orders of battle and loss tables, this book would not be the one for me.

@ Alexandre

Excellent posting

+1

This is becoming as cringe worthy as the Guards thread. Still, as they say, pride comes before a fall

"What causes dramas is when:"

maybe review is the wrong word then, it should read opinion, when you do a re-view should show at least some competence about the subject, espcially when you criticize the subject and not the content.

For content – not related to Franklins Quatre Bras – but just give an example – I bought the book x – which is a nice read but lacks good maps and Odres de Bataille.

Also, and that is pure speculation on my part, some re-viewers seem to take any opportunity to take a cheap shot on some authors with which they disagreed in the past – the KK – Holins feud is a classic again here, looking at the Marengo re-view.

"cringe worthy"
+1

You know, Houssaye is a really good starting point for the French perspective on the Cent Jours. But there are issues, as noted above, which should cause us to go beyond the starting point.
There is also a question of context : Houssaye changed from writing romance novels to writing history after the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. Houssaye and his audience had certain expectations or at least hopes about what the lessons of history should be for their own times. This, and his background as a romance novelist, colored his approach to history. So we get a great "read" as the result, with lots of zingy quotes and "scenes" that make us want to join in cheerleading for the French.
But his 1815 is not a general staff study, and it is far far from being a printing of a collection of primary source materials.

"I checked Foy ( to check you"
Yes, please. Please do check me. Please do not rely on my conclusions.

I try to provide links for anything I write, especially about the French, as lots of us can read at least a little French and the machine translators do not mangle it out of all recognition. In the few cases where I am not looking at something on-line, I do give a full source citation.

I am a little guilty in not bothering to do this for Russian topics, as so few can read Russian anyway. But even there, do ask for links/citations whenever you think you would like them.

- Sasha

This is not really an pure "error" in Kevin's review, but I think I should add that the question of Napoléon's infalibilty, or of his reputation for infalibility among his adherants (and perhaps his soliders) has been a key issue since 1816. There has been huge amount of ink spilled either justifying Napoléons's conduct in the Cent Jours and finding blame elsewhere, or blaming him for making errors that led to the defeat.

As just one of countless examples, let me offer a quick translation of a passage from Charras in 1869, writing about Thiers, who wrote a monumental multi-volume history of the wars of Napoléon in the 1840's:

"…. Thiers hoped to maintain intact the glory of the army's chief. It's like a great shipwreck that he seeks to save from sinking by his apologies. He absolutely wanted to find, in the fugitive from Russia, the general of Italy – and in the vanquished of Leipzig, the victor of Austerlitz. And this pretention he has especially when he recounts the campaign, the disasters, of 1815. The more the military genius of Napoléon diminishes, the more Thiers exalts. It is a true hallucination. Obviously before our eyes is an apotheosis, and he tries to force on us justifications while surrounding his hero with the prestige of military infallibility, of invincibility.

To explain the disaster of our arms, Thiers attacks everything – from God to men; the disaster involves turns of fate and providence; and at the same time he condemns almost all Napoléon's lieutenants. He says that Napoleon alone was not at fault.

Against relations dictated at Ste. Helena by Napoleon, against his statements and those of his ablest apologists, I did see that it was childish to seek, in the heavens – of paganism, Muhammad or Christ – the explanation of an event whose cause was on earth. And I proved that the accusations against Ney, Grouchy and many others were unfair, unsustainable. And that the true, the great, culprit in this disastrous war was the chief of the French army."

Original here : link

The question of the real, supposed, pretended or assumed infallibility of Napoléon has always been a key part of the story of the Cent Jours, and an author likley should not be taken to task for mentioning or even taking a position on this issue.

- Sasha

@Alexandre

I forgot to put ;-)) – behind my checking ;-))

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

Regarding the possible presence of Dragoon Brigade commanded by General of Brigade Picquet (2d and 7th Dragoon Regiments) at Quatre Bras on 16 June 1815 the following is offered:

-the regimental history of the 2d Dragoon Regiment doesn't mention Quatre Bras (it's available on Google Books). I haven't seen the history of the 7th Dragoon Regiment, but I'd be willing to bet there isn't any verification there either.

-‘recognition' of French dragoons by the enemy on the field is suspect as it is highly doubtful that positive recognition was possible in the smoke and noise of the battle. Further, French lancers, dragoons, and chasseurs a cheval all wore similar cut uniforms in the same color (dark green) and the terms ‘dragoons' and ‘light dragoons' could have been intermixed in the identification of cavalry units on the French side.

-What did the division commander, General of Division L'Heritier, say about the location and possible presence of his dragoon brigade? What did the cavalry corps commander, General of Division Kellermann, say about the presence of the brigade?

-Why would Kellermann, the cavalry corps commander, arrive on the battlefield with his cuirassier brigade, around 1800, supposedly after the arrival and employment of his dragoon brigade? I believe this is highly improbably, especially with a cavalry commander of Kellermann's competence and reputation.

-And in the dragoon brigade's supposed ‘charge' was there only one casualty mentioned? This is also highly improbable as in the narrative of the Osprey, the other engaged cavalry units had ‘heavy' casualties.
-If the dragoon brigade was present, why was it only ‘engaged' once with only one casualty. That would make them mere spectators.

-It is quite possible that the brigade arrived on the field after the cuirassier brigade and then was not engaged, but from the ‘evidence' offered it is highly improbable, without verification from source material, that the brigade was engaged or even present on the field at Quatre Bras. Offering the number of a carton does not support the idea that the dragoon brigade was present and engaged. That is merely a number and without citations from the material itself, the citation of the carton number is meaningless.
Lastly, the location of the other heavy cavalry division of Kellermann's corps is given as ‘Fleurus' which is just south of the Ligny battlefield. I have seen no evidence that Kellermann's cavalry corps was divided between the two fields. What is usually mentioned is that Kellermann's cavalry corps was located in and around Frasnes, which is south of Quatre Bras and from where the corps was moving northward, the first units to arrive were the two cuirassier regiments of Guiton's brigade led by Kellermann and which made the charge against the allied positions around 1800.

Those ideas being offered, I submit that the idea being proferred that the dragoon brigade of Kellermann's cavalry corps being present and in action at Quatre Bras is highly suspect.

Yet again, Kevin blindly ignores all of the newly presented evidence.

Sigh.

Perhaps, instead of just making silly comments, you'd actually attempt to discuss the subject, especially as there were questions put in the posting.

Or is that just too much to expect?

Talking to yourself again, Kevin? Have you not been reading the many posts both here and on Amazon?

How many times does something have to be explained to you?

Alexandre (Sasha),

I appreciate your lengthy posts which clarify a number of the issues associated with some of the secondary sources (especially with the translations) available on the role of the French cavalry at Quatre Bras. I have investigated many of these in a lengthy study, and wrestled with the conclusion. However, it is obvious to anyone with an open mind that the primary evidence confirms the involvement of the 2e and 7e dragons. Unfortunately, some individuals do not possess an open mind, nor do they have the good grace to acknowledge the new evidence placed before them: evidence which they could not find in the aforementioned English language secondary sources. It is impossible to respect such people (who also lie about their knowledge of French and German in an attempt to appear authoritive). Indeed, it is pointless to engage with them. I have accepted this fact, together with their uncharitable reviews, and suggest that we all (Londongamer, von Winterfeldt, et al) simply disregard their worthless comments.

Kind regards

John Franklin

fascinating post for sure. Just a quick point from my recollection and after many years of study Im sure
the illustrious 2nd and 7th Dragoons were present at
Quatre Bras as eyewitness account mention seeing a
wounded Dragoon and his slightly injured mate not been
fired on as the Helmets of the French line Dragoons
were similar in shape to the British then he noted
the green jackets and red facings…by that time they
were out of range.
just a note though French line lancers,Dragoons and line
chasseurs a aheval had a very different profile from each
other regardless of the cut of their Habit vestes and were
very distinctive in battle.

But as was explained in Andrew Field's excellent study of Quatre Bras, the 11th Cuirassiers were without armor in Belgium in 1815 and even though their uniforms were blue instead of green they very well could have been mistaken for dragoons in the smoke and mess.

"that we all (Londongamer, von Winterfeldt, et al) simply disregard their worthless comments. "

:-)

Kevin,

If it was only Allied sources that note them as being present, then I would agree with you that the case was not made.

However, French archival sources and several French officers also report them as being present. I think that we can be pretty confident that Foy and Reille, for example, knew the difference between two regiments of dragoons and a regiment of unarmoured cuirassiers.

Unfortunately, it seems that you are only happy to work with English language secondary sources and seem determined to ignore the information that is being presented.

Your posting is fundamentally incorrect as to source material. As the regimental history of the 2d Dragoons is in French, your comment that I am 'only happy to work with English language secondary sources' is incorrect.

I have a significant number of French-language source material in my personal library, both primary and secondary, and both use and translate them on my own. I have had them for years. The best material I have are twenty-five volumes of the old La Sabretache from 1893 to 1926 in which are numerous primary source material from the period, including letters and memoirs from Generals Teste, Drouot, Amiel, Hardy, Desaix, and others including enlisted men.

Perhaps before you make a comment such as the above you might want to ask first. I do understand that isn't the usual practice on this forum, the usual being akin to 'ready, fire, aim' but I suppose that is one of the normal practices on internet discussion boards, such as making false accusations that some here like to do.

Some members like to accuse others of lying, being poisonous, among other pejoratives and that is outside the Pale as far as I'm concerned. I'll leave it at that.

Kevin,

What I actually posted, as opposed to what you responded to, was: "it seems that you are only happy to work with English language secondary sources", a comment which related directly and uniquely to your reliance on them in this thread and was not a general one; neither did it state or imply that you do not own non-English sources nor comment on your ability to read such. Perhaps all those years of loud bangs have affected your comprehension. You certainly have a tendency to argue with what you think people have posted, rather than what they actually posted.

owing foreign language books is easy, to read and to understand and to comprehend the context, and to take in new information and to revise ones own opinion, a much greater challenge

owing foreign language books is easy, to read and to understand and to comprehend the context, and to take in new information and to revise ones own opinion, a much greater challenge

Then that begs the question, why would anyone own books that they could not use? I submit the suggestion is ludicrous and somewhat disingenuous.

Incredible.

I hadn't realized it was that Andrew Field – small world

We used to serve together and he always struck me as a chap who also maintained an open mind. I expect that he'll enjoy your 'new' material, John.

Andrew Field is an excellent historian. As stated, I have corresponded with him on French archival matters, primarily because he did not have the opportunity to undertake this in-depth research when preparing material for his two books (and he was also considering writing a French book on Ligny).

Andrew has acknowledged the points I raised regarding the 2e and 7e dragons, together with other issues arising from the new sources from a variey of nations which he had not seen prior to writing his books. One such example is the identity of the French horsemen who seized the Colour from the 69th Regiment of Foot. Andrew followed the content within the published report by Comte Valmy (Kellerman) which mentions a Cuirassier Lami. But the original at Vincennes is annotated with the name Henry. When you look through the records of the three squadrons of the 8e Cuirassiers engaged in the campaign, as I have done, you find there is no Cuirassier called Lami, but there is a Pierre Henry (complete with service record). This proves that Andrew, relying on an original 'printed' source, and working with the very best motive, was in error. Printed works should, in my opinion, be a guide for the historian, and every effort should be made to check and cross-check the contents of the printed items. People who do not undertake such checks are, as is clear, liable to repeat the errors of those who went before. Those individuals who rely exclusively on English language secondary sources, as demonstrated by their posts on various forums and the citations in their books (which by the way have enormous bibliographies packed with French and German titles they clearly did not read), are liable to be in greater error than most. But I'm sure that this is evident to all concerned. Andrew, thank goodness, does not fall ino this category. He is willing to consider 'new' material and amend his opinion accordingly.

Kind regards

John

Kevin,

It seems that vW's comment went right over your head.

Let me clarify for you: I have books in French and German, two languages in which I am fluent and in which I have a very good grasp of both early 19th century military terminology and the military culture. Therefore, when I read them, I can understand what the authors mean on a deeper level than just reading the words. In other words, I comprehend the context and the nuances.

I also have texts in Italian, a language in which I can get by, but where I do not have a solid grasp of military terminology nor of military culture. Therefore, the understanding that I gain from them is sadly reduced.

As to why someone would own books that they cannot use, there are many reasons for doing so so yes, your comment is incredible.

Agreed John. Whilst my field is medieval history, the same rule applies: you've got to go back to the original text as you cannot rely on a transcription by even the most esteemed of colleagues, nevermind tertiary source Chinese whispers. After all, we all make mistakes

"the regimental history of the 2d Dragoon Regiment doesn't mention Quatre Bras (it's available on Google Books). I haven't seen the history of the 7th Dragoon Regiment, but I'd be willing to bet there isn't any verification there either."

Historique du 2e régiment de dragons 1635-1885, mis en ordre par P. Bruyère – avec 18 planches d'uniformes & étendards & de nombreux dessins dans le texte par E. Penon & L. Gaudibert – chant (paroles de P. Bruyère) et marche par A. Kopff
chef d'escadrons Paul Bruyère
Chartres : Imprimerie Garnier, 1885
vi, 222, [1] pages : ill. : 30 cm.
link

This is a rather lavishly illustrated book, with a march and a song included (!), but it treats the campaign activities of the regiment in an abbreviated form . The narrative of the Cent Jours starts on page 123. It is only 450 words in total. Of these, about 175 words are an exended quite from their divisional commander which lauds their excellent performance on 18 June. That leaves about 275 words for the rest of the story.

Actually, if this were a Russian regimental history, it would not be called "History of ….". The convention in the Russian army histories is to use this name only for more full, complete, typically 500-1000 page works which describe virtually all the movements and actions of the unit – works created for use by historians. These are usually printed by the army itself or a state university press. Shorter, more abbreviated books intended for new soldiers and families of the regiment, for the officers' personal libraries, etc. are instead called "Sketch/Outline/Overview of the history of …. ", "Book of memory for …." or similar. This second sort is usually privately printed, by subscription or by a wealthy officer.

That is the case here as well for the work on the 2e dragons. The Imprimerie de Garnier was local to the regiment's garrison, and was known for publishing works of local interest to the citizens of Chartres, often beautifully illustrated in color. M. Édouard Garnier, the founder and proprietor, had passed away in 1883, alas then only in his early 50's. Here is the staff and the front of the building about 1890:
perche- gouet.net/histoire/photos/immeubles/1526/4189.jpg

Historique du 7e régiment de dragons – avec illustrations de Louis Vallet & Jean de Cossé-Brissac
lieutenant René-Marie-Timoléon de Cossé-Brissac
Paris : Leroy, 1909
184 pages : ill.
link

This is much the same kind of thing as the one for the 2e dragons. It paraphrases Houssaye in a paragraph about 16 Juin on page 73.

I really don't think that one would expect to use the absense of something in this kind of work as being probative at all. They are not intended as complete histories, just overviews – nicely illustrated overviews.

- Sasha

"I really don't think that one would expect to use the absense of somehting in this kind of work as being probative at all. They are not intended as complete histories, just overviews – nicely illustrated overviews."

Yes indeed, why otherwise do any research when we would entrench to the simplistic approach that regimental histories are the most complete works and when it isn't there – it couldn't be.

Also, as most researchers would know, those vary extremly in quality.

By the way, one should take a look in Martinien, and please find any casualties for Quatre Bras.

Do I owe books in a language I don't speak – yes indeed – some nice Russian and Italian books, just for the joy of looking at those nice pictures, I assure, obtaining them was quite easy compared to the daunting task to read and to comprehend them.

Thanks for the links

While we are thinking about the quaity of secondary sources, one might mention this one:

Victoires, conquêtes, désastres, revers et guerres civiles des Français de 1792 à 1815 – vol. 24
Charles-Nicolas Beauvais
Paris : Panckoucke, 1821
380 pages
link

The interesting thing about "Victoires, conquêtes …." was that M. Beauvais was actually an editor. The work was actually written by a team of veteran senior oficers, as a collective work, with the manuscript circulated among the eyewitnesses to the events just a couple of years after the peace. In some ways, it is a kind of general staff study.

On page 188, it is clearly stated that one of Kellermann's divisions was at Quatre Bras, the other initially left in reserve at Frasnes.

- Sasha

I have to smile when I read such things as the

L'armée prusso – saxonne (seemingly confusion with 1806) ;-)

Unfortunately, some individuals do not possess an open mind, nor do they have the good grace to acknowledge the new evidence placed before them: evidence which they could not find in the aforementioned English language secondary sources. It is impossible to respect such people (who also lie about their knowledge of French and German in an attempt to appear authoritive)

Now who's making 'outrageous' remarks?
Truly there are none so easily offended as those who are themselves offensive!

I don't really have a dog in this fight, as merely a consumer of military history I will readily purchase both author's works gladly. My opinion is simply that whilst Kevin's works are eminently readable, and inspirational, I too did find John's writing style in the Quatre Bras Osprey a little pedestrian. But I respect the evidence of toil in the archives. But clearly his tone in this thread is deplorable. It was also unfortunate that the inaccurate orbat was initially posted here, and that the full orbat didn't make it into the Osprey, which after all, with the graphics, is why one purchases that format.

@marshalGreg,

In answer to your original post, based on a wealth of evidence from French and German archival and printed sources, the 2e and 7e dragons were at Quatre Bras from approx. 4pm on the 16th June. They were engaged with the Brunswick Leib Battalion (and according to contemporary accounts written by Brunswick soldiers, a French dragoon was responsible for firing the shot which mortally wounded Duke Friedrich Wilhelm). The 2e dragons later charged the Brunswick Hussars, reaching the road to Namur, before being driven back by the fire of the 92nd Regiment of Foot (the Gordon Highlanders). The 2e dragons, together with elements of Pire's cavalry (and Lanciers Rouges of the Garde Imperiale) charged the 1st Foot Guards when they exited the Bois de Bossu. I do hope that this information will be of assistance.

Kind regards

John Franklin
Switzerland

@John
I reached that point in Fields book Quatre Bras – the French Persepective last night, which talks about Guitons charge, led by Kellerman. Field uses Kellermans own written account of the charge and Kellerman suggests that he only had one brigade with him at QB. The three remainder being near Frasnes two leagues to the rear.
I think there's ample evidence to suggest that Picquet's Dragoon brigade actually were at QB – so do you have any insight or suggestions why Kellerman should suggest otherwise.
One piece of evidence that supports there presence, in my mind, is that Kellerman elsewhere suggests that his column was led on the march from Charleroi by his Dragoons, which makes sense.
Thanks in advance

Ligniere,

I refer you to the point raised by Alexandre (Sasha) in his lengthy first post above. The 'Relation de Kellerman' was not a report, nor was it even finished. It was intended as a rebuttle of the points made by Gourgaud, for Napoleon. As Alexandre states, the original is held at Vincennes (I've seen it). Ultimately, this manuscript was not considered suitable for publication in 1818 by Kellerman or his Chief of Staff, and was filed away. Therefore (setting aside all the other evidence) I do not believe that we can rely on its content as accurate. I raised this point with Andrew, who I believe was unaware of the background (having had no opportunity to undertake primary research in the French archives). For Field's book, or Bowden's, or other secondary English language publications to be given as the reason to believe the Dragoons were not engaged is foolhardy in my opinion (and claims that the regimental histories of the 2e and 7e dragons say they were not present are simply untrue). I do not make these statements lightly, but understanding the background and motive of/for a particular account or evidence, especially a French account written after Waterloo, is vital.

Thanks

John

P.S. I hope that the 'tone' of my reply is acceptable, as I've only ever intended to offend those I find offensive.

"My opinion is simply that whilst Kevin's works are eminently readable, and inspirational, I too did find John's writing style in the Quatre Bras Osprey a little pedestrian. But I respect the evidence of toil in the archives. But clearly his tone in this thread is deplorable."

I disagree completly, – and you have clearly a dog in this fight – my opinion.

Thank you John and all who have contributed to this post with your archival support to your conclusions.

The Dragoons present seem very plausible and thus I will proceed with that.

MG

I disagree completely

Thank you for this, and the courteous manner in which you have expressed your disagreement.

you have clearly a dog in this fight

May I enquire what you base this on? I think my original question clarifies that only one of the parties has been 'outrageous', that is to say offensive. How does my pointing this out put me into one or other camps?

Any personal interest I have, since Quatre Bras is one of my favourite scenarios, is that adding a French Dragoon brigade makes things more balanced and playable.

So you see I don't approach this from a highbrow angle! But, as rude as I have been in posts in the past, its still annoys me when one who is rude then complains of rudeness! Kevin is an old school gentleman.

If I may end on a positive note, at least all this brouhaha has fixed the presence of the gallant 2eme and 7eme Dragons at this battle in all our minds!

it is pretty obvious that you not only have a dog in this find – and you cetainly approach this from a highbrow angle – re – read your own posts.

an old school gentleman wouldn't write such offensive far of the mark re-views.

So you see I don't approach this from a highbrow angle! But, as rude as I have been in posts in the past, its still annoys me when one who is rude then complains of rudeness! Kevin is an old school gentleman.

Thank you very much for the gracious compliment. I would suggest that if more people approached posting in the manner that you do there would be far less contention on the forum.

Again, thanks very much.

Sincerely,
Kevin

So "old school" that he ignores most recent research.

Kevin reminds me of one or two crusty old professors of my acquaintance, who cannot bear having their pet theories challenged and who dismiss any research that threatens to do so.

No problem Kevin, no need for thanks for speaking the plain truth!

Dear Von Winterfeldt, surely the lack of response to my original request at the top of this page shows that Kevin's review, whilst blunt, cannot be objectively shown to be offensive? (Being 'wide of the mark' is entirely subjective of course!)

Cheers All!

NAVY 417 OUT

I'm pleased to see that marshalGreg, who started this thread, has decided to accept the overwhelming body of evidence which I and others have presented about the role of the 2e and 7e dragons. The compelling nature of this evidence should lead to people placing far less reliance on English language secondary sources, and encourage them to undertake primary research in the European archives (or engage professionals who actually understand French and German to do this for them).

John Franklim
Switzerland

@John Franklin

I have a question about the death of the Duke of Brunswick – so far I was under the impression that he was mortally wounded or killed by a ball of a grapeshot?

Navy 417 – my lack of response, I will put you on my ignore and stifle list, like Napoléon I cannot waste my time

@von Winterfeldt

Duke Friedrich Wilhelm was struck by a musket ball fired by a French Dragoon. The ball passed through his left wrist into his abdomen, and it was from this wound that he died. My brief description of events is given on page 61 of the Quatre Bras book. This is based on a wealth of research I have undertaken in the Germany archives, notably the Staatsarchiv Wolfenbuettel. I provided some additional information in the article I produced for Osprey about the Brunswick Corps at Quatre Bras, in which I included a number of accounts by officers and men from the Brunswick Corps that I had first published in 2008. Here's a link to the article: link

Kind regards

John

Perhaps it might be best if we stuck to discussing the content of sources, as well as their relative reliability.

With regards to the main topic of this thread, I believe the issue has been resolved, at least for marshalGreg (who posed the original question). I recommend that TMP members place English language secondary sources to one side and take up the mantle of primary archival research, where many items are brought together. I would encourage you all to enter into the 'spirit of investigation' which sparked my interest, and to share the proceeds of your own research with the wider Napoleonic community.

@John Franklin

Thanks for the link, I am a bit confused, I checked the "Belle Alliance (verbündetes Heer), Berlin 1915, von Plugk Harttung- which you certainly have consulted as well, the report of Olfermann regarding the death of the Duke of Brunswick reads :

"Eine Kartätschenkugel, die den rechten Unterarm zerschmetterte, den Leib an der rechten Seite durchbohrte und durch das Herz an der linken Seite wieder hinausging, machte binnen wenigen Minuten seinem thatenreichen Leben ein so rasches Ende, dass er dem neben ihm reitenden Major von Wachholtz nur noch die wenigen Worte : "Mein lieber Wachholtz, wo ist den Olfermann?" zurufen konnte."

page 28