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

Indeed, the numerous issues surrounding Belle Alliance and VPH's transcriptions are perplexing. I covered this briefly in the introduction of my first Hanoverian book. I state again, the translation of the Brunswick document is based on the original manuscript, not VPH. You may draw your own conclusions (but the two documents are not identical).

I can provide you with the archive reference if you would like to obtain copies of the manuscript.

Kind regards

John

P.S. Perhaps this would be better placed on a new thread?

I just re read vPH, there is a report of Olfermann of the 17th of June – which you used – and then of the 25th of June – most likly dictated as his report of the 19th – there his right hand was badly wounded, thanks for the kind offer

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.

Interesting comment.

I am assuming that you are including your three Ospreys on the Waterloo campaign that you are recommending 'TMP members place English language sources to one side.'

Duke Friedrich Wilhelm was struck by a musket ball fired by a French Dragoon.

None of the references state that in the link you provided. As a matter of fact, Ensign Carl Lindwurm in his account indicates that the Duke of Brunswick was hit and mortally wounded during a French infantry attack.

Sergeant Wilhelm Langenstrasse indicates that the Duke was hit in a Uhlan counterattack against French cuirassiers. As the cuirassiers weren't on the field until about 1800, that isn't correct. The cavalry that was on the field was Pire's light cavalry division, which had two lancer regiments and two regiments of chasseurs a cheval. One of them, the 1st Chasseurs, wore helmets from the first restoration and not shakos, and they were undoubtedly mistaken by someone as dragoons as they were uniformed similarly to dragoons and in the same color.

In fact, you made the following comment in this thread:

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 was wondering if you knew the difference between dragoons and light dragoons as they are used almost interchangeably and they are not the same.

And it should be again noted that the British term, light dragoons, was the equivalent to the French chasseurs a cheval.

The evidence for the French dragoon brigade being on the field is just a little thin, if it exists at all.

After looking at both Foy's Vie Militaire and the referenced volume Victoires, Conquetes, et al, dragoons are not mentioned at all at Quatre Bras. I certainly would like to see Reille's material that has been referenced, and I would also suggest that if 'archival' material is referenced, then it should also be quoted.

The case for French dragoons being at Quatre Bras has not been proven.

Kevin,

Why do think it is hard to see the piece quoted as "Relation de Reille" by Houssaye?
The piece is "Notice historique sur les mouvements du 2e corps dans la campagne de 1815", appears to have been made up by Reille and his chief of staff, the baron de Lacroix, in response to the requests of the team writing "Victoires, conquêtes ….", working from contemprary notes and journal entries, and then deposited in the archives.

The piece was published in 1840 in a work collected by his son to defend Ney's reputation:
Documents inédits sur la campagne de 1815
link
See pages 54 et seq.

On page 58, we have "un corps de grosse cavalerie commandé par le comte de Valmy, que venait d'arriver".
On page 59, "Les cuirassiers du duc [sic] de Valmy firent une charge brillante".
That's it.

"After looking at both Foy's Vie Militaire and the referenced volume Victoires, Conquetes, et al, dragoons are not mentioned at all at Quatre Bras."
Yes they did not say "dragoons", but they did explicitly say the whole division was there, i.e. cuirassiers and dragoons.

" the 1st Chasseurs, wore helmets from the first restoration and not shakos, and they were undoubtedly mistaken by someone as dragoons"
The casques in question were issued in July 1814 and were black with a chenille (caterpiller), not brass with a horsetail. It is not clear exactly when they were replaced by shakos. However, by Rocquencourt on 1 July, the regiment was in shakos. So, either they entered the campaign in casques and somehow managed to change headgear during the pell-mell retreat from Waterloo, or (more likely), they made the whole campaign in shakos.

Sidenote : the inclusion an a illustration "en casque" in M. Courcelle's planche of the 1er chasseurs in 1815 was done by my own request, and against the advice of M. Coppens. I was purchasing the original.

Kevin, if I may be frank, beyond Houssaye, you seem to have read very little of the relevant material (claiming Siborne as a support for your position when he says the exact opposite was a dead give-away).
Why do you have such a high degree of resistance to the findings of Mr. Franklin and Mr. Dawson?

- Sasha

Kevin makes a valid point about the accounts in your article on the Osprey website not supporting the presence of dragons or the Duke being shot by one though, John. Assuming the account of the latter you refer to early didn't make into this piece, would you be in a position to share it here?

Why do you have such a high degree of resistance to the findings of Mr. Franklin and Mr. Dawson?

Because at best, it's an assumption on their parts, and at worst, it is incorrect.

And your assumption that I have 'read very little' is incorrect as well.

From Foy:

Quatre Bras is mentioned on pages 270-274. L'Heritier's heavy cavalry division is mentioned on page 272. On pages 272-273 the charge by a brigade of cuirassiers is mentioned. There is no mention of a charge by the dragoon brigade (2d and 7th Dragoons) by Foy. And Foy doesn't mention French dragoons at all. Foy's memoir does not support the idea that the dragoon division of Kellermann's cavalry corps was engaged or on the field at Quatre Bras.

From Victoires, Coquettes, et al:

Quatre Bras is covered here from pages 179-191 intermittently with Ligny. On page 188 Kellermann's cavalry corps, namely one division of cuirassiers, while the rest of his corps is still at Frasnes, is mentioned along with other French troops assigned to Ney. L'Heritier's heavy cavalry division was not a cuirassier division as one of its two brigades was of dragoons. The other division was technically not a cuirassier division either, as one of its two brigades was of carabiniers, and while armored, were not cuirassiers. On page 189 the charge of one brigade of cuirassiers, commanded and led by Kellermann in person, is mentioned. Again, no mention of French dragoons.

So the conclusion is without actual citations from the 'dragoon case', that the 2d and 7th Dragoons were not on the field, didn't make a charge before Kellermann's arrival around 1800 with Guiton's brigade, and that the assumption without citations from the stated 'references' is incorrect.

To summarize your argument, Kevin:

1. Foy and "Victoires, conquêtes, …." both state that one of Kellermann's divisions was present, and one was not.
2. Foy specifies the divsion present was that of L'Heritier (which was cuirassiers and dragoons)
3. "Victoires, conquêtes, …." specifies that the divison present was "une division de cuirassiers", which is not an exact description of either that of L'Heritier (which was cuirassiers and dragoons) nor that of d'Hurbal (which was cuirassiers and carabiniers-à-cheval)
4. Both Foy and "Victoires, conquêtes, …." then describe a charge made by a brigade of L'Heritier's division (8e & 11e cuirassiers)

Then ….
5. From this you infer about the other brigade of L'Heritier's division that "the 2d and 7th Dragoons were not on the field"

I am sorry Kevin, that is not how logic works. Step 5 in your argument does not follow from the first four steps.

I think we can all see how you mis-use sources to confim a conclusion that you select for them, regardless of what they actually say.

- Sasha

And similarly ….

Siborne specifically states that all of L'Heritier's division was present, the cuirassier brigade in the first line and the dragoon brigade in the second line or reserve.

Reille says a "un corps de grosse cavalerie commandé par le comte de Valmy" arrived, which implies more than a brigade of cuirasssiers, even if you read "un corps" as a "a body of troops" instead of reading it as "the 3rd Reserve Cavalry Corps".

The only source that we have looked at that says only a cuirassier brigade was present was Houssaye's "1815". I know Kevin loves this work by a former(?) romance writer, but there are several issues with Houssaye's choice of source and his re-writing of that source's words, as noted above.

Essentially, we are asked by Kevin to ignore or mis-read several better, earlier sources in favor of a "good read", the fable created by a former(?) romance novelist to rally the spirits of his readers after the defeat in the Franco-Prussian war.

Without regard to anything recently added to the question by Mr. Franklin's and Mr. Dawson's research with primary sources, the answer has been clear for a very long time to anyone who took a careful look, a look beyond Houssaye's "good read".

- Sasha

Sasha,

It was Arsene Houssaye who was the novelist; his son Henri was the historian, whatever you may think of his sources. And who, exactly, has issues with Houssaye fils' choice of sourcing? I have to say that if you claim the author of 1815 is an ex-romance writer, I'm not particularly inclined to give your statements too much credence.

MaggieC

Maggie,

I should have said "romantic writer" …. Henry's non-Napoleonic works were a series of "armchair archeologist" or "classicist" re-tellings of stories about ancient times, with a focus on art history ….

Histoire d'Apelles (1867), a study on Greek art
L'Armée dans la Grèce antique (1867)
Histoire d'Alcibiade et de la République athénienne (1873)
Le premier siège de Paris, an 52 avant l'ère chrétienne (1876)
Athènes, Rome, Paris, l'histoire et les mœurs (1879), essays
L'Art français depuis dix ans (1882)
L'Ostracisme à Athènes (1883)
La Loi agraire à Sparte (1884)
Les Hommes et les Idées (1886)
Le Salon de 1888 (1888)
Aspasie, Cléopâtre, Théodora (1889), essays

So, not exactly a novelist, but a writer of romantic stories proffered as "history".

In any case, the issues I have noted with Houssaye's use of the "Relation de Kellermann" were outlined above. To summarize,
- Houssaye re-wrote the document to make the story more exciting : he falsely attributed his own words to Kellermann, as if Kellermann had said or written them
- The original document was not an after-action report or staff study : it was a refutation of a defense of Napoléon published in the politically and socially fraught early 2nd restoration, when "blame" for the defeat was being hotly and often publicly debated
- The original document was actually un-finished and never published : the manuscript found by Houssaye had been sent by Kellermann to his chief of staff for checking, then forgotten, and had been found decades later among the latter's papers by his heirs

Now, all of the above does not – in my opinion – disqualify Houssaye or his work as a whole. His "1815" remains a key work in French on the Cent Jours.

It does, however, provide a very narrow ledge to stand on to argue, as Kevin has done, that the second (dragoon) brigade of L'Heritier's division was not present at Quatre Bras.

And it is only from Houssaye (and those who uncritically follow him later) that we have this version of the events. Leaving Mr. Franklin's and Mr. Dawson's recent research aside, we have had Foy, Reille, Siborne and "Victoires, conquêtes, ….", etc. all putting both of L'Heritier's brigades at the battle.

- Sasha

P.S. While we are being crtical of sources, I might note that it is unlikely that all of Foy, Reille, Siborne and "Victoires, conquêtes, …." are strictly independent sources.

The books you listed, some of which I'm familiar with, still do not qualify as being "romantic," either in the subjects or the genre, nor would most people classify Houssaye as a romantic writer. Perhaps "popular historian" in the context of the works you cite, much as the British writer Christopher Hibbert is a popular historian, although some have attempted to raise him above his qualifications.

That being said, I'm not at all averse to new research, archival or otherwise, although I admit I am not a fan of anything to do with Waterloo. However, I would like to know where the original, unaltered document you talk about is now, or where it was when "discovered?" A proper citation would be lovely, accompanied, of course, by a transcription? Or have I missed its location and transcription on another thread?

And humor me here: what possible difference does it make whether a particular brigade of whatever was present at Quatre Bras or indeed anywhere else on any other battlefield? Did the presence or absence of this brigade of whatever they were change the outcome in any way?

Just curious.

Maggie C

Maggie,

I studied mathematics and economics at university. My wife says I am illiterate in at least three languages. Houssaye's work seems like a bunch of romantic story-telling to me. But I will not stake my reputation on my ability to do literary criticism, and happily stand corrected by you.

As for the original document itself, the one Houssaye called "Relation de Kellermann", I gave the current archival location, the history of the document, and a description of Houssayes's re-writing from 1919 (in which the pre-Houssaye and post-Houssaye text of the relevant passage is compared) in my first post.

And to humor you ….

As to possible difference, I have no idea.
Actually, I am a gamer, so I want the "conditions" of the battle : forces present, terrain, maybe weather – and uniforms!
I am not so interested in what the original commanders made of this mix as I am in what I do with it, vs. my opponent. I am more interested in the question of "could I use this brigade to change the outcome" than did the original commander of the French do so.

That said, +/- 1 brigade of dragoons would be considered an important, or at least meaningful, difference in a combat the scale of Quatre Bras. It was a rather near-run or evenly-matched affair, the result of which had direct consequences on Waterloo and the overall campaign. I suppose it is antiquarian interest to know which units were actually there, since whether the dragoon brigade was there or not, the result is a matter of historical fact.

I should also add that fact-checking what Kevin proffers as "sources" for his attempts to cheerlead for Napoléon and the French is a sort of cottage industry. For several (many?) years, Kevin has totted out little out-of-context, mis-translated, poorly sourced and/or just plain false "gems" about the greatness of the French.

The process of looking more closely at these received myths may have had a cumulatively beneficial effect on our understanding of the details of the history of the era. And I enjoy fact-checking anyway.

And giving Mr. Franklin's work a very public Amazon bad review, based largely on mis-use or incomplete use of secondary and tertiary sources – well, I thought it was rather unbecoming and unhelpful. Whether right or wrong, I think we should applaud those like Mr. Franklin and Mr. Dawson who attempt to refine and enhance our understanding of the details of Napoleonic battles. If we want to debate their findings, back-and-forth, in dialog – then there are fora such as Napoleon-Series and TMP where we can do this.

Sidenote : My first post on Mr. Franklin's work was such a challenge – about the establishment and officer ranks for the French train d'artillerie. His response was excellence : a specific discussion of the relevant decrees and regulations. I double-checked him. He was exactly right.

To trash someone's work in a public no-response-possible venue which might hurt the work's sales – and especially to do so under the most slight (and possibly incorrect) pretext – does not strike me as the gentlemanly thing to do.

- Sasha

The bottom line here is, however, that the 'sources' mentioned, and not transcripted, do not support the 'new' comments that the dragoon brigade of l'Heritier's cavalry division was present or charged at Quatre Bras.

The argument would be quite settled of the information from the 'sources' were actually quoted and not merely referred to.

Having had a look at both Foy and Victoires, Conquettes do not support the idea at all. As previously stated, dragoons are not even mentioned.

Transcriptions from both Reille would be most helpful. By not supplying those if able to does nothing to enhance the general knowledge and only adds obfuscation to the question and subject.

It seems to me that the mania for 'new' material overwhelms any good sense when attempting to write on a historical subject. That fact tends to cloud what actually occurred as well as who was there and did what to whom.

Kevin,

I linked the sources I have mentioned. Go read them.

- Sasha

To be fair, Sasha, it is clear that Kevin has read them. He just doesn't agree with your interpretation of their contents.

In my opinion, new material is extremely valuable if it is credible and adds fresh insight. A prime example from my own field was the discovery of a new account of the battle of Evesham (1265) on the back of a genealogical roll, which presented a coherent, logical, and less complicated version of events. Now is considering such material a mania or simply part and parcel of a professional approach to historical research?

Janner,

My post was in response to his requests for transcriptions.

Actually, Kevin clearly did not read the Siborne before citing him in his Amazon review, as Siborne said the exact opposite of what Kevin purported him to say.

So, one *does* wonder what he reads and does not read.
:-)

- Sasha

Understood, Sasha. If you were to transcribe them though, then I for one would be most grateful. However, I'll understand if you have other demands on your time.

Sasha,

Thanks for you response. It took a bit of searching, but I found your initial posting amongst the rather acrimonious exchanges in this thread.

It's clear that you are no fan of Houssaye, for whatever reason, since you continually refer to him in a somewhat belittling fashion, which is odd for a gamer. I don't care, either way, since I never cited Houssaye in anything I ever wrote, but I do find your disdain interesting,

So the real truths, based on new research and its resulting new and game-changing evidence--no pun intended, really--is now to be found in Osprey books, those 96-page wonders beloved by wargamers, miniature painters, and folks who want overviews of battles and campaigns, but certainly of no consequence to academically credentialed historians?

And have you ever wondered, in your ardent defense of all this new, multilingual archival research and evidence, that this goldmine of information was not grabbed up by an academic press with solid credentials and a history of publishing ground-breaking research on older topics?

I have zero interest in the Amazon review you mention, but since you raised that issue, I will say this: every product Amazon sells, from books to razor blades to kosher salt and anything else imaginable can be reviewed by anyone who has bought, borrowed, or otherwise used the product in question. The suggestion that a person should not post a negative review is beyond ludicrous, as is the equally absurd contention that any reservations a reviewer might have should be confined to the fora you mentioned. I am a frequent reviewer of fiction, historical and contemporary, and my reviews of books range from five stars to one star, as I personally view the book in question on a variety of levels. That is the entire purpose of Amazon reviews, and that will not change because you think it should.

Why am I beginning to get the feeling you are shilling for certain authors at the same time you denigrate others? Perfectly fine with me if that's what you want to do, but it does seem rather amateurish.

Nevertheless, thanks again for the links. I will go off and read them--yes, I am way past proficient in French, even though I'm an American--and come to my own conclusions.

MaggieC

Janner,

I thought I did transcribe the relevant passages. Really, other than context maybe, there was not anything more in the listed works. The references indicating exactly how much of Kellermann's command arrived were essentially just in passing, or part of a listing of all the forces.

===================================

Maggie,

"you are no fan of Houssaye"
Errr …. no.
Quoting my own prior posts here :
"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."
"Now, all of the above does not – in my opinion – disqualify Houssaye or his work as a whole. His "1815" remains a key work in French on the Cent Jours."
I really like "1815". The problem here is *not* anything to do with Housssaye in general, only Kevin's reliance on this work for the specific question at hand to the exclusion of other sources.

"your ardent defense of all this new, multilingual archival research "
I have hardly mentioned anything "new", and certainly not defended it. I have only adduced (i) a bit of context on the Houssaye and (ii) links and citations and a little translation for several other sources that others have mentioned.

"academic press"
They do textbooks, right? I always used my textbook money for other things, so I am not sure what the "academic press" publishes. I think I noted : "I suppose it is antiquarian interest to know which units were actually there"
I also suppose that your "academic press" is not too interested in antiquarianism.

"that a person should not post a negative review is beyond ludicrous,"
My suggestion was not this. Here again is what I wrote:
"giving Mr. Franklin's work a very public Amazon bad review, based largely on mis-use or incomplete use of secondary and tertiary sources – well, I thought it was rather unbecoming and unhelpful."
The problem is not the posting. I did not say a word about what "should be" posted on Amazon.
The problem is not the negative review. I did not say the review should not be negative.
The problem is that the review's major negative point was "based largely on mis-use or incomplete use of secondary and tertiary sources".
I found this "unbecoming and unhelpful", not worthy of being censored.

"you are shilling" "amateurish"
You are posting personal comments about me, not about the subject matter at hand. The title of the thread was not "what do you think of Sasha?"
As a matter of fact ….
- I have never met or spoken to John Franklin
- I have never purchased an Osprey book (a couple were given to me over the years, by authors whose research I had assisted, not to include Mr. Franklin)
- I have virtually no interest in any modern secondary sources, beyond a few uniforms "picture-books" that my dear daughter bought for me
- I am indeed an amateur (at best) historian and certainly not "academically credentialed" in history
- "My academic credentials" (my, what a pompus phrase!) were in mathematics and economics, with graduate study in engineering and international law
- I was an indifferent student, and took more interest in girls and sailboats and race cars than in my studies (which, I repeat, had nothing whatsoever to do with history)
- I was once an officer in the US Navy, then a businessman in the aerospace/defense sector, then a banker, and now (hopefully) at least semi- retired
- I have no opinion on any historical question worth the time for me to write it nor anyone else to read it
- I like (to try) to paint miniatures : I usually fail in this, and get paint all over myself and my immediate surroundings
- I like to play an occassional game with my friends, until the vodka kicks in and we quit and I go home to my wife and she yells at me for getting drunk like some old Soviet officer (I am Amercian – she is Russian, but anti-Soviet in her youth, and intolerant of drunkeness as many Russian women can be)
- On TMP, I try to answer questions and sometimes ask them
- On TMP, I try to provide full source citations, with active links to the works I cite, with translations of the relevant passages for all my posts (I admit I am lazy sometimes with linking Russian sources, as so few can actually read them and the machine translators mangle them so badly)

That's it, Maggie. That's all there is.

- Sasha

So the real truths, based on new research and its resulting new and game-changing evidence--no pun intended, really--is now to be found in Osprey books, those 96-page wonders beloved by wargamers, miniature painters, and folks who want overviews of battles and campaigns, but certainly of no consequence to academically credentialed historians?

Might I offer up Matthew Bennett's highly regarded study on Agincourt as an example of a piece published by Osprey that has considerable academic value.

The only problem with Ospreys is that they are not usually allowed as references at the graduate level.

I don't entirely agree with that, as there are some, such as the excellent material done by Rene Chartrand as well as the Peninsular Atlas by Nick Lipscombe, that are excellent.

However, the point is that too many, such as those under discussion here, that are not reliable enough to be used as reference material.

And it should be noted that (again) the 1st French Chasseurs a Cheval wore helmets, not shakos, in Belgium in 1815 and along with their green uniforms, could undoubtedly be mistaken through the smoke and mess as 'dragoons.' "

Hmmmm ….. you keep repeating this, now on two threads, as if it were true.

Other than both being casques, it is really hard to imagime two more different headgears.

casque de officier de chasseurs du roi (1814) : black with chenille (caterpillar) and front brass plate
link

casque de officer de dragon (vers 1810) : brass with horsetail and turban (leopard-spotted for officers)
link

One might also add that dragoons rode a heavy cavalry cuirassier saddle or "selle français", and that chasseurs rode a light cavalry hussar saddle "selle à la hungroise". Also, there were white/gray (actually white with some blue-gray threads in one direction) cloaks for dragoons and green cloaks for chasseurs. And the size of the horses was different.
But maybe enemy infantry would not recognize all these differences?

So back to the casques …. and we have the following regarding the action at Rocquencourt on 1 July 1815 :

"Von Sohr apprit que la cavalerie anglaise et prussienne (qu'on apercevait sur the route de Saint-Germain) venait à son secours. Mais on acquit bientôt la certitude que c'était des Français – à savoir le 1er régiment de chasseurs dont les shakos, ressemblant aux nôtres, nous avaient trompés"
Revue de l'Histoire de Versailles et de Seine-et-Oise
Versailles : Bernard, 1968
page 207

Translation :
"Von Sohr [the Prussian cavalry commander] understood that the English and Prussian cavalry (which had been seen on the route from Saint-Germain) had come to his support. But the certainty that they were French was soon apparent – we came know that the 1st chasseurs, their shakos resembling ours, had fooled us."

See also
Geschichte des Feldzugs von 1815 in den Niederlanden und Frankreich
hrsg. Carl von Damitz
Berlin : Mittler 1837-1838

It would not be too likley that the regiment had a re-issue of headgear between 18 June and 1 July, during the French rout and retreat toward Paris. But it is not actually, physically impossible.

So, Kevin, let's have some primary source that supports your contention that the 1er chasseurs wore their casques at Waterloo, OK?
You keep repeating this point over and over, so you must have some actual primary source support for your comments, right?

- Sasha

And giving Mr. Franklin's work a very public Amazon bad review, based largely on mis-use or incomplete use of secondary and tertiary sources – well, I thought it was rather unbecoming and unhelpful

Well at least we've moved away from suggesting that Kevin's review was in any way shocking or offensive – progress I suppose.

The suggestion that a person should not post a negative review is beyond ludicrous, as is the equally absurd contention that any reservations a reviewer might have should be confined to the fora you mentioned. I am a frequent reviewer of fiction, historical and contemporary, and my reviews of books range from five stars to one star, as I personally view the book in question on a variety of levels. That is the entire purpose of Amazon reviews, and that will not change because you think it should.

Hear Hear! I am surprised at the animus his frank but entirely professional and polite review has generated, and the repeated deliberations as to whether or not he read this or that source!

I often guide my purchases of books on the Amazon review, based on the assumption that if the reviewer found the book to be unsatisfactory, he was at liberty to say so without being found 'unhelpful'. Is that no longer the case? If reviews can only be wholly positive, I think that should be made clear to the punter…. I would also question the 'helpfulness' of book reviews in general if they are not permitted to be critical…In this internet age, its rarely possible to physically leaf through a book and make one's own mind up based on the contents, referencing, or the author's military or academic experience, after all…

One might also add that dragoons rode a heavy cavalry cuirassier saddle or "selle français", and that chasseurs rode a light cavalry hussar saddle "selle à la hungroise". Also, there were white/gray (actually white with some blue-gray threads in one direction) cloaks for dragoons and green cloaks for chasseurs. And the size of the horses was different.
But maybe enemy infantry would not recognize all these differences?

So back to the casques …. and we have the following regarding the action at Rocquencourt on 1 July 1815 :

"Von Sohr apprit que la cavalerie anglaise et prussienne (qu'on apercevait sur the route de Saint-Germain) venait à son secours. Mais on acquit bientôt la certitude que c'était des Français – à savoir le 1er régiment de chasseurs dont les shakos, ressemblant aux nôtres, nous avaient trompés"
Revue de l'Histoire de Versailles et de Seine-et-Oise
Versailles : Bernard, 1968
page 207

Translation :
"Von Sohr [the Prussian cavalry commander] understood that the English and Prussian cavalry (which had been seen on the route from Saint-Germain) had come to his support. But the certainty that they were French was soon apparent – we came know that the 1st chasseurs, their shakos resembling ours, had fooled us."

The silhouette of distant horsemen's headgear was certainly often used to identify friend or foe, as the last part of you post suggests…

But to suggest that infantrymen fleeing from charging enemy cavalry would not have mistaken dragoons for chasseurs, or vice versa, by comparing their tufts or details of their saddle furniture whilst busy reacting is a little risible!

'ALARM CAVALRY! BACK TO THE TREES! NOW! MOOOVE IT!'
'Actually Serjeant, I think you'll find that the fact their tufts are made of chenille rather than horse…UUMPH!'

417,
" If reviews can only be wholly positive, I think that should be made clear to the punter"
The problem is not the negative review. I did not say the review should not be negative.
The problem is that the review's major negative point was based largely on mis-use or incomplete use of secondary and tertiary sources.
I found this "unbecoming and unhelpful", not worthy of being censored.

On the casques, two points :

1. The outlines of the casques were different, also their color. If we are assuming that the infantry were "typing" cavalry at all, then seeing the difference between the two headgears (even in profile) was not hard.

2. Point 1 is, most likely, not too relevant – as the only primary source I have found, Von Sohr at Rocquencourt, clearly puts the 1er chasseurs in shakos. So, unless Kevin can point to some primary source that puts them in casques at Waterloo, his entire comment about chasseurs in casques being mistaken for dragoons comes undone.

Taking a step back ….
Kevin says – there were no French dragoons at Quatre Bras
Someone posted – Allied witnesses say they saw "dragoons"
Kevin says – oh, no the Allied witnesses are wrong, they really saw the 1er chasseurs in casques
I say – oh no, Kevin, there is every reason, based on an eyewitness (albeit on 1 July) to think the 1er chasseurs were not in casques, but in their usual shakos
I say – and therefore Kevin's concept of this being a reason for mis-identifying dragoons goes out the window

Now if you, 417, want to say that the witnesses said "dragoons" generically or randomly, that they made no attempt to type enemy cavalry accurately, that they called anyone on a horse a "dragoon" …. then the issue of their headgear goes out the window. It was Kevin who brought up what the Allied infantry saw on the heads of the French horsemen, not me.

- Sasha

P.S. The bit about what the ranker says to the sergeant when getting charged is really not on point. We are talking about what officers wrote in their after-action reports and memoirs. My impression is that the French and Russian officers did "type" enemy cavalry and did so correctly almost always. I can't imagine that Anglo-Allied officers were much worse at this.

For example, the French officers routinely correctly identified Russian uhlans, hussars and cossacks, even in winter campaign dress and even though all three were light cavalry armed with lances.

Alexandre

great examen critique and very worthwhile argument that the 1 CaC – did wear shakos at Quatre Bras, I will paste and copy this.

Your arguments stay tranparent, are well documented and an example to be presented in that way that the reader can come to his own conclusion, well done.

However, the point is that too many, such as those under discussion here, that are not reliable enough to be used as reference material.

I'd agree that Ospreys can be a mixed bag, but you've yet to demonstrate that John's research deserves to be described as 'unreliable'.

based on an account at the time whose author eludes me
I do believe a French Dragoon was shot through both legs
at Quatre Bras as the British believed he was trying to
kill the Duke of Wellington after the last French Cavalry attack,in fact he had only been trying to escape after his
horse had been shot by British infantry. the writer mentions he thought it was a British dragoon because
of the outline of the helmet then noted the Green jacket
and red facings…………
..dint they find a Casque on the battlefield in the Waterloo area……many sourced say the 1st eme Line Chasseurs wore a mixture of 1812 shakos and the classical helmet…..similar to the Gendarmes de Elite who had Bearskins and casques……time was limited in 1815!

I apologise that I'm only just responding to the numerous posts which have been made during the last few days, but I am currently in Scotland working with the BBC on a series of Waterloo programmes due for broadcast in June. This is a major venture and requires my attention, so while I'm away from my office this post will have to be brief.

I have already suggested that the death of the Duke of Brunswick should be another thread, and upon my return to Switzerland I will happily place several accounts from members of the Brunswick Corps which describe the attack of the Dragoons and clearly identify their presence at Quatre Bras. Of course, these accounts have been discovered – as I mentioned in the short article I produced for Osprey – during primary research in the Germans archives, not secondary English language sources. I will provide archival references for all of these items, and I am happy for TMP members to pursue their own study of these sources, as mentioned previously.

I have not studied the various posts above in as great a detail as I perhaps should have done, but the theme of denial appears to be continued by the usual suspect (no doubt determined to save their own face against the body of evidence which has been presented). Setting aside the merits or demerits of an Osprey publication, and the very public reviews which people place, one has to ask what is it reasonable to seek in relation to sources. Of course, the ubiquitous Mr. Kiley (who continues to quote the most unreliable English language secondary sources in the face of a well-defined argument from Alexandre) not only demands references – which have been given in relation to losses, and for two handwritten accounts written by two members of the 2e Dragons, taken from the French archives – but also wants to have the full details of the accounts published for his benefit on these pages (he no doubt wants them to be translated into English as he does not understand more than the most basic French). This is unreasonable, especially when it has been stated that the material will appear on at least two other future publications.

I happen to be one of a small number of researchers who have undertaken research in the European archives, and whose research has been published (either by a major publisher like Osprey, or in a smaller format). The presentation of this new material, which constitutes a considerable body of evidence, will only benefit those who have an open mind. It will not be of any use to those who sit at home quoting secondary English language sources. All of us who, by dint of our own efforts and expenditure (both time and money), present new material should be encouraged, rather than derided. Why would anyone endeavour to undertake new research if derision is to be their guest? But perhaps this is the way Mr. Kiley wants things to be; he wants the status quo to remain unaltered. I sincerely believe that the vast majority of people who read these pages do not subscribe to the same negative view.

John Franklin

P.S. I 'll be back in Switzerland next week, and will contribute to the Brunswick thread at that time.

I have already suggested that the death of the Duke of Brunswick should be another thread, and upon my return to Switzerland I will happily place several accounts from members of the Brunswick Corps which describe the attack of the Dragoons and clearly identify their presence at Quatre Bras. Of course, these accounts have been discovered – as I mentioned in the short article I produced for Osprey – during primary research in the Germans archives, not secondary English language sources. I will provide archival references for all of these items, and I am happy for TMP members to pursue their own study of these sources, as mentioned previously.

Much appreciated.

I am coming new to this discussion and have read a multitude of books on the subject, including Field, Franklin, Roberts and much earlier works. It's a shame that a debate on an academic subject could not have been conducted with more grace and dignity by many on both sides.

Although I have not found Osprey guides to be without glaring errors in the past (Gettysburg for example), I am certainly open to new evidence and revisions of what has been accepted "knowledge". I arrived at the thread for particularly the same reason as the OP.

There doesn't appear to be sufficient evidence to unequivocally support a view that the brigade was present or not. It would have been helpful to see the evidence in favour of its presence presented word for word.

Dare I say it, there are two more points of possible contention. Franklin identifies Cleeve's battery (9 pounders at that) as being horse artillery. I have not seen that designation anywhere else. Where they horse artillery?

The other point is that has exercised me for quite some time, having seen accounts favouring both versions, is whether the horse artillery of the guard was deployed/used by the French. I understand that Napoleon stated reason for sparing the guard light cavalry division was in anticipation of their having to advance to Brussels imminently. It seems unlikely that the French command would not have taken advantage of this artillery. Its stamina would not have been much compromised by use (as would cavalry and ammunition does not seem to be a factor) and also that it would be a major asset during such a battle.

I am coming new to this discussion and have read a multitude of books on the subject, including Field, Franklin, Roberts and much earlier works. It's a shame that a debate on an academic subject could not have been conducted with more grace and dignity by many on both sides.

Although I have not found Osprey guides to be without glaring errors in the past (Gettysburg for example), I am certainly open to new evidence and revisions of what has formerly been accepted "knowledge". I arrived at the thread for particularly the same reason as the OP.

There doesn't appear to be sufficient evidence to unequivocally support a view that the brigade was present or not. It would have been helpful to see the evidence in favour of its presence presented word for word.

Dare I say it, there are two more points of possible contention. Franklin identifies Cleeve's battery (9 pounders at that) as being HORSE artillery. I have not seen that designation anywhere else. Were they horse artillery?

The other point is that has exercised me for quite some time, having seen accounts favouring both versions, is whether the horse artillery of the guard was deployed/used by the French. I understand that Napoleon's stated reason for sparing the guard light cavalry division was in anticipation of their having to advance to Brussels imminently. It seems unlikely that the French command would not have taken advantage of this artillery. Its stamina would not have been much compromised by use (unlike the cavalry – and ammunition does not seem to be a factor) and also that it would be a major asset during such a battle.

By the way, let me know if anyone would like a few photographs of the battle in miniature. I have not seen anything online that comes close to illustrating the battle better – one can actually see at a glance where everything is and what is happening! It's also gone very historically so far (approaching 5 PM).

Napoleon was certainly explicit about sparing the Guard cavalry.

As an aside, I note that Heymes (Ney's Chief of Staff) makes specific reference to Kellerman's charge with a brigade of cuirassiers, but makes no mention of any other part of Kellerman's formation. Having said that, it may be that Heymes was something of an apologist for Ney, so omitting reference to certain troops (our brigade of dragoons) may have enhanced the task that Ney had in dealing with the Allied troops at Quatre Bras.

Back to the point, Napoleon's letter from Charleroi to Ney (June 16, 1815):

'To Marshal Ney.

My Cousin – I send you my Aide de Camp, General Flahaut; who brings you the present letter.

[snip]

You may then dispose your troops in the following manner: First Division at two leagues in front of Quatre Bras, if in doing so there is no inconvenience. Six Divisions of Infantry about Quatre Bras; and one Division at Marbais, so that I may draw it to myself at Sombref, if I should have need of it. It would not otherwise retard your march. The Corps of the Count De Valmy, which has 3,000 elite cuirassiers, at the intersection of the Roman road with that of Brussels in order that I may draw it to myself if I should have need of it; as soon as my decision is made, you will send him the Order to rejoin you. I would desire to have with me the Division of the Guard commanded by General Lefebvre Desnouettes, and I send you the two Divisions of the Corps of the Count De Valmy to replace it. But in my present design, I prefer to place the Count De Valmy in such a manner as to be able to recall him if I should have need of him; and not to make false marches for General Lefebvre Desnouettes; since it is probable that I shall decide this evening to march on Brussels with the Guard. However, cover Lefebvre's Division with the two Cavalry Divisions of D'erlon and Reille, in order to spare the Guard; and that, if there shall be any affray there with the English, it may be with the Line rather than with the Guard.'

Allan

Franklin identifies Cleeve's battery (9 pounders at that) as being HORSE artillery. I have not seen that designation anywhere else. Were they horse artillery?

No, you're quite right, Cleeves's battery was No. 4 Battery Royal KGL Artillery, ie a Foot Battery. It was one of the 3rd Anglo-Hanoverian Infantry Division's batteries.

It just so happens that Lt Col Andrew Cleeves had his Army rank gazetted into the KGL RHA, as opposed to his Corps rank, of Captain, in the KGL RA, so that might be where the confusion comes from. But a foot battery attached to an Infantry Division none the less.

Not that divisional designations made much difference to the employment of guns as the reinforcements arrived pell-mell! And Wellington tended to employ his horse guns in the line anyhow during this campaign!

Mr. Franklin says, above: "I happen to be one of a small number of researchers who have undertaken research in the European archives, and whose research has been published (either by a major publisher like Osprey, or in a smaller format)."

Define "small number," please, and how you could possibly know how many people are conducting research in any European archive at any given time with the intent of publishing the fruits of such research. I'm prepared to be amazed here.

okay

How many people did recently research the archives in Wolfenbüttel and obtaining information about the Brauchschweiger? – of the non German lingua folk?

You're answering a question with a question-that is illogical and an historical fallacy.

'The fallacy of counterquestions is an attempt at a revision which becomes merely a mindless inversion of an earlier interpretation and a reiteration of its fundamental assumptions. It has been said that there are two ways of manifesting an intellectual subservience to another mind: slavish imitation and obsessive refutation.'-David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies, 28.

Further, on the next page, Fischer states: '…a counterquestion, in its reflexive inversion of the original, tends to repeat the original assumptions, faults and all, and thereby to perpetuate the error. Counterquestions repudiate conclusions but reiterate premises. The resultant revision is objectionable not because it is revisionist but because its revisionism is incomplete and superficial.'

The bottom line to the OP is that no one has demonstrated or proven that Picquet's dragoon brigade was present at Quatre Bras or that they were engaged.

And until that is done, if at all possible, all that can be said for that theory is that it is just that-a theory. Supporting evidence has not been given, merely alluded to.

There is also the issue of the 2nd Dragoon Regt suffering 26 casualties on the 16th, a not insignificant number. So they couldn't have just been spending the day in reserve.

The question still remains, where is the source for this and why can't it be cited and quoted?

I don't believe that it too much to ask.

The source for the losses was indicated on page one of this thread:

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.

I leave it to the John Franklin to confirm the location for these documents – perhaps Vincennes…..

Is Brechtal198 correct in the conclusion that sources only "allude" to the possibility?
That is to say…. sources of L" Herriter or his officers of those regiments have not been located yet, are possibly what is needed that could definitely confirm they were or were not in the vicinity of QB and under direct command of Kellermann (that not being of a detachment under orders to set at some location between QB and Ligny for ease of recall by Napoleon)?

@MaggieC70
Your replies are pushing that of personal attacks, I would appreciate they cease.

I made this inquiry for purposes of wargaming- which is what the TMP is for.
No one put a gun to your head and made you have to join in and make a reply.
Sorry you find this inquiry, many of the debaters and the resulting debate, less than idea!

I appreciate all replies to the inquiry, but the personal attacks to those who have or such replies that do not focus on & support the debate, not so!

MG

The source for the losses was indicated on page one of this thread:
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.
I leave it to the John Franklin to confirm the location for these documents – perhaps Vincennes…

That's all well and good, but it isn't put into context and by itself means nothing.

The questions that need answering is where were the casualties incurred, if in actuality they were, and under what circumstances. That has not been done and should have been.

MG,

If you're going to single out someone for a 'personal attack' then it should be done to all those who have done it, or not at all.

And I don't see where MaggieC has made any personal attack at all.

And I don't see where MaggieC has made any personal attack at all.

Agreed – but in fairness, the individual hasn't provided much in the realm of information that might assist the OP in coming to a reasoned conclusion, about Picquet's location on the 16th, either.

I believe this is pushing that fact, but please keep in mind this initiated my "initial impression" and thus reaction, so I could be off..
from May 17 2:55 pm PST reply directed towards a post…
" Why am I beginning to get the feeling you are shilling for certain authors at the same time you denigrate others? Perfectly fine with me if that's what you want to do, but it does seem rather amateurish".

Using the word "You" does not bode well and makes it personal IMHO.
Enough said!
On with finding the needed proof/conclusion!

MG

The question still remains, where is the source for this and why can't it be cited and quoted?

I don't believe that it too much to ask.

As John Franklin posted earlier in response to a related query by both of us on the death of the Duke of Brunswick,

I 'll be back in Switzerland next week, and will contribute to the Brunswick thread at that time.

Patience is a virtue

"The bottom line to the OP is that no one has demonstrated or proven that Picquet's dragoon brigade was present at Quatre Bras …. until that is done, if at all possible, all that can be said for that theory is that it is just that-a theory. Supporting evidence has not been given, merely alluded to."

Reille
Title : "Notice historique sur les mouvements du 2e corps dans la campagne de 1815"
Provenance : written by Reille (commander of the French 2nd Corps) and/or his chief of staff the baron de Lacroix ~1818 based on the contemporary journal of operations, signed "certifed to conform with the records of the time" by Reille, published by Ney's son in 1840 in a collection of documents defending his father, available to read here : link
Text (page 58) : "[Ney] faisant déployer sur la gauche un corps de grosse cavalerie commandé par le comte de Valmy, que venait d'arriver"
Translation : "[Ney] had had deployed on the left a corps of heavy cavalry commanded by the count of Valmy, which had come up"

Victoires, conquêtes, ….
Title : "Victoires, conquêtes, désastres, revers et guerres civiles des Français de 1792 à 1815" – vol. 24
Provenance : not unlike a general staff study, the work is a detailed account written by a team of officers using written reports from the relevant participants, published in 1821, avaliable to read here : link
Text (page 188) : "À midi [Ney] …. se mit en marche avec ….une division de corps de cuirassiers du comte de Valmy …. Il laissa en réserve, en arrière de Frasnes …. le reste du corps de Kellermann"
Translation : At midday [Ney] …. began to march with …. a division of the count of Valmy's the cuirassier corps …. He left in reserve, behind Frasnes …. the remainder of Kellermann's corps"
Note : On the next page a footnote makes it clear that it was L'Heritier's division that inlcuded the 8th and 11th Cuirassiers which Ney had brought up to Quatre Bras.

W. Siborne
Title : "History of the war in France and Belgium, in 1815. Containing minute details of the battles of Quatre-Bras, Ligny, Wavre, and Waterloo"
Provenance : a secondary source whose accuracy with military details is the product of a careful search of records and a series of letters with participants at the battle (with whom the author had served as a young officer during the post-Waterloo occupation), published in 1844, available to read here : link
Text (pages 168-169) : "Kellermann reached the field with the Eleventh Cavalty Division under Lieutenant General L'Heritier …. [Ney] therefore determined to take advantafe of Kellermann's arrival for the execution of a vigorous Cavalry attack. Retaining General Pi[c]quet's [Dragoon] Brigade in reserve, he combined for this purpose General Guyton's Brigade, consisting of the 8th and 11th Cuirassiers, with Piré's Light Cavalry".
Text (page 172) : All prospect of the Anglo-Alled Cavalry encountering Ney's veteran Dragoons with any chance of success had entirely vanished; whilst, on the other hand, the latter were on the point of being reinforced by the arrival of another Cavalry Division"
Text (page 180) : "Whilst that portion of Kellermann's Dragoons which had dispersed the 69th Regiment were sweeping gallantly onwards in their bold career along the high road towards Quatre Bras, the greater body of this Corps advanced into the open space on the righ of that road"
Note : There may be more mentions in Sibourne's rather detailed text.

Foy
Title : "Vie militaire du général Foy"
Provenance : account written by Foy (commander of the French 9th Infantry Division) from Frasnes on 17 juin (the day after the action at Quatre Bras), included in a biography published n 1900, available here : link
Text (page 270) : "Je suvais la division Bachelu …. Nous avions avec nous la division de cavalerie du général L[']héritier"
Translation : "I followed Bachelu's division …. We had with us the cavalry division of General L'Heritier."

P. Dawson
Title : n/a
Provenance : in a review of Mr. Franklins' Osprey booklet, available to read here : link
Text : "the relevant registre matricule of the 2nd regiment of Dragoons notes 26 men dead or wounded on the 16th June at Quatre-Bras. General Donop's cuirassier brigade was also present in the action [SHDDT C15, also AN LH/790/21]."
Comment : W. Siborne also discusses the arrival of the second of Kellermann's two divisions later in the battle.
Comment : "YC20 137" is a perfecctly valid archival reference, but may be problemmatic. See page 103 here : link
20 Yc 137 ::: Registres matricules du régiment de grenadiers à cheval de la garde des consuls, devenu 1er régiment de grenadiers à cheval : Volume 3, 1er avril 1815 – 25 novembre 1815 (numéros matricule 1 à 1083)

G. Nafziger
His order of battle for Quatre Bras is available to read here : PDF link
He includes all of L'Heritier's division, including Picquet's dragoon brigade, no source is listed.

OK, Kevin, your turn. You have offered us Houssaye to support the idea that Picquet's brigade was *not* present. Several issues or problems were noted for this source as regards this topic. Have you anything else, like – what a strange idea – any primary or contemporary source that supports your assertion?

- Sasha

All,
I have single out a member.
I should have addressed the request to stop the replies that tend toward being personal to all. For that I apologize to MaggieC70.

MG