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

You're quoting one of my postings, and then referring to me in another sense…your posting doesn't make much sense.

And could you possible explain how someone can have 'personal rancour' when you don't know that person?

I'm sorry, but it also seems to me that all you're doing is either baiting or trying to pick a fight.

I suggest you drop the issue and move on. That's up to you.

janner

Again, the author himself is not being attacked. It is his refusal to provide the evidence that might end any debate, that has been brought to light.

To be honest, if you are not aware of it, I think you would be surprised at some of the actions of the author away from this site. I challenged him on all his claims and accusations. He was unable to confirm any of them and was basically forced to apologise for the silly accusation that I wrote numerous 5 star reviews of Kevin Kiley's books everywhere I could.

But again, and I stress this- the author in question is of no concern to me. It is his work I'm interested in, nothing more. I do not know of any other author who would make his readers wait for who knows how long, after numerous excuses, for the answer to any questions relating to their work.

If we have to wait years or whenever for the evidence, then I suppose it is pretty useless debating the matter, although you would have expected an author to defend his work rather than do a runner. Personally, I'm moving on and looking forward to the third volume in his series, which hopefully may contain answers to some of the questions I raised about his first two books.

good input Ligniere – in sharp contrast to those who boast about their super accademical training and doing archival research but other than making sniding comments about esteemed contributors as John Franklin fail to provide anything of substance.

About the death of the Duke of Brunswick there are so far two accounts, two of Olfermanns, one written directly after the incident and another several days later (dictated there he had a severe hand injury) – this one I deem the most likly one there most likley a post mortem was performed to find out how exactly the deadly injury was inflicted.

You're quoting one of my postings, and then referring to me in another sense…your posting doesn't make much sense.

And could you possible explain how someone can have 'personal rancour' when you don't know that person?

I'm sorry, but it also seems to me that all you're doing is either baiting or trying to pick a fight.

I suggest you drop the issue and move on. That's up to you.

My apologies, I mistook your vitriol for gazzola's and mistakingly thought you'd finally moved on. I am disappointed to see that you haven't as I truly wish otherwise.

So if the author is truly of no interest to any of you then just don't comment on his perceived conduct further. Your call.

janner

I think you need to know that the claims and accusations were personal against me, nothing at all to do with the Napoleonic period, lack of sources or Franklin's books in any way. But I'm pleased to say that all his disgraceful posts were rightly deleted from the Amazon sites, probably after a word from Osprey. He also apologised for one accusation which I proved incorrect on TMP, which I was pleased to see.

And nothing I have said is vitriol. Sadly, it is saying it as it is and as it was. The author in question appears to have a wealth of knowledge, so I do hope he sticks to employing that and, in future, we can talk and debate his work and any 'new' evidence he reveals.

Other than that, life is to short, so let's move on and enjoy this special year.

Agree Gazzola.

There isn't any vitriol except that posted by the subject author. Janner is mistaken.

And we need to move on and actually stay on topic. If Janner wishes to continue with his inaccurate diatribe, he's on his own.

I am also glad that John Franklin has seemingly leant from the experience, corrected his mistakes, and apologised where appropriate.

We all make errors of judgment, but as we all know, the secret is to avoid repeating them or mirroring another's error. So despite Brechtel continuing misrepresentation of my position, I'd rather we moved on as well.

Really guys? Today of all days?

Some respect for the moment, please – there's always tomorrow.

Reading further in Siborne, I came across this:
Siborne, p133 [This is the morning of the 16th]

Whilst so employed, a despatch reached him from the Emperor, acquainting him that he had just ordered Kellerman's Dragoons to march to Gosselies, where they would be at his disposal; stating, at the same time, his intention to withdraw Lefebvre-Desnouettes Light Cavalry of the Guard from the force under his command…

This is early in the morning, and Ney is still endeavoring to find out what units he commands, where they are and in what strength. In fact he has instructed his aide-de-camp, Heymes, the visit each regiment and obtain approximate strengths.

At this time, Napoleon's intent was to keep Kellerman's corps d'elite cuirassier, as he referred to them, in a position in which he could draw them towards him – apparently the Dragoons, not so much, as clearly he'd detached them by direct order and sent them ahead, towards QB early on the 16th. Any further reference to Kellerman might actually exclude Picquet. So L'Heritier, and Guiton would have been, later in the day at Frasnes, and Roussel at Liberchies. Picquet could, conceivably, have been amongst Reilles Corps, which had started that morning at Gosselies. It was only later in the day that Napoleon told Ney to concentrate Kellerman's 'corps d'elite de cuirassiers' upon his position at QB – effectively releasing them from possible intervention on the field of Ligny.

OK, by my clock it's 5.15pm on the 18th June, and right now, I'm fairly sure where Picquet's brigade was exactly 200 years ago – beating its collective head against a brick wall on the slopes of Mont St. Jean.

Today, shall we just – remember?

I was looking for some info and came across this today from Napoleon's Cavalry and its Leaders by David Johnson.

'Kellermann heard the order with astonishment. Most of his corps was posted in reserve, leaving only two cuirassier regiments available for a charge. Realizing that Ney was over-excited, Kellermann queried the order, pointing out that he had only 700 troopers of Guiton's brigade under his hand. Ney repeated the order in brusque and almost insulting tone, ending with the words, 'Partez! Mais partez donc!' (page 135)

'East of the road to Quatre Bras stood two squares formed by the 42nd and the 44th Foot. The leading squadrons swerved to avoid them. The supporting squadrons did the same, but as they galloped past the British infantry poured musketry into their flank. The cuirassiers were wearing their cloaks, and at first the Highlanders of the 42nd thought they were dragoons; then they noticed that Frenchmen who were hit merely swayed in the saddle and did not fall. 'They're in armour!' an officer shouted. 'Fire at the horses!' (page 136)

I thought it was very interesting the mention of the Cuirassiers being mistaken as dragoons because they were wearing their capes. I think the debate goes on and I don't think this is showing disrespect to those brave soldiers who fought during the 100 Days campaign. Ignoring what they went through and who was or was not there would be, in my opinion.

It was only later in the day that Napoleon told Ney to concentrate Kellerman's 'corps d'elite de cuirassiers' upon his position at QB – effectively releasing them from possible intervention on the field of Ligny.

I am sure I recall that amongst the flurry of orders issued by Napoleon on the 16th (and there were a lot) is one to D'Erlon authorising him to take Kellerman's III Cavalry Corps with him to Ligny.

Just another angle ;-). Must look it up.

Allan

From Napoleon and Waterloo by AF Becke, 303-304:

Ney to Soult, 2200 16 June 1815:

'I have attacked the English position at Quatre Bras with the greatest vigor; but an error of Count d'Erlon's deprived me of a fine victory, for at the moment when the 5th and 9th Divisions of General Reille's Corps had overthrown everything in front of them, the I Corps marched off to St. Amand to support His Majesty's left; but the fatal thing was that this Corps, having then counter-marched to rejoin my wing, gave no useful assistance on either field.'

'Prince Jerome's Division fought with great valor; His Royal Highness has been slightly wounded.'

'Actually there have been engaged here [on our side] only 3 infantry divisions, a brigade of cuirassiers, and General Pire's cavalry. The Count of Valmy delivered a fine charge. All have done their duty, except the I Corps.'

'The enemy has lost heavily; we have captured some guns and a flag.'

'We have lost about 2,000 killed and 4,000 wounded. I have called for reports from Generals Reille and d'Erlon, and will forward them to your excellency.'

'Accept, Marshal, the assurances of my deep respect,'

The Marshal Prince of the Moskowa,
Ney.

No mention of either Picquet or dragoons…

At this time, Napoleon's intent was to keep Kellerman's corps d'elite cuirassier, as he referred to them, in a position in which he could draw them towards him – apparently the Dragoons, not so much, as clearly he'd detached them by direct order and sent them ahead, towards QB early on the 16th. Any further reference to Kellerman might actually exclude Picquet. So L'Heritier, and Guiton would have been, later in the day at Frasnes, and Roussel at Liberchies. Picquet could, conceivably, have been amongst Reilles Corps, which had started that morning at Gosselies. It was only later in the day that Napoleon told Ney to concentrate Kellerman's 'corps d'elite de cuirassiers' upon his position at QB – effectively releasing them from possible intervention on the field of Ligny.

Where is the evidence that Picquet was anywhere but with Kellermann's cavalry corps at Frasnes?

There is no evidence that Picquet was with or attached
to Reille at any time on 16 June.

As Houssaye states, Kellermann's three other brigades were at Frasnes at 1800, as per Ney's orders.

And Ney in his report to Soult, states that the
only French cavalry engaged on 16 June at Quatre Bras
was Pire and Guiton's cuirassier brigade.

It appears to me that the idea for Picquet being present and/or engaged at Quatre Bras is weak at best and non-existent at worst.

Great minds are thinking alike, Kevin :-)

I have just read this on Pierre de Wit's excellent site:

The situation at the French left wing after the action at Quatre Bras.

At 10 p.m. general Kellermann wrote his report to Ney. It probably reached Ney between 10.30 and
11 p.m. and 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

And the point of my posting:

Apparently, the second brigade of the division of l'Heritier (the one of Picquet) had faced an
enormous delay and was not to be found anywhere. The division of lieutenant general Roussel
d'Hurbal was in the fields near Frasnes, and apparently was too late too to be engaged in the action.

And now the original of the second report:

That evening Ney wrote to Soult:

Frasnes, le 16 Juin 1815 10 heures du soir

Monsieur le maréchal,

L'attaque que j'ai dirigée contre les anglais dans la position de Quatre Bras a sûrement été de la
plus grande vigueur; un mal-entendu de la part du comte d'Erlon m'a privé de l'espérance d'une
belle victoire car au moment les 5e et 9e division du général Reille avaient tout culbuté le 1er corps
a marché sur Saint Amand, pour appuyer la gauche de S.M., et ce qu'il y a de
fatal, c'est que ce corps ayant retrogradé ensuite pour me rejoindre, n'a pu ainsi être utile à
personne. La division du Prince Jérôme a donné avec une grande valeur. S.A.I. a été légèrement
blessé. Il n'y a donc eu réellement d'engage que trois divisions d'infanterie et une brigade de
cuirassiers et la cavalerie du général Piré. Le comte de Valmy a fait une belle charge. Tout le
monde a fait son devoir excepté le 1er corps. L'ennemi a perdu beaucoup de monde; nous avons
pris du canon et un drapeau. Nous n'avons réellement perdu qu'environ deux mille hommes tués et
quatre mille blessés. J'ai demandé les rapports des généraux comte Reille et d'Erlon et je les
enverrai à Votre Excellence.
Agréez, Monsieur le Maréchal, l'assurance de ma haute considération,

2

Le maréchal Prince de la Moskowa,

Ney

Due to a lack of provisions on the left wing, soldiers started to plunder.

This is the first instance I have found that suggests quite specifically that Picquet was not present.

Allan

@ Alan FM
"Apparently, the second brigade of the division of l'Heritier (the one of Picquet) had faced an
enormous delay and was not to be found anywhere. The division of lieutenant general Roussel
d'Hurbal was in the fields near Frasnes, and apparently was too late too to be engaged in the action."

Pls advise what supports this conclusion and is this your conclusion- it is not clear to which!

It is clear from the evidence presented so far that both Kellerman and Ney were near or at the front and thus lost touch of units presence especially of those in reserve and or marching up to the field that day.
We also do not know if there were decisions made ( if they indeed knew of the whereabouts)to have made a decision not bring such /certain units into the action late that day. The strongest of that being LD's garde Cav.
So this leaves lots of conjecture since with out having the orders in hand to confirm. The Evidence of any "in action" being the ultimate confirmation of a troop whereabouts for this battle with out evidence of specific orders that state otherwise- that being hotly contested and some yet to be brought to light.

Has there been any uncovering of L Heritiers' notes, reports to Kellerman etc for the campaign? Surely this could give a better light as to the brigade's whereabouts on the 16th… no?

MG

Excellent posting Allan-keep up the good work.

Has there been any uncovering of L Heritiers' notes, reports to Kellerman etc for the campaign? Surely this could give a better light as to the brigade's whereabouts on the 16th… no?

Have you considered doing some research yourself on the subject?

Or are you just willing to wait until 'all will be revealed' at a later date?

I am a little bit flabbergasted by this topic, that I have been following only during the last couple of days, and which started out as a genuine interest on the presence of a cavalry brigade. Questions and replies were offered generously, but somehow the topic turned nasty and vitriolic as so far no ultimate source material has been shown here.

Apart from all that, I usually tend to stay away from these historical debates as an author, because one should stay neutral and have the readers (i.e. wargamers!) discuss their opinions. However, in this case here other historians (some of these historians themselves being NO part of this 1815 history, or ever to have published something on the topic!) have taken over the debate, discussing back and forth their opinions and adding some historical documents, or speaking of others that might not have included the final proof of this cavalry brigade having been present or not. Such as here on this 7th page in the discussion, by adding material made available by a close friend of mine … Piere de Wit. Well, even Pierre will always admits, that once there is new evidence, he will surely reconsider(!) his texts! (Military history is not written in stone, or an exact science!)

Therefore I would like to ask everyone to show way more lenience to John Franklin for his statement in his recent Osprey publication on the battle of Quatre Bras. He has already offered you some insight in his massive search for documents on 1815 in this thread. Above all, he had offered you here on TMP on numerous occasions free & gratis insight in such documents, that most of you all welcomed. And now in this case of this cavalry brigade, John is perhaps careful to show the evidence due to other obligations to third parties. Whatever way, John Franklin is one of the few men this last decade to have seriously attempted to collect all sorts of documents from all involved nations. And in case he has found new primary source material, we should always at first acknowledge it and try to incorportae it into what we already know on 1815. Is that so strange? No, because I also did the same for the Netherlands forces. And John Franklin is looking for this campaign from all angles.

So, let us give him at least the benefit of doubt! Or better, ackowledge he has done quite a fair job.
And keep this thread friendly, as not all wargamers strive to be in archives, but instead battle on tables and have fun!
TMP is a wargame website, meaning I myself am a wargamer. It is meant for fun & hobby.
Historical debates at the edge of a knife should be conducted between historians in either magazines, through polemyc articles or even more simple through emails to one another. This discussion here has just turned out into a degrading contribution.

(And yes, this a one time contribution to this thread/debate/discussion on my behalf. Don't expect any other reactions on my behalf!)

Yes, the thread should be friendly but really, people making a post then doing a runner does not aid anyone or help matters. In fact, it shows a lack of confidence in the post and the various members of this website. Plus, I am sure that the poster is well aware that TMP members are not just wargamers, many are also historians, academics and military history enthusiasts. And I believe everyone posting here also shares their knowledge and information freely.

And I'm also sure that any evidence offered would not result in members rushing off to write books based on it or stop them buying books. As with all debates and discussions, it would surely raise interest in any forthcoming titles? Would that not benefit any author and publisher?

I've come to this website for years. It's always nice to be able to get difficult questions answered for those of us who are not fortunate to be able to make a career out of our passion.
I respect ALL the people who post with answers derived from their research. That they take the time and spend the money that some of us would LOVE to be able to do is worthy of respect.
This thread, however was the straw that broke the camels back for me. There is a severe lack of humility around here. This thread, to me, has placed one word above all others as evil:
SOURCES
I am a combat veteran and me and my brothers still disagree over events of our actions. There is one fact that no one wants to admit:
Unless you were present, the sad truth is, you CANNOT know what happened. We want to believe that a document written by a participant is factual. It should be, but seriously, look at the time and situations

Men had careers and reputations to protect. Men had axes to grind. Modern day is no different. We catch people weekly telling lies or exaggerating their personal exploits. I have come to hate the word sources. At the bottom line, most people who study Napoleon either view him in a positive light or a negative light, and regardless of their denials, their judgement and opinions are steered by this.

One poster asked the question, why would Kellerman say he only had one brigade when it appears he had the whole division?
Well, here's a hypothetical situation: Kellerman was so upset over Ney's order for an unsupported cavalry charge, that after it's inevitable failure, he attempted to make Ney's decision worse than it was. Who knows?
Quote all the sources you want, primary, secondary, French, English, Japanese. This does NOT make it a fact. Memoirs get debased regularly. Mercer made remarks about the Dutch Belgians, and unfortunately until recently, little attempts have been made to ascertain the truth.

It is important to marshal Greg to know what he has to fight with. If it was me asking the question, here would be my decision based upon the answers given:

I have seen posters quote "sources" giving an actual location of the dragoons around fismes.
I have not seen one post quoting a source specifically placing Piquet's brigade at the actual crossroads

Kellerman never mentioned them according to the sources that posters quoted concerning Kellerman

Taking as fact an identification of a dragoon by an allied soldier is, to me, incomprehensible.

The only bit of evidence FOR their presence is the supposed 26 casualties a poster quoted from a source. But to me, this is hardly proof considering casualty returns were notoriously errant

So if this were my question, I would NOT be placing Picquets brigade at QB
And I am unbiased and this decision would have been made from the posts delivered in this thread

Thank you John Franklin, Kevin and all the rest who live my dream of being able to spend my days studying my passion.

We DECIDE what we believe, because we did not witness it with our eyes and men cannot be trusted .

@marshalGreg

"Apparently, the second brigade of the division of l'Heritier (the one of Picquet) had faced an
enormous delay and was not to be found anywhere. The division of lieutenant general Roussel
d'Hurbal was in the fields near Frasnes, and apparently was too late too to be engaged in the action."

Pls advise what supports this conclusion and is this your conclusion- it is not clear to which!<q/>

This is an observation by Pierre de Wit. It is not supported by a reference. I posted the extract since the remainder of Pierre's site is copiously footnoted and obviously the result of many hours of research. I thought it unlikely that a statement would be included that was baseless.

Allan

OM – bear in mind that those that were there sometimes get it wrong, misremember for a variety of reasons both benign and otherwise; see R. J. Shafer – A Guide to Historical Method.

Oldmoustache

Good post. The same goes with OOB's. EG: Nafziger gives the following-

Quatre Bras- 2nd Dragoons (4)(585) 7th Dragoons (3)(516)

Waterloo- 2nd Dragoons (4)(583) 7th Dragoons (3)(516)

Virtually all OOB's I've come across differ in some way.

Also, people challenging or requesting sources are not attacking the author, they are simply wanting to see the sources some make and base their claims and accounts on.

It should all be about sharing and working towards the same goal.

Gazzola,

You are exactly correct-excellent posting.

OM – bear in mind that those that were there sometimes get it wrong, misremember for a variety of reasons both benign and otherwise; see R. J. Shafer – A Guide to Historical Method.

Shakespeare nailed it, referring to old soldiers 'remembering with advantages.'

We were not so 'literary' when we would comment on after-action reports. We just referred to is as 'remembering big.'

There was a very good book on the battle of Cowpens written some time ago and one of the main sources were the pension claims of some of the participants which were written thirty or forty years after the action. I thought at the time, and still do, that relying too much on them was not good methodology.

I remember quite well some of the things and actions that I participated in during my time in the service. Some I don't. But it is a fact that stories 'improve' over the years, yet are still based on fact of one type or another.

One other fact does stand out, however. When researching and writing military history relying verbatim on the remarks of 'the other side' for a 'fact' regarding the opposition in combat is not a good idea. Using that 'fact' to research it and verify it from both sides of the action is much better and much more accurate.

Brechtel198
You are correct. That was my inference with my personal combat experience. Mercer said it best regarding being certain of the events, but confused to the sequencing.
There were many different reasons why personal accounts of participants as well as observers are not reliable. We have no way of knowing if they're accurate or not.
Look at the climax of waterloo, the middle guard attack. An event you would think was the focus of most, snd yet there's major controversy over their formation

I should include, my point isn't that reference sources are pointless. We have to use them. That's where we get our information, and obviously overall events are generally accurate

My point was simply this,:
A person should never criticize or correct another researcher/author or enthusiast by stating they are wrong because their sources differ from your sources. As mentioned in my post, admit it or not, with no video or photo proof, none of us were thete, and even contemporary sources cannot be trusted because we simply don't know the truth.

If someone tells me that French cavalry broke four british squares, then I'm confident I can disagree with that and be agreed with

If someone tells me a brigade of cavalry was present at a location and the only evidence is assumptions based on a casualty return and identification by enemy soldiers, when that brigade IS mentioned specifically by name by other sources as being elsewhere,
Then I CHOOSE to not accept the new info
I could be wrong, my sources could be wrong, the people I believe could be wrong, snd vise a versa.

I guess most new information should be predicated by, "according to so snd so…"

Just my opinion…

Look at the climax of waterloo, the middle guard attack. An event you would think was the focus of most, snd yet there's major controversy over their formation.

OK, but the Grenadier Guards have asked me to point out that they are NOT going to change their name, or stop sticking their heads up dead bears' bums.

Revisiting this thread after some time of to celebrate the great anniversary, I see we have moved on by one pace…

Most of us realise that eyewitness accounts of combat should not be relied on for precise detail. In any case surely those from allied sources identifying Dragoons are balanced by the Formation Commander's testimony that he only had Cuirassiers in hand at that action.

Most of us realise the only actual evidence for these two Dragoon regiments being present was the casualty return JF found recording they took 26 casualties on the 16th.

At that point the balance of probability was that these two regiments were not there, but that there was a case to answer regarding this latest source. I pointed out that casualties don't just occur in pitched battle, but are part and parcel of campaigning per se.

Gazzola has now shown us that the respected Nafziger Orbats showed they did not in fact incur casualties on the 16th.

So a reasonable assessment now must be that their presence at QB has gone from 'possible' to 'improbable'.

Still, that's 'good enough' for my wargames table!

Navy Fower Wun Seven

To be honest, my mentioning Nafziger's Orders of Battle was not to prove that the two dragoons regiments were not present. It was to suggest that we should not take one source as the answer to a question, be it an OOB or an eyewitness account.

Maximus, I would hope not! Lol. They earned it, says I, begrudgingly

Gazzola,
You are very correct. It csn be quite a daunting task. Comparing sources, especially if they differ, then trying to discern the credibility of your source, which snowballs into the sources they used.
One just isn't enough.
One of my favorite examples of misinformation comes from Mercers book. As many times as I've read it I should be able to quote it but I can't and it's not with me. But he's relating his experience during the massed cav charges. He points out that one charge was led by an officer in s rich uniform, and I believe he says he was later told it was Ney. He then states that his informant must be mistaken because that officer is sn infantry officer.

Snother example of not taking an oppositions statements regarding their enemy as completely factual.

Again though, it is sad for me to see individuals hammer at each other for reasons that are simply pointless. I LOVE a good debate, but egos oft times get in the way.

I just hope marshal Greg is comfortable with whatever decision he has made! 😃

Another problem with using any sources, is that the source mat very well appear to contradict itself. Siborne, for example, is often given as a good source for the two French Dragoons regiments being present at Quatre Bras on the 16th. But it can also be considered as doing the exact opposite.

For a start, dragoons are mentioned, but mainly for the 17th June, not the 16th. And when the dragoons are mentioned on the 16th, it can be very contradictory. For example, a despatch to Ney from the Emperor, which he received on the 16th, states that the Emperor had just ordered Kellermann's dragoons to march to Gosselies, which is some distance south of Frasnes. So the dragoons must have been further south than Gosselies on the 16th. (page 63, in my 1995 edition)

And whenever the French cavalry were described in action by Siborne, they were always named as Cuirassiers, lancers and Chasseurs a Cheval, not dragoons. Also, although he states 'Whilst that portion of Kellermann's dragoons which had dispersed the 69th regiment' (page 94), in his description of the actual attack against the 69th on the previous page (page 93) he only mentions the Cuirassiers. There is no mention of them being aided by dragoons? Why would he leave them out if they took part?

Earlier (page 88) Siborne offers the following-
'All prospect of the Anglo-allied 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.'

That seems to suggest that, either the allied cavalry had not yet encountered any dragoons, or that the dragoons were there and were about to be reinforced? But reinforced by who? But then, Siborne (page 89) states that Ney was reinforced by the remaining division of Kellermann's corps of heavy cavalry.

Such is the fun of research!

Earlier in this thread, I criticised John Franklin for describing Kevin Kiley's forthright but negative review of his QB Osprey as 'outrageous'. John has since, in another forum, gently corrected me – it was in fact another poster who used that term of Kevin's entirely professional review.

I therefore apologise to John Franklin for my error and for attributing such sour grapes to him.