"Charge the Guns! Wellington's Cavalry at Waterloo" Topic

"Waterloo is perhaps one of the most famous battles in history and one of the least researched. In this bicentennial year, is there anything new to say on the battle? Paul L Dawson thinks so. His new and often ground-breaking research shows that well-known Waterloo events are often myth and not fact, and presents the results of over a decade's research in archives and libraries across Europe, presenting many first-hand accounts which add new insights to the battle. Discover the role played by the British/French cavalry during the Waterloo campaign, from period eye-witness accounts and testimonies, as well as what it was like to be in the cavalry and what it took to be a cavalry trooper. Paul Dawson's four books bring vividly to life the hows and whys of life as a cavalry trooper, the training they underwent and the horses they rode and cared for, as well as showing how this training was put into practice on the field of Waterloo.

This unique series, using over 400 archival accounts of Waterloo, many not being in print before, brings the battle of Waterloo to life in a dramatic way in the two volumes that deal with the British and French cavalry forces in the battle. We see how the Allied light cavalry provided one of the hammer blows that defeated Napoleon when it rode down the Old Guard. Many cherished myths of Waterloo are also examined, and we see that perhaps the Eagle of the French 45th Line was taken by Trumpeter Hugh Hutchinson, before Sergeant Ewart took the trophy off the field; and that the Imperial Guard heavy cavalry charged under orders, contrary to Napoleon's own take on the battle; the lack of training and experience of the British heavy cavalry is cruelly exposed in its poor battlefield performance – this is examined in detail in the author's companion volume Boots and Saddles! Horses and Riders of Wellington's Army, which shows how badly the British rode compared to the French and how little command and control the British actually had in the charge; this was down to poor training and lack of experience. The French training system, as demonstrated in the author's book Au Galop! Horses and Riders of Napoleon's Army shows that the French were superior horsemen with a training regime that gave the French superior battlefield manoeuvrability, so that the French cavalry could charge time and time again, a trick the British only seem to have partially learned through hard fighting in Spain. It is obvious that the lack of training for the British was the death knell for the Union and Household Brigades – they had not been in action in some cases for over a decade, and this was exposed at Waterloo when the French rode over the Union Brigade and the King's Dragoon Guards…"

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

I'm really looking forward to the publicaion of this title (which will enhance the book on the French cavalry already available). I know how much time and effort Paul has invested in the book.

John Franklin
Switzerland

I you are "de-bunking" myths , did the Greys not wear oilskin covers ?

Cheers Boot.

Hope we can get it soon.

Amicalement
Armand

I have a problem with books that are either self-published or are published by small publishers that are basically unknown.

The question I have in cases of that nature is why didn't the author go to an established publishing house that will publish reputable military history?

Well I say:

Why don't we wait until we can get to read the tome then pass comments on it!

Paul :)

Say what he will about the British cavalry, it's still a fact that they made the most effective cavalry charge of the day.

I see the smearing has started even before this book has been released. What a pity (but totally in keeping with the actions of this perennial hatchet merchant).

I said nothing at all about the book in question. I merely made an observation on an interesting publishing process and then put a question.

I would suggest that it is a topic for further research.

The publishing world has undergone massive change in the last ten years, with the development of digital platforms and eBooks (such as Kindle), plus improvements to print-on-demand quality, self publishing costs, and even low volume printed academic books from specialist publishers and universities. To suggest that a writer has to remain a slave to a major publishing house to produce a work of any substance is ridiculous. There is no positive reason to introduce this subject to this thread; it is merely another attempt by Kevin Kiley to belittle an author and his work (even before the book has been published).

I disagree.

It has not been my experience that there is any truth in the comment of 'being a slave to major publishing houses.' My experience has been quite the contrary. There is really no 'merit' in comments of that nature.

And there certainly is 'merit' about the subject as I have seen quite a few self-published books and those by small publishers that are more interested in self-promotion than anything else. And too many times the quality of the publication is below standard. And, unfortunately, I have purchased publications of that origin and have been quite disappointed in both the quality of the product and the quality of the text so as to make the purchase a waste of money.

And that dubious quality is quite evident in your postings of the last five years or so. You've also been called on it, have you not, on this forum?

Well said John Franklin

I am not aware of being accused of posting dubious material on TMP or in any of my articles or publications. That won't stick I'm afraid. However, I do believe the response to my contribution has been positive. It is only you, as usual, who feels the need to smear and snipe, and to imply inferior work despite the publication of important new research on smaller (or newer) platforms. You'd be better served entering politics rather than commenting on the world of writing and publishing, as the latter is something you clearly know very little about.

The term dubious refers to your seeming habit in the last five years of posting self-promoting material on TMP, and you were called on that at least once.

Are you actually not understanding what is being posted or are you doing this deliberately? The term had nothing to do with 'the world of writing and publishing' as you infer.

By the way, that is creating a strawman argument, another logical fallacy.

I find it amazing that you have trouble addressing what was written or answering a question that was put to you and instead answer it with false accusations and/or changing the topic.

Incredible.

I wasn't aware that you had been following my activity so closely, but everything now becomes clear. The reason for your negative comments and toxic reviews of my books (and appalling reviews of many other books) is jealousy. You are jealous of my posts, self-promotion as you see it, which offer the type of new material – based on primary research – you can only dream of providing. Your lack of genuine knowledge, combined with your inability to understand languages outside English (which in itself is not a problem, but becomes one when you falsely claim to have mastered French and German) prevents you from contributing in a positive manner. Therefore, all you are able to do is smear and snipe. You are the worst type of historian (I use the word in the most basic form). Your attempt to belittle the author of the book listed by Tango which started this thread, by implying that anything published by a small publisher is sub-standard, is a desperate attempt to assert your authority. You use the term 'it has been my experience', as if that has any value whatsoever. I'm not interested in what you think, or your self-promotion. As I stated above, you'd be better becoming a politician. When you have something positive to contribute, new material to share, or a more open mind to other authors and their work, then revisit TMP. Until that time, please go back to your bunker.

John Franklin
Switzerland

P.S. I note that on another thread a third party has implied gratitude towards the material I have shared here on TMP. I do not consider that a rebuke, but a positive endorsement of my approach. If the members really want me to stop posting material on TMP, I will happily oblige.

The question would be: jealous of what?

You have done nothing of which I would or could be jealous, or admire, and bringing up that topic is the epitome of egocentricity on your part.

As I said before: Incredible.

Surely you would be best placed to answer the question of why your jealousy creates such a malicious and negative view towards others. I can only give you my opinion of course. I believe you are jealous because someone, whether it's me or Paul Dawson, or whomsoever, has produced a body of work. I think you have protested rather too much against the work of others and your reputation, if you ever had one, is tarnished beyond recourse due to the constant stream of wholly inappropriate reviews and negative comments you make. I state again, contribute something worthwhile, share some previously unpublished material, or go back to your bunker and switch off the light.

Perhaps Kiley has got new evidence? He has it that (amongst other things, and boy! Do I mean 'other things') at Mont St. Jean, six British squares were broken during the great cavalry charges and that some of their colours were captured. That those catastrophies weren't commented upon in letters home, dispatches or in newspapers throughout Europe, or has not come to light to this day was/is because of a great conspiracy of silence orchestrated by the Duke himself.

Armchair General is the place to search for the rest of his rants on the campaign. He also gets stuck-in with nothing but negativity, with any Author that he doesn't agree with.

Paul :)

Though I am not interested that much in the battle of Belle Alliance, I will buy the book from Paul for sure, so far I was never was disapointed by his published research.

I refer to my previous comment that there is nothing positive to be gained on this thread by Kiley stating that a book published outside of a major publishing house cannot add to the greater knowledge. Indeed, his implication is that the book on the British (and Allied) cavalry will be worthless.

Furthermore, according to Kiley my crime is self promotion. As stated earlier in this thread, if TMP members feel that this is all I was engaged in, rather than sharing new information, I would happily desist. I therefore throw myself on the members of TMP to decide if there is any merit in my further participation on this platform.

Many thanks

John Franklin

Hi John, you don´t have to throw yourself at the mercy of us all here on TMP to continue your activities. There is nothing wrong in sharing attention to your work and endeavours regarding 1815. In fact, I do so as well. From there on it is to the wargamers on this forum to be interested or not, read yours or mine books, or whomever and theirs to judge, like or whatever.
My advice to you is not to get entangled in further discussions on your publications, or especially get embroiled on comments, as this forum of wargamers is not meant to be for such things. It will bring you no further, might possibly get people away from your genuine intentions to create interest in what you are writing, etc. And that is not what you want.
Debates between authors and historians is for other forums, private contacts, or just to be ignored. Reader opinions and or reviews is something you have no control over, because once your work is out, it is their to be judged.

So keep calm, enjoy and laugh and above all keep contributing on what you want to share.
And maintain Original threads on some topic free.

~Tried to buzz you, but you weren´t there~ Kind regards, Erwin

°onetime comment on this from my part only / no further replies!<

You John, Erwin, Gareth, Mike and Andrew are the best thing to happen when it comes to first hand accounts on the campaign. We have been spoiled by the amount of excellent research you have all done and I might risk hyperbole by saying that it has advanced our knowledge of the Waterloo campaign that hasn't been seen since Siborne had his tour de force and later, his correspondences published by his son.

I have been on Amazon, ACG and here with issues regarding one of Andrews tomes, in fact I gave it two stars on Amazon; but that was for my issues with his comments, not for his hard work in ferreting out French accounts which I think are very good. But for all that I gave his book only two stars, It is a must buy for any serious enthusiast.

As for Paul,I have only read his excellent (co-authorship with Stephen Summerfield)Napoleonic Artillery . I will buy the above tome mentioned by the O.P and remark upon it in good time, probably on here and the ACG site. I may slate it or applaud it, but one thing I will say here and now, I can't wait to get my hands on a copy of it.

Paul :)