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

Hi Whirlwind – yes you;re right of course, I should have said burden of proof! I came to education late in life so always ready to be corrected!

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.

Thank you Whirlwind! I was wondering what had prompted the various posts on TMP aimed at undermining JohnFranklin and discrediting his scholarship. Now I understand the reason.

It is interesting that Kevin Riley has chosen not to raise this line of argument on a forum on which Andrew Field regularly posts, such as The Napoleonic Wars Forum

I don't think his beef, such as it is, is with Andrew. Its more about John Franklin's published assumption about Piquet's Bde was present at QB I think…?

And of course he gave John a less than stellar review on Amazon, which apparently in these sensitive times amounts to a disgraceful personal attack…that seems to be where the heat has come from.

Strange times – a frank but entirely professionally and politely expressed review is anathema, leaving the reviewer open to general abuse which in one case was really quite prurient. (and shocking when you consider its facile and disgusting double ententrdes involved a deceased US Army Colonel and eminent scholar whose contribution to the field was immense.)

Whirlwind – the evidence for their absence is the lack of evidence for their presence. There would be plenty more if they had been present. It's not always possible or necessary to prove a negative.

The debate comes down to two things. Some people have a lower threshold of evidence required to persuade them of something (which is why there's an active community who believe there is a civilization deep within the hollow earth). The second is that all forms of media need revisionist stuff to spice up the game, as they have little mileage in trotting out the same fare. Sometimes, there's genuinely new information but many have become revisionist / conspiracy monkeys.

As to slights, it's hard to see how one could slight the character of Napoleon. His diabolical record speaks for itself.

I don't think his beef, such as it is, is with Andrew. Its more about John Franklin's published assumption about Piquet's Bde was present at QB I think…?

Understood, but Kevin has been leaning on Andrew's account here, which I know Andrew has revised his opinion on after discussions with John. It would be a matter of moments for his to discuss potential changes of opinion with the man himself…

Whirlwind – the evidence for their absence is the lack of evidence for their presence. There would be plenty more if they had been present. It's not always possible or necessary to prove a negative.

Well there are a couple of points here. Firstly, there is some evidence for their presence. And secondly, I don't believe the standard is being fairly or consistently applied: you would be hard put to identify the presence of lots of French units at Quatre Bras and every other battle if:

You discount Allied eye-witnesses
You discount casualty evidence
You discount order of battle evidence
You discount the lack of orders to leave behind/detach a whole formation prior to a battle

If your only "acceptable" evidence for a unit or formation being present at a battle is a specific primary source reference from the French side, then good luck. And obviously that rules out almost all knowledge of, say, the Prussian and Austrian armies for non-German speakers, and the Spanish Army for everyone. But of course, in fact, these aren't the standards that are generally applied. They are being applied in this case specifically to try and set up a much higher evidential barrier for Franklin as opposed to Bowden and Houssaye.

The debate comes down to two things. Some people have a lower threshold of evidence required to persuade them of something (which is why there's an active community who believe there is a civilization deep within the hollow earth). The second is that all forms of media need revisionist stuff to spice up the game, as they have little mileage in trotting out the same fare. Sometimes, there's genuinely new information but many have become revisionist / conspiracy monkeys.

It actually isn't about this at all. It is that comparatively the evidence is stronger for the Dragoons presence than absence: there is some evidence for the former, there is no evidence for the latter. It is about changing one's mind as to the balance of probability when new evidence is brought. Most "revisionism" is there to make a point. The revisionism here is one author saying, I found this document in the archive, I don't think any other historian has read it before – this might be mildly interesting in the context of the book I'm writing. There is no contentious issue riding on it (unlike say in some of Peter Hofschroer's work).

As to slights, it's hard to see how one could slight the character of Napoleon. His diabolical record speaks for itself.

We will just have to disagree over this. I don't particularly think that calling Napoleon "diabolical" or "maniacal" is very helpful myself.

Not my specialist subject by any stretch of the imagination, but I have found this discussion very interesting.

As a (not commercially successful, but published) author on military history, I have learned to be rather wary of treating first hand accounts as Gospel – I can write in my diary that I met David Beckham on my way to work this morning, and someone can dig this up in 50 years time and flash it about as a primary source – but it doesn't mean its true. This is not to say that such things should be dismissed for no reason, of course, only that they should be treated with a healthy skepticism.

As I say, the Waterloo Campaign is not my area of expertise, but – based on my own service in the army, and on my reading in other periods – I would be surprised if the detachment of a Brigade is not specifically noted in written orders. Different times, sure, but we used to document if a section was detached from the platoon, or a machine gun team was attached, so (if this is indeed the case) neglecting to mention that a whole Brigade has been detached would strike me as a curious omission.

And if the Brigade was not at Quatre Bras, where was it that day? Surely there should be some evidence as to where it was? Is this not mentioned in any letters home / diaries etc: 'while our comrades rode to glory, we sat pointlessly three miles from the fighting, waiting for an order that never came…' One would have thought that being left out of a battle would be mentioned by lots of frustrated soldiers.

Unless a lot of said soldiers were then killed off the next day.

That said. It looks to me like the evidence for them being THERE as opposed to being somewhere else seems stronger. Based on this thread.

Edwulf

Yes – fair point, some might have met a sticky end shortly afterwards, though no reason why all such letters / diaries would necessarily vanish.

On the whole I am tempted to agree with your assessment, though – based only on what I have read on this thread.

And if the Brigade was not at Quatre Bras, where was it that day?

From Houssaye 119-120:

'The intrepid Kellermann had never yet discussed an order to charge. Still he did not refrain from representing to Ney that the Dutch and English forces amounted apparently to 25,000 men; and he had at his disposal only a single brigade of cuirassiers, his three other brigades having remained behind in accordance with the orders of the Marshal himself.'

That would mean that Picquet and his dragoons were still south of Quatre Bras at 1800 in and around Frasnes. They could very well have been in route, but could not have been engaged earlier in the battle.

From Kellermann's account which can be found in Field's volume on Quatre Bras and was taken from Souvenirs Napoleonien No. 438, pages 26-27. Kellermann wrote in the third person:

'…the marshal called Count Valmy, commander of the cuirassier reserve, and repeating to him the emperor's words, he said to him, 'My dear general, we must save France, we need an extraordinary effort; take your cavalry, throw yourself into the middle of the English army, crush it, trample it underfoot etc''

'It was the hottest moment of the day, it was 6 or 7o'clock. This order, like those of the emperor, was easier to give than to execute. Count Valmy objected to Marshal Ney that he only had a single brigade of cuirassiers with him, that the remainder of his corps had remained, in accordance with the marshal's orders, two leagues to the rear at Frasnes, and that he did not have sufficient force for such a mission.'

Kellermann, the cavalry corps commander puts the other three brigades of his cavalry corps at Frasnes, with included Picquet's dragoon brigade, south of Quatre Bras at around 1800.

This the account that Alexandre looked at before, right:

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

There are three isssues ….

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

But that is not the end of the problems. The "Relation de Kellerman" is actually, as Mr. Westman guessed, the following:
François Ètienne Kellermann, "Observations sur La Bataille de Waterloo en Réponse à un écrit Intitulé Campagne de 1815 Fait à Sainte-Héléne et Publié Sous le Nom de Gal Gourgaud"
And this was printed in Revue du Souvenir Napoléonien No. 438 in 2002.
So, this was not a contemporary report by Kellermann, but actually a polemic in repsonse to Gourgaud written after the later's defense of Napoléon which appeared in 1818.

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

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

That's definitely the case if you agree with that analysis.

I don't. In point of fact, I have taken the greater majority of that poster's 'contributions' with a large grain of salt.

Then I suppose there is nothing to be done but wait to see what John Franklin does publish on the matter later in the year.

Then I suppose there is nothing to be done but wait to see what John Franklin does publish on the matter later in the year.

Well this has become, again, a dialogue of the deaf. I suspect the if John Franklin's research were presented by the Archangel Gabriel himself it would not be universally accepted.

The only problem is that the evidence has not been presented. It has been alluded to, but not presented. Listing 'material' and referring to boxes of material is not supporting evidence.

Foy's material and the volume Victoires, Conquetes, listed as references do not support the thesis, nor do the regimental histories of the two dragoon regiments. Kellermann's comments do not support it and Ney's orders for the advance on Quatre Bras has Kellermann's cavalry corps arriving late.

The only solid evidence is that both Pire's cavalry division and Guiton's cuirassier brigade were present and engaged.

And the identification' of dragoons on the field was more than likely referring to Pire's light cavalry and the unarmored cuirassier regiment in Guiton's brigade.

I'd be more than happy to see any solid evidence which would be the result of valid historical inquiry. Unfortunately, that has not been presented as yet.

I'd be more than happy to see any solid evidence which would be the result of valid historical inquiry. Unfortunately, that has not been presented as yet.

You mean apart from the eyewitness account of Oberjäger Carl Wilhelm Pöhling quoted up thread, which you subjectively discount as misidentification. Poor drills, guns, poor drills.

Maybe, just maybe it is time to lay this thread to rest. The same "arguments" are being repeated over and over again.Both"sides" will not convince eachother that much is certain. And after all this is a wargames site, so if you follow J. Franklin, just include them(the dragoons) in your game, if you follow Brechtel198, then don't or if you're undecided about the issue, roll some dice!
On the pure historical side of the matter let's be frank, this is a minor detail in the campaign and even the battle, as whether the attack of the dragoons did or did not take place had no fundamental impact on result (or lack of result) of the battle.

Oops now I've added another post to a thread that is already becoming way to long ;)
We could fill several Ospreys with what is written here, or maybe not as everyone seems to write the same time and again

Foy's material and the volume Victoires, Conquetes, listed as references do not support the thesis

Foy absolutely says that L'Heritier's division was on the field of battle……

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."

Apologies to Marcel1809…..

Let's check an interesting account

The French Cuirassiers soon after this, under cover of their Guns, came charging up the fields in front of the Regiment, which still remained in line. Lord Wellington, who was by this time in rear of the centre of the Regiment, said, "92nd, don't fire until I tell you, " and when they came within twenty or thirty paces of us, his Grace gave the order to fire, which killed and wounded an immense number of men and horses, on which they immediately faced about and galloped off.

Shortly afterwards they formed again, and, accompanied by a body of Light Dragoons, charged up again in our front. They were all allowed to come within about the same distance as before, when we fired as formerly, and the same result was effected, causing great loss to them in killed and wounded. At this time a French Officer of Light Dragoon, thinking his men were still following him, got too far to be able to retire by the way he had advanced, galloped down the road in the rear of our Regiment. The Duke of Wellington observing him, called out, "Damn it, 92nd, will you allow that fellow to escape?" Some of the men turned immediately round, fired, killed his horse, and a musket ball at the same time passed through each foot of the gallant young Officer. I was afterwards billeted with him in the same house at Brussels for six months, and then went with him to Paris, where I received much kind attention from him—Monsieur Burgoine—and his family.

Waterloo Letters. A selection from original and hitherto unpublished letters bearing on the operations of the 16th, 17th, and 18th June 1815
No. 169

However, this accident occurred before Col. Cameron receives his mortal wound, and it occurred well before the Cuirassiers' Charge.

Then, who were the "French Cuirassiers"? Personally, I think the "French Cuirassiers" were Dragons, "Light Dragoons" were Chevau-Léger Lanciers or Chasseurs à Cheval…

I have no record of an officer named Burgoine wounded at Quatre Bras, but I have a sous-lieutenant De Bourgoing, 6e Chasseurs a cheval, wounded at Waterloo. Could this be our man, assuming a clerical error in the date of his wound?

Allan

Are the French records complete? I was under the impression they had lost a lot through repeated invasions…

Are the French records complete? I was under the impression they had lost a lot through repeated invasions…

I was referring the the records compiled by Martinien, who deals only with officers killed and wounded 1805 to 1815.

John Franklin has indicated earlier in the thread that more comprehensive records are available, presumably including rank and file.

Allan

Fascinating.
I was always under the impression that german and french records had suffered from burnings, bombings and the like during WW1 and 2. If not then fantastic.

I agree with your sentiment Marcel, although I believe those who find the "evidence" of presence flimsy to say the least would happily give due consideration to new facts. Reasonable points are well made for presence by some but one or two others appear to have little judgement in all matters Napoleonic and are inclined to childish rhetoric.

I'm not wasting more of my time on them in the absence of further evidence. The deployment of the guard cavalry's batteries is just as significant an issue and just as nebulous.

Fascinating.
I was always under the impression that german and french records had suffered from burnings, bombings and the like during WW1 and 2. If not then fantastic.

A great many German records were lost in WWII. Fortunately, for our period at least, very high quality staff histories were undertaken in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that drew on existing records held in German archives. These staff histories still exist and represent in many cases the only glimpse we have of records that are no longer available for reference.

Allan

Foy absolutely says that L'Heritier's division was on the field of battle……

If you take a look at the memoir itself, Foy's La Vie Militaire, you'll find that Foy on page 270 is referring to L'Heritier's division being in Frasnes, not Quatre Bras, along with everyone else.

That coincides with Ney's march order posted earlier.

On page 273 Foy specifically mentions a cuirassier brigade charging on the field of Quatre Bras and nothing about any dragoons being engaged.

Then, who were the "French Cuirassiers"? Personally, I think the "French Cuirassiers" were Dragons, "Light Dragoons" were Chevau-Léger Lanciers or Chasseurs à Cheval…

There's no evidence shown yet that the 2d and 7th Dragoon regiments were on the field. Ney's march order for the 16th clearly shows Kellermann's cavalry corps at the end of the order of march, in front of d'Erlon's I Corps, who never reached the field either.

Units being misidentified by the enemy is a common occurrence. The French equivalent to British light dragoons were the chasseurs a cheval. And in the smoke and mess it would be very easy to mistake lancers and chasseurs a cheval for dragoons, especially as three of Pire's four light cavalry regiments were in helmets.

On page 272 of Foy's Vie Militaire it says Ney led towards the Bossu Wood along the main road the divisions of Jerome and L'Heritier. Presumably that means both brigades of each division, otherwise Foy would have written, Jerome's division and Guiton's brigade of L'Heritier's division.

Excerpt from Napoleon's Generals, The Waterloo Campaign by Tony Linck, Biography of general L'Heritier. pages 181/182.

"As the Army of the North crossed into Belgium on 15 June L'Heritier's division had a quiet day as it passed through Charleroi and bivouacked between Chatelet and Gilly. Early the next day he received orders to follow Kellermann and join the army's left wing moving on Quatre Bras. His command became strung out on the road as Kellermann in his haste moved ahead with his cuirassier brigade to assess the situation at Quatre Bras. In the meantime he waited at the junction of the Roman road the main Brussels Charleroi highway while Roussel d'Urbal's division caught up ready to act as a reserve to fall on either the Prussians flank at Ligny or join Ney at Quatre Bras. In the end he was sorely needed at Quatre Bras. Had Kellermann had his extra brigade when he made his valiant charge in the late afternoon, the French could have carried the Quatre Bras position. Instead when he rushed to the field with his dragoons to lend support it was too late. Ney with characteristic rashness had ordered the charge and already Kellermann was streaming back in disarray."

The bibliography for this book is relatively short and lacking in specific references so it is not possible to tell what Mr. Linck's source was for this passage.

Stephen

On page 272 of Foy's Vie Militaire it says Ney led towards the Bossu Wood along the main road the divisions of Jerome and L'Heritier. Presumably that means both brigades of each division, otherwise Foy would have written, Jerome's division and Guiton's brigade of L'Heritier's division.

I believe it reads on page 272 that 'The marshal directed' not 'the marshal led.' Those are two completely different things. Whether or not they went is an entirely different matter.

It can also be translated as 'headed for.' But it isn't 'led.'

And on the next page, again, the cuirassier brigade charged, not l'Heritier's entire division. And Ney's march order should be referred to in this instance. Kellermann's leading brigade, Guiton, arrived and charged and they charged unsupported by anyone else.

There's no evidence shown yet that the 2d [sic] and 7th Dragoon regiments were on the field.

Evidence has been presented, but you have discounted it as unreliable.

Evidence being considered by someone as unreliable, invalid, or weak is very different to there being no evidence.

Such misrepresentation causes discussions here to deteriorate. It is unhelpful, bordering on the disengenious.

Do you have anything to offer besides accusations that do not lend to the discussion?

The earliest that the dragoon brigade could have arrived on the field is after 1800 and after Guiton's charge against the allies led by Kellermann.

I would submit that has been established. The only evidence that is solid for French cavalry on the field is that Pire's division and Guiton's brigade were present and engaged.

Anything else is speculation that has not been proven.

So, do you have anything of substance to contribute? If not, then I would submit that as one member suggested, we're done.

Do you have anything to offer besides accusations that do not lend to the discussion?

You are seemingly conflating observation with accusation to try to make this look personal when it isn't. In reality, I have supported you when you have made a good point – such as on information to support the death of the Duke – and disagreed with you when I thought it appropriate.

I wouldn't recommend that you hold your breath in anticipation that my approach will change. Semper Fidelis – as we janners say

It's rather naive to believe that mention of a division(especially by an observer outside the immediate command structure) necessarily and implicitly implies the WHOLE division. The observer may well fail to add the qualification of missing regiments, or simply assume the whole by seeing part, particularly if the division commander is present and recognised.

Stop calling vague wishful thinking "evidence". It isn't. When Picquet is demonstrated, let's say "beyond a reasonable doubt" to coin a phrase, I'll believe it. Nothing presented thus far comes anywhere near.

When Picquet is demonstrated, let's say "beyond a reasonable doubt" to coin a phrase, I'll believe it. Nothing presented thus far comes anywhere near.

An eyewitness account is evidence – the problem, as you alluded to earlier, comes in contrasting appraisals of the validity of that evidence. However, here you are seemingly confusing 'evidence' with a judgement based on an appraisal of all the available evidence.

Moreover, you may think it normal to use 'division' to describe a single brigade accompanied by their divisional commander, but is it not naive to assume that your source was subject to the same normative view as yourself? After all, division is used to refer to Jerome's forces in the same sentence and I was not aware of any doubts regarding the presence of 6th Division on the battlefield.

After all, division is used to refer to Jerome's forces in the same sentence and I was not aware of any doubts regarding the presence of 6th Division on the battlefield.

That's because there is plenty of corroborative evidence that Jerome's division was not only on the field at Quatre Bras but also engaged.

That does not apply to Picquet's brigade as already demonstrated.

As far as any logical conclusion can be reached in this discussion not only was Picquet's dragoon brigade not engaged at Quatre Bras, it was not present. The logical conclusion is that it, along with the other two cavalry brigades that belonged to Kellermann's cavalry corps, was still at Frasnes where Ney ordered it to be.

Based on the eyewitness accounts, I would disagree that it is as cut and dried as you seemingly insist.

Your view of what is a logical conclusion is driven by those sources you think reliable and those you choose to discount. It is perfectly possible to reach an alternate logical conclusion based on weighting the sources differently.

I do not understand the need to take a diffinitive stance when things are ambiguous. As I stated earlier, based on the evidence, it is possible that Picquet's brigade was present, which I tend to probable based on my view of the sources. I can understand why someone would tend to improbable, but impossible is an illogical conclusion, in my opinion.

One day, when a contributor or two has absolutely nothing to do and an interest in wading through 239-plus posts, said contributor could prepare a simple Excel spread sheet with a column for Picquet's dragoons probably being present and a column for Picquet's dragoons probably not present. Under the Probably Present would appear the specific primary, archival, secondary, and written in disappearing ink sources that support this position. The exact same would appear under the Probably Not Present column. And then for giggles, we could see the number of folks who support the Probably scenario, and those who support the Probably Not scenario. Of course, there is always a third column for folks who truly don't care…

I've read all the posts, commented occasionally and been slammed occasionally for my opinions, and still wonder what all the fuss is truly about. From what I can see, lots of testosterone flying about on both sides of the issue.

Still, I like the Excel idea.

Position two images next to one another: (1) a trooper of 6e chevau leger lanciers and (2) a trooper of 2e dragons. Replace the regulation trousers of both with grey campaign overalls. Now assume the trooper of 6e CLL is from his units second rank, so replace his lance with a sabre. Now assume both troopers have rolled their greatcoats over one shoulder and across their chest. Similar basic uniform. Same basic colours. Facing colours are the same. Helmets are slightly different. Now add smoke and battlefield stress. Now ask yourself if it is possible to mistake a lancer unit (who you naturally assume will be operating against you with lances) for a similarly-uniformed dragoon unit (who you naturally assume will be operating against you with sabres).

Just thinking aloud ;-)

Allan

Allan
You're correct the second rank didn't carry the lance – but the first rank did, and that's 50% of the unit.

We have an eyewitness that has said troopers dismount to skirmish, Allen,

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.'

Oberjäger Carl Wilhelm Pöhling translated by John Franklin and posted upthread.

I believe that some French lancers may have dismounted as part of the engagement near Frasnes with Nassau picquets. So dismounted, skirmishing lancers are possible, but Pöhling was not a raw recruit and the profile of the two helmets would be even more apparent in such an engagement. I think it problematic to simply write off his account based on misidentification.

Did they dismount or lose their horses in the fighting?

French chasseurs a cheval could also dismount to fight, witness Marbot dismounting his 23d Chassuers intentionally in November 1812 in an attempt to seize the Borisov bridge over the Berezina.

I cannot see any logic in Bs argumentation, other than ignore all other sources which don't fit in a prefixed unflexible approach.

I agree with Janner, one doesn't have to come to a very final conclusion – but should take into account all possibilities presented and form an opinion (which should stay in the flow, that is in case more sources come up – one should have the intellectual flexibility to change onces formed view)

Helmets of French lancers and dragoons are so different than one should be able to make a distinction.

Alexandre and John Franklin did present good source, the othter side – speculation only.

My verdict so far, French Dragoons did take part, to dismount and to shoot – not that common for usual French cavalry but Dragoons were also trained to fight on foot.

I would submit, VW, that if I agreed with Franklin, et al, you would disagree with me there also.

I am shocked.

Did they dismount or lose their horses in the fighting?

Sorry, but are you referring to the lancers, the dragoons or to both?

French chasseurs a cheval could also dismount to fight, witness Marbot dismounting his 23d Chassuers intentionally in November 1812 in an attempt to seize the Borisov bridge over the Berezina.

I agree that French cavalry of all types fought dismounted on occasion – even if the majority of French dismounted engagements I can find relate to dragoons. So being dismounted is insufficient to confirm the troops identity as dragoons, but nor does the capacity for other cavalrymen to fight on foot discount the eyewitnesses' testimony.

If you resize your screen so the largest pair of figures is approximately 7 cm high, you will have an impression of the relative appearances of dismounted lancers and dragoons at the distances stated.

As I suggested earlier, add in the smoke, etc. and also the 7' high crops.

To my rifleman's eye, the two silhouettes are quite distinct, but I cannot of course assume the same of Pöhling, despite him being an experienced soldier and marksman at the time, nor can I accurately judge the degree of obscuration at the point at which he observed the cavalrymen.

I agree that he may have misidentified them, but to assume so is unsafe.

The post is/was about the location of the Brigade during the battle.
The post was not inquiring that did they did or did not charged or participated in the battle to a capacity that they took casualties (but such evidence is a real good to have).
I can imagine at this point both sides would agree that they were enroute for a majority of the battle and to an amount > the cuir. brigade (which was >4pm).
The side opposing the "that they were not present" has shown evidence that there was an order from Ney to place them at or near Frasne and they arrived there some time shortly after the Cuir brigade made it's charge( >4pm), with high probability. It appears then to support the location of their placement at the time of the battle, which what was the purpose of the post.
It also supports that they were then thus available, if Ney so choose to use them ( "choose to use them"… still being unraveled with the Mr Franklin's new sources from the Bruswick archive authors as to what capacity).
Both side I would imagine can agree to this?
There then is the question that once Kellermann came back from the charge to inquired the were abouts of Piquet and L' Heritier …. what then occurred?…. perhaps in discussion with Ney was to be told to leave them in reserve at this point. Something not necessary documented or necessarily be remembered.
So again I think this inquiry has been satisfied and such that, with a better than 50 % probability were close by enough and with sufficient evidence to be available! "Available" being that if Ney indeed needed them to charge that day, they could/would have been ordered up from the reserve position around Franse and done so prior to secession of engagement that occurred ~9ish pm.
OR that they were, at least so some degree , moved up to close support, such evidence which is still being unraveled by John.

MG