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

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?

There are several ‘issues' with your posting here, as you have definitely overlooked the previous material that has been posted. For example, both Foy and Victoires, Conquetes, etc., have been paraphrased, so I don't see why they are addressed again. Nothing new from them has been added. The bottom line on both is that French dragoons and dragoon employment is not mentioned in either of them.
And it should be noted that I have used more material on the Belgian campaign than Houssaye's volume on 1815. That has also been shown.

Do you know and/or understand what an order of battle actually is? It is a snapshot of the command at a particular time and place and it changes frequently depending on the situation. The order of battle in the subject Quatre Bras Osprey also includes d'Erlong's I Corps, which was part of Ney's command, though it was not engaged. And the Guard Light Cavalry Division is also included in both that volume as well as in George Nafziger's-and it was not engaged either.

And the identification of a unit in an order of battle is not evidence that a unit was committed to action. And as Ney's command came onto the field at different times from the south, the mere appearance on an order of battle does not indicate presence on the field. Interestingly, the author of the subject Osprey has provided a timeline and French dragoons are not mentioned at all.

What should be looked at is the timeline of the arrival of the French units on the battlefield. They didn't arrive all at once, and some not at all. By some accounts, and these I tend to agree with, Guiton's cuirassier brigade of l'Heritier's heavy cavalry division arrived first, brought onto the field by Kellermann himself. That was about 1800.

Yet, in the Quatre Bras booklet, the author has French dragoons attacking before that time with no supporting evidence by Foy, Reille, Kellermann or anyone else to back up that contention. The cavalry that was on the field at that period was Pire's light cavalry division and they were most certainly engaged coming on the field with their corps.
I am also surprised that after having stated that you either don't use or don't like to use secondary works that you use Siborne's volume. He does mention dragoons, but he has them overrunning the 69th Foot which was definitely done by Guiton's cuirassier brigade. And as Andrew Field succinctly remarks, as the 11th Cuirassiers were not armored they were most probably mistaken for French dragoons, as the helmets and uniforms are similar.

Further, unit identification by the enemy in the middle of a fight is unreliable at best. Do you actually believe that they can pick out the units and regiments themselves? I don't believe so. Having actually been in combat it is a confusing encounter at best, and events and identifications are carried out after the shooting stops and heads are counted.

I generally disagree with Dawson's comment regarding Donop's heavy cavalry brigade. It was not at Quatre Bras, but at Ligny, and the author of the subject Quatre Bras Osprey makes that comment placing them at Fleurus. So, among the two authors who are arguing for ‘revision' there is basic disagreement.

So, in conclusion, I reiterate that evidence clearly demonstrating that French dragoons were on the field and that they charged the allies has not been presented. It is either wishful thinking or carrying an idea, or the hint of an idea, to a probably fact. I'm afraid more evidence has to be submitted before the idea can be accepted historically. I don't believe the process of historical inquiry has been followed in this process and that the methodology is flawed.

In short, the idea has not been either proven or supported conclusively, if at all.

I once again refer you or anyone else who might be interested to the excellent volume Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historic Thought by David Hackett Fischer. No one who studies and writes historically should be without it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but here there just isn't sufficient evidence for the Dragoons. What evidence there is is both slight and flimsy.

Brechtel, I remembered Field (or someone) saying it the other way round (that Dragoons were mistaken for Cuirassiers) but I may well remember incorrectly. Field makes a number of errors that seem careless, rather than simply inaccurate iyswim.

The commitment of the Guard batteries is a more significant issue I think. Anyway, I'll be at QB in a few weeks, so if I find pieces of Dragoon, I'll let everyone know!

The "absence of evidence" is stronger for the dragoons not being present.

The dragoons are in the OOB for a division being present.
They were recorded as being present by eye witnesses.
They are recorded as having sustained casualties that day.

What is the primary source evidence for their absence?

an order of battle … is a snapshot of the command at a particular time and place and it changes frequently depending on the situation. The order of battle in the subject Quatre Bras Osprey also includes d'Erlon's I Corps, which was part of Ney's command, though it was not engaged. And the Guard Light Cavalry Division is also included in both that volume as well as in George Nafziger's-and it was not engaged either.

You undermine your own point Kevin. In these cases there is a lot of evidence that these units were not present. Where is the primary source evidence saying that they were left behind? A comment from a relevant commander? Even better, an order?

"both Foy and Victoires, Conquetes, etc., have been paraphrased, so I don't see why they are addressed again"
No. I quoted them. And linked them. And translated them.

"dragoon employment is not mentioned in either of them"
Right – they mention a higher formation which included the dragoon brigade.

"I have used more material on the Belgian campaign than Houssaye"
No – you have offered nothing else from, nor even clearly sourced to, any primary or contemporary source.

"Do you know and/or understand what an order of battle actually is"
That is a snide personal comment that is off topic. My understanding of the defintion of "order of battle" is not relevant to this thread.

"By some accounts, and these I tend to agree with,"
Who cares what you agree with? You agreement does not make something historical fact. I know you are important, at lest in your own mind, but if there are "other accounts" from, or clearly sourced to, primary or contemporary materials that support your view – please let us know. Other than Houssye (which has the previously described issues) – you have provided nothing like this.

"I am also surprised that after having stated that you either don't use or don't like to use secondary works that you use Siborne's volume."
I included W. Siborne because you mentioned Siborne in your review. I quote you : "the inclusion of a cavalry action by the two dragoon regiments …. 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". What you wrote about Siborne was (i) a key element in your review, and (ii) competely wrong – he wrote the exact opposite of what you claimed was in his work.

"unit identification by the enemy in the middle of a fight is unreliable at best."
I did not provide any material based on this. Foy, Reille and the writers Victoires, conquêtes were French. W. Siborne, P. Dawson and G. Nafziger are not eyewitness accounts.

"I generally disagree with Dawson's comment regarding Donop's heavy cavalry brigade"
Then you also disagree with W. Siborne. But, again, who cares what you think? The question to which you are being markedly unresponisive is this : what primary or contemporary sources support your view?

"I reiterate that evidence clearly demonstrating that French dragoons were on the field and that they charged the allies has not been presented."
One might debate the degree to which the proffered sources "clearly" demonstrate the dragoons' presence. What is not debatable is this : no primary or contemporary evidence, beyond the problemmatic "Relation de Kellermann" as re-written by Houssaye, has been offered to the contrary. I repeat : none at all.

"I once again refer you or anyone else who might be interested …."
That is a snide personal comment that is off topic. My understanding of fallacious argumentation is not relevant to this thread.

In general, all your comments about what you may or may not agree with, or what I may or may not know, seem quite off-topic and, forgive me if this is not your intent, consistent with someone trying to cover a lack of actual primary or contemproary sources with a lot gray smoke or red herrings. If you have nothing to support your opinion from primary or contemporary sources (save Houssaye's re-write of the problemmatic "Relation de Kellermann) then fine. I will stop asking for this. On the other hand, it would be great if you actually did have something of this sort upon which to support your position : if you have it, please do share.

- Sasha

Just found this on Pierre de Wit's excellent site related to the Waterloo campaign:
PDF link

At 10 p.m. general Kellermann wrote his report to Ney. It reads:
Près Frasnes, le 16 juin 1815, 10 heures du soir
Monsieur le Maréchal, J'ai exécuté la charge que vous m'avez ordonné: j'ai rencontré l' infanterie ennemie placé dans un vallon au dessous de ses pièces. À l'instant, sans laisser aux troupes le temps de réfléchir, je me suis précipité‚ à la tête de l'escadron du 8e cuirassiers avec le général Guiton sur l'infanterie anglo-hanovrienne; malgré le feu le plus vif de front et de flanc, les deux lignes d'infanterie ont été culbutées, le plus grand désordre était dans la ligne ennemie que nous avons traversé deux à trois fois. Le succès le plus complet était assuré, avec les résultats que vous attendiez, si les lanciers nous eussent suivis, mais les cuirassiers, criblés de coups de fusil de tous les cotés, n'ont pu profiter de l'avantage qu'ils avaient obtenu par une des charges les plus résolues et les plus hardies, contre une infanterie qui ne se lasisa point intimider et qui fit son feu avec le plus grand sang-froid, comme à l'exercice. Nous avons pris un drapeau du 69e, qui a été enlevé par les cuirassiers Vulgager et Nourain; la brigade ayant fait une perte énorme et ne se voyant pas
soutenue, se retira dans le désordre ordinaire en pareille circonstance; mon cheval a été renversé de deux coups de feu et moi sous lui; ce n'est qu'avec peine que je suis parvenu à m'échapper. Le général Guiton, le colonel Garavaque ont été démontés, ainsi que nombre d'officiers et de cuirassiers. J'ai eu le genou et la jambe froissés, mais je n'en serais pas moins demain à cheval. La division Roussel est bivouaquée dans la plaine, près de Frasnes. La division L'Heritier n'a pas rejoint; je ne sais où lui adresser des ordres.
Je suis, avec respect, Le comte de Valmy

The last two sentences are most interesting.
"Roussel's division is bivouacked on the plain near Frasnes. L'Heritier's Division hasn't rejoined; I don't know where to send him orders"

Guiton's brigade was part of L'Heritier's division as was Picquet's. So at 10 PM, three hours or so after Guiton's charge at Quatre Bras, Kellerman was awaiting the return of that division to the Frasnes area to consolidate his corps. If it were merely Guiton's brigade wouldn't Kellerman have said that? He doesn't he states he was awaiting the 'division'.

You undermine your own point Kevin. In these cases there is a lot of evidence that these units were not present. Where is the primary source evidence saying that they were left behind? A comment from a relevant commander? Even better, an order?

The question is, where is the evidence to support what is stated regarding the dragoon brigade in the subject Osprey?

The short answer is that it has not been presented, and that includes the casualties that the dragoons allegedly suffered.

I remembered Field (or someone) saying it the other way round (that Dragoons were mistaken for Cuirassiers) but I may well remember incorrectly. Field makes a number of errors that seem careless, rather than simply inaccurate iyswim.

From Andrew Field, Prelude to Waterloo: Quatre Bras, The French Perspective, 137:

'Kellermann put himself at the head of Guiton's brigade, which consisted of the 8th and 11t Cuirassiers. The 11th were distinguishable by their lack of cuirasses; there were insufficient to equip all the regiments and this explains whey some allied accounts refer to dragoons, for without the cuirass, the two were very similar in appearance.'

Perhaps you could point out Field's errors?

I thought you disapproved of answering questions with questions…

However, there is some evidence that the French Dragoons were present at Quatre Bras. So far, the evidence that they were absent seems to be: "Houssaye says so". Do you know which primary source indicates that they were absent from their parent formation or not?

I thought you disapproved of answering questions with questions…

I didn't answer a question with a question.

I asked a question based on the statement that Field made some errors.

I can help you out, to save you remembering what you wrote 20 minutes ago:

WHIRLWIND : Where is the primary source evidence saying that they were left behind? A comment from a relevant commander? Even better, an order?

BRECHTEL198 : The question is, where is the evidence to support what is stated regarding the dragoon brigade in the subject Osprey?

Perhaps you should be more clear when you post.

I wasn't answering your question. I was attempting to correct your approach to the problem.

Obviously, that didn't work.

The topic is the errors in the Osprey. Seems to me that you are attempting to change the direction of the postings.

Perhaps you should be more clear when you post.

I'm sorry, which part of "Where is the primary source evidence saying that they were left behind? A comment from a relevant commander? Even better, an order?" didn't you understand.?

I wasn't answering your question.

Perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to do so now?

The topic is the errors in the Osprey. Seems to me that you are attempting to change the direction of the postings.

No,the topic is the Whereabouts of GdB Picquet's Brigade Jun16, 1815? . You can see the title if you look at the top of your screen. Do you know of any of primary source information on this topic?

I've already posted the summaries of two primary sources on the subject regarding Quatre Bras and Kellermann's cavalry corps:

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.

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.

Seems to me that you're trying to prove a negative, in that you want something to tell you that the dragoon brigade of l'Heritier's heavy cavalry division was not present at Quatre Bras. You cannot prove a negative. There is nothing substantiating that the dragoon brigade was at Quatre Bras, let alone that they were in action there.

It seems to me that you are attempting to 'advance a proposition and shifting the burden of proof or disproof to others' which is the logical fallacy of the presumptive proof. See David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies, 48.

With all of the supposed supporting sources for the presence of the dragoon brigade at Quatre Bras, none of them put that brigade at Quatre Bras nor do they show that they were in action there. What is more obvious and probably correct is that Kellermann's cavalry corps was at Frasnes, wouth of Quatre Bras, when the action opened and that his leading brigade, that of Guiton's cuirassiers, arrived on the field at about 1800. The supporting documentation clearly supports the idea that the only French cavalry in action at Quatre Bras was Pire's light cavalry division and Guiton's cuirassier brigade.

Until something is presented that supports the idea that the dragoon brigade was present and in action, then that is how it now stands and the information presented in the Osprey Quatre Bras volume is incorrect.

Seems to me that you're trying to prove a negative, in that you want something to tell you that the dragoon brigade of l'Heritier's heavy cavalry division was not present at Quatre Bras. You cannot prove a negative. There is nothing substantiating that the dragoon brigade was at Quatre Bras, let alone that they were in action there.

No one is asking anyone to try and prove a negative. There is "some" evidence to suggest that the Dragoons were present at Quatre Bras. There could be some mention in a primary source that the Dragoons were ordered to hold somewhere, or were detached from their division or doing pretty much anything. Yet there appears to be none.

It seems to me that you are attempting to 'advance a proposition and shifting the burden of proof or disproof to others' which is the logical fallacy of the presumptive proof. See David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies, 48.

It seems to me that the above is exactly what you are doing. It is you who have constantly asked others to provide a level of proof far higher than that which underpins your current belief. This level of proof reduces to:

Houssaye (secondary) says they weren't in action.
Foy (primary) doesn't mention them (and by extension, if they were there, he would have done so).

The supporting documentation clearly supports the idea that the only French cavalry in action at Quatre Bras was Pire's light cavalry division and Guiton's cuirassier brigade.

This is simply wrong. The supporting documentation doesn't support this at all.

Until something is presented that supports the idea that the dragoon brigade was present and in action, then that is how it now stands and the information presented in the Osprey Quatre Bras volume is incorrect.

There have been things which have supported the idea that the Dragoon brigade was present, so how it stands at the moment is that Houssaye is wrong and that the Osprey Quatre Bras volume is correct.

Please demonstrate where the Osprey is correct regarding the dragoon brigade. There is no documentation.

And the documentation that supposedly supports it, as entered on these theads, does not.

And Houssaye is only one of the sources used, as shown and apparently are being ignored.

Perhaps you could list the references that demonstrate that the dragoon brigade was present?

So I can take it that you don't have any primary source evidence for your position? Great, thanks, that is all I wanted to know.

Kevin,

You have been presented with an amount of evidence, some of it from texts that you originally claimed to not support the hypothesis that the dragoon brigade was present, which tend to support the hypothesis that they were present. These include statements from senior French officers who were involved.

In addition, John Franklin has stated that archival records show that they incurred casualties on the 16th and that Legion d'Honneur records also provide clear statements that support their presence. Unless you are calling him a liar, I find it hard to see the basis of your argument against those.

You are now falling back on your usual tactics of claiming logical fallacies, trying to obfuscate by attacking your opponents' approaches to addressing the subject, and ignoring or distorting the content of those texts which do not agree with your hypothesis, all while relying on an extremely limited range of secondary sources.

Your track record of being wrong about details of Napoleonic history is quite remarkable, while your track record of being unable to admit that you are wrong is even more staggering. You really do need to move away from your hagiographic secondary sources and look at primary sources if you really want to be regarded as any sort of authority on the period.

So, the only conclusion one can make from your ad hominem diatribe is that you have nothing to contribute except for personal comments against someone with whom you disagree.

Incredible.

Perhaps when one perceives everything as a personal attack one sees everything as a personal attack;).

The first paragraph of my post pointed out that you have been presented evidence that supports the hypothesis that the dragoons were present.

The second paragraph of my post pointed out what John Franklin has stated about the results of his research and questioned the basis of your rejection of it.

The third paragraph of my post pointed out what you are doing in this thread, as you have done in so many others where the evidence disagrees with your views.

The fourth paragraph of my post pointed out your rather well know track record; shall I just say "bricoles"?

What exactly have you contributed to this thread?

"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"

There was no "dragoon division" in Kellermann's corps. Not surprisingly, Foy does not mention such a non-existant division.
There was a "dragoon brigade" in Kellermann's corps.
It was in a division, that of L'Heritier, along with a "cuirassier brigade".

From Foy :
Text : "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."
Is there any part of this that is in any way unclear?

Foy states that at the beginning of the action he came up after Bachelu and with them was L'Heritier's cavalry division.
This division had a a dragoon brigade.
Therefore, absent comments by Foy to the contrary, can we not decide that Foy's report supports the contention that the dragoon brigade was present?
If not, why not?

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

"And Houssaye is only one of the sources used, as shown and apparently are being ignored."
The sources that you have mentioned, Kevin, were ….

1. Houssaye – Relies, for the question at hand, on his own re-written version of the so-called "Relation de Kellermann", which itself has some issues (never finished, never published, written after the fact as a polemical answer to a pro-Napoléon apologist).

2. Ropes – Writes of the "heavy cavalry of Kellermann", without further detail.

3. W. Siborne – Reports and narrates in detail the presence and actions of the dragoon brigade – exactly the opposite of the view you attributed to him.

4. Bowden – modern – Follows Houssaye

5. Field – modern – Largely follows Houssaye. Mr. Franklin reported on this thread : "I know Andrew Field and correspond with him regarding my research in the French archives. He has acknowledged the new information, which [he] did not have"

What has been requested, Kevin, and what you clearly do not have, is primary or contemporary sources (beyond Houssaye's re-write of the "Relation de Kellermann") that support your opinion.

- Sasha

Kevin,

How about this: you post one primary source that states that the dragoons were not present.

Come on, just one; that is not much to ask, is it?

"Do you know and/or understand what an order of battle actually is"
That is a snide personal comment that is off topic.

That is not a 'snide personal comment' by any stretch of the imagination!

Who cares what you agree with?

But, again, who cares what you think?

Your track record of being wrong about details of Napoleonic history is quite remarkable, while your track record of being unable to admit that you are wrong is even more staggering.

But these are snide and personal comments! I could very well be facile and say that I for one am very interested in what Kevin thinks about matters of military history as a published author and veteran. I am getting fed up with the double standard being applied to Kevin on this and other Napoleonic threads.

Essentially your disagreement boils down to a question of who needs to provide the burden of proof, the argument that the Dragoon brigade is now thought to have been present, the 'revisionist' view, if you like, or the argument that it was not present, the 'traditional historiography' if you will.

Surely not an issue to justify such personal attacks! Please treat him with the courtesy that he extends to others, else we will lose the contributions of this respected author and distinguished veteran.

Personally, as things stand, it seems this intriguing new proposition currently stands as a 'not proven' thesis, albeit a very interesting one. Any excuse to get more toys on the table!

Any excuse to get more toys on the table!

Now that's a thought that I believe all of us can get behind and support.

417,
Screw you.

XXXXXX,

That was out of order.

Navy,

Kevin does not extend courtesy to others; he treats anyone who disagrees with him with contempt and in an utterly patronising manner, exemplified by the order of battle comment above, which drips condescension.

He is certainly a veteran and certainly an author, but I would question the adjectives that you use.

Royal

I am just in the process of compiling information for a lengthy post concerning the death of Friedrich Wilhelm, the Duke of Brunswick at Quatre Bras (which will appear in the next couple of days). The content for the post has been taken almost entirely from the records held at the Staatsarchiv in Wolfenbüttel, Germany, and much of it has never been published. This archive holds the records relating to the Brunswick troops who served at Waterloo. One of the many accounts I have obtained (much more on the source in the Duke of Brunswick post) was written by Oberjäger Carl Wilhelm Pöhling of the 2nd Company, Grey Jäger of the Avantgarde. Pöhling was wounded during the fighting in the Bois de Bossu, and did not serve at Waterloo. His letter, dated 17th July 1815, written to his brother, is fascinating and includes the following extract (translated from German):

Archive Reference 276 N 43

‘Our captain ordered the front section to extend […] […] the wood. We had hardly undertaken this movement when the French cavalry came on very rapidly. Our beloved duke and our comrades in the Leibbataillon were the object of this attack. The shock threw them into confusion. A number of the French Dragoons dismounted and began to fire upon the brave Brunswickers. It was during this attack that our father, the duke, was killed.'

Please note that this is just one of the accounts written by Brunswick eyewitnesses which mention the French Dragoons (and more will follow).

The Staatsarchiv also holds the numerous court-martial reports which were compiled after the campaign for the Brunswick officers and men who were charged with various offences – from looting to cowardice in the face of the enemy. These are fascinating because they include detailed descriptions of events at the time the various officers and men absconded. I have worked extensively on these reports (although I have not had the opportunity to translated them all into English at this moment). The following include reference to French Dragoons at Quatre Bras:

27 Neu 1 Nr. 44: Untersuchung gegen Lieutnant Fricke und Kornett Fredeking
von der Ulaneneskadron wegen Abwesenheit bei der Schlacht bei Quatre Bras und Waterloo
(1815).

27 Neu 1 Nr. 50: Untersuchung gegen Kornett George und Fähnrich Gerlach
wegen Fehlens auf dem Schlachtfeld während der Schlacht bei Waterloo
(1815).

27 Neu 1 Nr. 51: Untersuchung gegen Fähnrich Gerlach von der 1. Kompanie der
leichten Infanterie der Avantgarde wegen Abwesenheit vom Truppenkorps am 18.
und 19.6.1815 (Schlacht bei Waterloo) (1815).

27 Neu 1 Nr. 58: Verfahren gegen Sergeant Friedrich Meyer vom Leibbataillon
wegen Abwesenheit vom Bataillon während der Schlacht bei Quatrebras und Waterloo (1815)

27 Neu 1 Nr. 87: Untersuchung gegen Fähnrich Ritter vom 2. Jägerbataillon
wegen Abwesenheit vom Schlachtfeld während der Schlachten von Quatrebras und
Waterloo (1815).

27 Neu 1 Nr. 159: Verfahren gegen Wachtmeister Gottfried Kahlefeld von der
Ulaneneskadron wegen Abwesenheit vom Schlachtfeld am 16.6.1815 (Schlachten bei Quatrebras und
Waterloo) (1815).

27 Neu 1 Nr. 161: Verfahren gegen Sergeant Wilhelm Franke vom 3.
Jägerbataillon wegen Abwesenheit bzw. Verlassen des Schlachtfeldes am 16.
und 18.6.1815 (Schlachten bei Quatrebras und Waterloo) (1815).

The body of evidence I amassed from the various archives in France, Germany and Britain provided me with sufficient satisfaction to state (against the many previous published accounts of Quatre Bras) that the French Dragoons were present, as outlined in the Osprey book. In the next twelve months six books will appear – including titles dedicated to the French and Prussians forces (which I am under contract and therefore cannot disclose as much as I would like) from my pen. These will provide a large number of new accounts, complete with archival references. I believe that the content will convince even the hardest critic that my writing is based on primary evidence and sound deduction.

Kind regards

John Franklin
Switzerland

Personally, as things stand, it seems this intriguing new proposition currently stands as a 'not proven' thesis, albeit a very interesting one. Any excuse to get more toys on the table!

I think the last post might have shifted the balance from possible to probable

it also nicely answered my request for more data on the death of Duke Frederick William – thank you, John.

John

I don't wish to sound patronising, but your last post is what people like me want to read: presentation of primary source evidence. I lookk forward to your further postings.

Allan

A number of the French Dragoons dismounted and began to fire…

Unusual behaviour for this period, but certainly dragoon-like!

Well this seems to have become uncivil.

I hope, with Sasha's name now being a sting of 'X's" we haven't lost another.

As I said earlier, the silly personal attacks here are entirely unwarranted. Tempting to name and shame the worst offender.

If we take Foy's word as accurate, we also have to explain what he meant by "our numerous horse artillery" (right at the start of the French advance). By any definition, that would have to be more than one battery (Piré's).

John, can you explain that illustration of Cleeve's horse (sic) battery in your Orsprey book?

Questions: Was Halkett's brigade present? How about French 4th light regiment? No-one questions those formation's presence. The very fact that there is doubt at all about the Dragoon's is highly suggestive of their absence (one would have expected a rather clearer "imprint" on the proceedings).

The main "evidence" seems to be a light casualty figure but the what, where and when behind such an isolated fact renders the statistic virtually meaningless without a supporting framework of context.

Waterloo200,

As John has indicated, there is more evidence than the casualty figures.

Yes indeed!
The the possibility to solidify the presence maybe at hand. Very Nice John and I look forward to what it unveils.

Another take away….I hope in the future one sticks to their presentation of their facts ….not their position and abstain using the word "you" in their reply or response. If this was soccer and I was the ref there would be 2 to 3 yellow cards drawn…. ;- P.

Growth is looking to expand and be open minded to something new or to change. Holding to a position typically is not.
I hope there is growth from this!

I think xxxxxx ( aka Sasha) though had presented some evidence to me of taking some of this personal… is now a seasoned "Guard Grenadier" thus now will no longer flinch with the "6pdr balls whizzing over head" ;-). Though I am not always "on his page" for his reply…I hope he will be around for long while!

@ Waterloo200
regarding discussion of the 4th Legere TMP link

Thanks again to all

MG

The discussion so far only leads to more questions regarding the presence and employment of Picquet's Dragoon Brigade. Nothing definitive has been supplied in the discussion to place them either on the field or in action on 16 June.

Ney's movement order of 16 June to Quatre Bras places Kellermann's III Cavalry Corps at the end of the march northward and by his order are emplaced at Frasnes. The French didn't begin to arrive at Quatre Bras until around 1400 and that places Kellermann's units to the rear of the march column, south of Frasnes with d'Erlon's corps behind him in the vicinity of Gosselies.

The order from Ney is:

‘The 2d Corps is to march immediately and take its place: the 5th division behind Genappe on the heights; the 9th division in the second line to the right and left of Bauterlez; the 6th and 7th divisions at the branch roads of Quatre Bras. The first three divisions of Count d'Erlon are to take up their position at Frasnes. The right division will establish itself at Marbais with the 2d cavalry division. The 1st cavalry division will cover our march and clear our way in the direction of Brussels and on our flanks. The two divisions of the Count of Valmy will place themselves at Frasnes and Liberchies.' (this order is dated 16 June at Frasnes and is taken from the War Archives and can be found on page 110 of Houssaye's volume on the Waterloo campaign).

If statements are going to be made that are portrayed as ‘new' information, such as the presence of the two French dragoon regiments of l'Heritier's division on the field before Kellermann's arrival around 1800, then definite information as to the origin of this idea should be put forward. That has not been done. One-off ‘sightings' of French dragoons on the field by allied troops is not evidence that can support what is in the Osprey volume on Quatre Bras. Enemy sightings and the identification of units on the other side is not reliable, especially as French dragoons, lancers, and chasseurs a cheval all wore similar uniforms in design and color. And all three wore helmets-the 1st Chasseurs a Cheval of Pire's light cavalry division did wear their Royalist helmets on campaign, as they were present in the regiment's ‘magasin' in an inventory taken on 22 December 1815-233 helmets and only 11 shakos.

The two lancer regiments of Pire's division wore a helment similar to a dragoon helmet, the only difference being a comb instead of a horsehair tail on the helmet. And the question arises were they identified as ‘dragoons' or ‘light dragoons' as has been suggested by the author of the subject Osprey on this forum.

Dragoons and light dragoons are two different types of cavalry units.

And if the dragoon brigade did arrive in time to go into action, as portrayed in the subject Osprey, when did they arrive and who ordered them forward?

Further, the evidence recommended, such as Foy's comments as well as the book Victoires, Conquetes, etc., do not support the author's ‘thesis.'

If definitive evidence is not shown supporting the dragoon ‘theory' then the only logical conclusion is that it is an error on the author's part and the dragoon brigade was in the immediate area of Frasnes and that the only French cavalry engaged at Quatre Bras were Pire's light cavalry division and Guiton's cuirassier brigade of l'Heritier's division.

I do believe that Andrew Field's volume on Quatre Bras is an excellent account of Quatre Bras and much better than the Osprey on the same battle. And Field does not, as alleged on the forum, rely on Houssaye. Of the over 200 endnotes in the book, only seven are from Houssaye. Houssaye himself uses multiple references in his relation of Quatre Bras. And if all the references are taken into account that have been mentioned here, the conclusion is that the dragoon brigade was not present and not in action. If they arrived at all, it would have been after Kellermann's 1800 arrival.

I do believe that Andrew Field's volume on Quatre Bras is excellent account of Quatre Bras and much better than the Osprey on the same battle.

If I was charitable, I would say Kevin is comparing apples with oranges.

Let's see Field's book is 256 pages of mostly text. Pen and Sword as a publisher produces books that are modern classics of military history.

Franklin's book is a mere 96 pages with lavish illustrations. Osprey are quick introductions to the subject. I've few Osprey's on battles and those I do have I purchased because I was looking for better maps.

I have Field in my collection and think it is an excellent resource. Can I comment on the originality of the research of either Field or Franklin? No. I've noticed that footnotes are not always reliable, witness Scotty Bowden's "Austerlitz" book and German sources where he quotes an author called Derselbe;`Derselbe' actually means `the same' or `ditto' in German. The only explanation I can think of is that he has simply lifted the entry from somebody else's bibliography without knowing what it meant.

Most of my time in European archives was in Kew and I a was only interested in the "F" Section on SOE. Would I encourage original research? Yes I would.

Interesting thread gentlemen.

Further, the evidence recommended, such as Foy's comments as well as the book Victoires, Conquetes, etc., do not support the author's ‘thesis.'

Foy, who was on the battlefield, states that L'Heritier's division was there supporting the infantry. Foy doesn't say that Guiton was there, but L'Heritier. He doesn't say a brigade of Cuirassier was there, but a division.

The fact that Guiton's charge gained all the press and notoriety at the expense of Picquet's brigade is surely understandable. If Picquet had made the charge, in lieu of Guiton, perhaps there would be a similar argument that Guiton was not present.

Ney's order of the 16th tells Kellerman to place one division at Frasnes [-les-Gosselies] and another at Liberchies. If we look at the map, that would place the division at Frasnes directly on the road leading to Quatre Bras. Whilst Liberchies is to the West, and slightly in rear of Frasnes. From the subsequent combat, it is logical that L'Heritier was at Frasnes, and D'Hurbal at Liberchies. Kellerman, in his 10 PM report to Ney written at Frasnes, notes that D'Hurbal is at Frasnes, but doesn't know where L'Heritier is. This would suggest that once L'Heritier advanced north from Frasnes, D'Hurbal was relocated from Liberchies to occupy the former position of L'Heritier at Frasnes. D'Hurbal supporting L'Heritier.

Picquet was somewhere, it wasn't as if they were still in barracks. L'Heritier's division would have been concentrated, particularly when in the presence of the enemy, and in anticipation of action.

The distance from Frasnes to the crossroads at Quatre Bras is about 4.5 km, the distance from Liberchies to Frasnes is about 4 km.

Perhaps, we should add two more casualties to the Dragoon brigade, it would appear that both Alexander/Sasha and Londongamer have been dismounted. Let's hope they can continue the fight on foot.

Did it all that mean you still haven't found a shred of primary source evidence that the Dragoons were absent from Quatre Bras, Kevin? Do let us know the minute you find some.

Until then, it is clear that the balance of evidence suggests – as Franklin has indicated – that Picquet's Brigade was present. Can anyone at all give some primary source evidence suggesting that the Dragoons were left behind, detached or anything?

Is it possible that what has happened in the historiography is this:

1. Martinien doesn't give any officer casualties for the 2e and 7e Dragoons for Quatre Bras.

2. Some authors therefore assume that there could have been no French Dragoons present, and as there appears to be no specific mention of them in the obvious French primary sources, but the Allied witnesses who say they saw Dragoons saw them taking casualties, so they assume that the Allies must have misidentified them.

3. This (logical) assumption gets written into the 'lore' of Waterloo.

@ Brechtel198
per your quote" Quatre Bras until around 1400 and that places Kellermann's units to the rear of the march column, south of Frasnes with d'Erlon's corps behind him in the vicinity of Gosselies. and …. If definitive evidence is not shown supporting the dragoon ‘theory' then the only logical conclusion is that it is an error on the author's part and the dragoon brigade was in the immediate area of Frasnes and that the only French cavalry engaged at Quatre Bras were Pire's light cavalry division and Guiton's cuirassier brigade of l'Heritier's division."
Your reply confirms my question/post with your statement that supports the Dragoons were available.
Whether they were in the fight or held in reserve was not my concern.

I am not in full agreement that all the authors may not recognize a Dragoon from other at this time but I will need to table "that thought" for now. Once John rolls out the new evidence on the Brunswickers, and proof that the author was a veteran of peninsula or 1814 or 1809 "run ins" with French, so such an author would be familiar with the very commonly present French Dragoon… that "assumption that Brechtel198 makes will have final resolution.

thanks again
MG

Thank you marshalGreg, I think you may have misunderstood my earlier comment. I had no query regarding the French 4th Light.

Field vs Osprey. Field is very careless. At one point he refers to Halkett arriving with (in) Picton's division! He doesn't bother to point out that Best was temporarily attached to Picton either. One example of several errors. Osprey has that full page illustration of Cleeve's 9 pounder HORSE artillery. Still no explanation John.

Proof or even strong indication for Picquet is still missing. All it amounts to so far is that they could have been there, which is short by a long chalk. It's rather like debating the existence of god(s).

Proof or even strong indication for Picquet is still missing. All it amounts to so far is that they could have been there, which is short by a long chalk.

But the proof or even strong indication that they were absent, detached from their parent division is, so far, non-existent. There have been no eye witness reports, no orders, nothing. In comparison, the proof of the Dragoons' presence is pretty strong.

I am really puzzled as to why people want to die in a ditch over the reasonably strong possibility that two French Dragoon regiments were present, in a not very decisive fashion, in one battle.

the proof of the Dragoons' presence is pretty strong.

That idea has not been demonstrated either in the subject Osprey volume nor on this forum.

If the dragoons were present as stated in the Osprey, why were they not with their parent division? In the sequence of events in the Osprey, they are mentioned prior to Guiton's brigade, accompanied/led by Kellermann, the cavalry corps commander, arriving. And Guiton's brigade arrived alone and charged alone.

It appears that you have contradicted your own point.

@Kevin,

Are you ignorant of – or are you choosing to forget – that Pire's units acted largely independently of each other in this battle too? It is no particular proof of anything that they did not act as a full divisional entity when on the battlefield: that is rather different from saying that they sat it out on the bench.

It appears that you have contradicted your own point.

No Kevin, the only person who has contradicted their own points is yourself. You have asked for evidence of the Dragoons presence from the author and you have received it. Many of us have asked for any contemporary evidence whatsoever that the Dragoons were detached from their division and you have provided nothing.

I'll ask again: Kevin, can you provide a single primary source to show evidence that the Dragoons were detached from their parent division and were absent from the battle of Quatre Bras, to contradict the eye-witnesses who said they were there and the casualty figures unearthed by John Franklin to show that they took 30-odd casualties on the day of the battle?

If they were present, then why did they not charge with Kellermann?

Where are the orders that put the dragoons on the field before the cuirassier brigade in their division.

The only 'evidence' shown has been innuendo or 'deduction' by the author of the subject Osprey. Nothing of consequence has been demonstrated that Picquet's brigade was present and in action.

So, if you believe they were, then give the evidence that they were present. None has been given to show definitively that they were.

Andrew Field's comments and conclusions are much more valid, historiacally, than Franklins unless the latter can supply the evidence that he has alluded to.

Or do we have to wait for six months?

In the sequence of events in the Osprey, they are mentioned prior to Guiton's brigade, accompanied/led by Kellermann, the cavalry corps commander, arriving

That seems eminently plausible, given that on the 15th Picquet lead the corps column of march. Logically, with a dragoon brigade within the corps complement, they would be the most sensible option to lead an advance.

If the dragoons were present as stated in the Osprey, why were they not with their parent division?

Isn't that the point – they were with their parent division – L'Heritier's division was composed of Picquet and Guiton.

@ Kevin – I've helped you out a bit:

If you believe they weren't, then give the evidence that they were absent. None has been given to show definitively that they were.

Andrew Field's comments and conclusions are much more valid, historically, than Franklin's unless the latter can supply the evidence that he has alluded to.

I thought Franklin said that both Field and Nafziger agreed with Franklin, having seen the evidence which they were previously unaware of.

If they were present, then why did they not charge with Kellermann?

For the same reason that Pire himself wasn't present at the charges of all of his regiments all the time. Sub-units are allowed to do different things in different parts of the battlefield.

The only 'evidence' shown has been innuendo or 'deduction' by the author of the subject Osprey. Nothing of consequence has been demonstrated that Picquet's brigade was present and in action.

Except for the eye-witness accounts, casualty figures and orders of battle?!?

Perhaps I need to make things more obvious since you are clearly struggling a bit here:

Kevin, where is your primary source evidence that the French Dragoons had been detached from their parent formation and all the other evidence (eye-witness, casualty counts) is wrong?

Goodness me, apart from getting scenario orbats correct, I don't think many of us care either way: why are you dying in a ditch over this?

Or do we have to wait for six months?

Not much to ask, given we've already waited 200 years

At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, the balance of proof, ideally from primary sources, lies with the revisionist view that the Dragoon brigade was present, rather than with the currently accepted view that only 2 Cuirassier regiments represented the French Heavy cavalry arm at QB.

So far I understand this consists of casualty returns for these 2 regiments for the 16th. Unfortunately, on campaign with mass movements of troops, guns and vehicles on a restricted road net, casualties don't necessarily equate to combat, let alone combat at a specific locale – we know after all there were scattered contingents of Prussian light cavalry in this neck of the woods….

Why are people dying in a ditch over this? I think this subject arouses passions amongst a few historians and their supporters as this new evidence and assertion in the Osprey might restore some of the credibility lost in its pedestrian style and order of battle inaccuracies.

As for the reliability of evidence from troops in battle as to the precise nature of enemy cavalry facing them, well, again I would have thought this was blindingly obvious to anyone involved with witnesses to a road traffic accident, let alone combat operations – this seems a clear case of 'armchairgeneralitis':

Everything that I am able to say about the battle of Waterloo can only be highly unsatisfactory and incomplete. From the moment that my regiment took active part in the battle the squadron under my command required my entire attention, so that a precise observation of what was going on far away from me was not possible'

Major Wilhelm von Schneben in Brendan Simms The Longest Afternoon, p.132, Perseus, London 2015

Noted the good Major was speaking about Waterloo, and he was talking about events not directly concerning his squadron, but the point is a general one – people on a battlefield tend not to be idle, disinterested bystanders taking the time to discuss esoteric details of uniforms and facing colours, much as they may be prone to do so 'én loisir'! They are either extremely busy, or extremely scared. And not looking scared when you aren't busy is a full time job, believe me on this!

At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, the balance of proof, ideally from primary sources, lies with the revisionist view that the Dragoon brigade was present, rather than with the currently accepted view that only 2 Cuirassier regiments represented the French Heavy cavalry arm at QB.

Just checking you meant 'burden' rather than 'balance' in the above bit? Both seem plausible, but with opposite meanings and I'm taking a punt you mean the first? The thing is, I'm not sure that the 'currently accepted' view was widespread: it appears to be in Houssaye but not in Siborne, and has then been repeated in Bowden and Field. So after Franklin comes up with his bits of evidence, the natural question is what primary source did the 'absent' school of thought rely on: and there appears to be none. This isn't an emotional question for me: I'd be delighted if someone came up with an order, or a clear French eye-witness statement or something to show where it came from. But we are stuck, because there appears to be nothing there.

As for the reliability of evidence from troops in battle as to the precise nature of enemy cavalry facing them, well, again I would have thought this was blindingly obvious to anyone involved with witnesses to a road traffic accident, let alone combat operations – this seems a clear case of 'armchairgeneralitis'

I totally agree with this in principle – I think it was Mike Spick who wrote in Air Battles in Miniature that the average WW2 pilot had difficulty in distinguishing the Bismarck from the Isle of Wight ferry! If there were some evidence that the Dragoons weren't there, misidentification would be possible. But it is special pleading to make 'misidentification in the pressure of combat' the primary reason for doubting an eye-witness.

Why are people dying in a ditch over this? I think this subject arouses passions amongst a few historians and their supporters as this new evidence and assertion in the Osprey might restore some of the credibility lost in its pedestrian style and order of battle inaccuracies.

Maybe. It looks to me like it might be the other way around: that some people took powerful umbrage at (an admittedly pointless and IMHO unjustified) slight on Napoleon's character and they are now trying to use this to discredit the man's work more generally but messing up their own case by picking a fight on such weak ground.