"Waterloo Betrayed: The Secret Treachery that ..." Topic

It is a fact that at least until the early 2000s, a large volume of material of Marshal Soult's had been kept from the public.

The French archives claimed some that was put up for auction, but much more was sold at auction. Who had that now?

Did Soult's descendants unload all the had? Was some kept back? Has some been destroyed long ago? We'll never know, but the presence of the auctioned materials proves without a doubt that Soult kept much from scrutiny.

The presence of released materials that included reports to the King between 1816-1830 proves Soult took materials from the archives, a charge frequently made (see Garnier.) What did Soult take that was later destroyed? With all the Grouchy kept/published, just what did happen to the original order book?

I have no clue if Soult worked completely alone, or had some number of those around him that were in on his machinations, but as far as I'm concerned, this fact, as important as it is, does not impact the presentation to date. I do believe I have demonstrated in numerous ways that one cannot assume a nefarious act in 1815 would have somehow become well known.

Napoleon series censures and threatens censorship of perfectly legal interactions between adults who post without alias. (without alias is key) This is a fact that I find unacceptable. When it happened to others, I argued against it, but then decided that I could not accept that site's rules and manner of their enforcement, and left. This was the right decision for me, and not worth debating.

I may have rightly become a target of criticism for my levity in discussing the stories, still extant, that Marshall Ney escaped to America and became a school teacher there. But this is an "Anastasia" myth that, in this case, given the two explanations for the same "fact", amusingly demonstrates the "not really dead" type of myth.

It is quite different from the numerous "traitor" myths that have been expounded over the past 200 years in an attempt to vindicate a deeply admired hero who was not just defeated but routed by a despised enemy. Let me then address you Stephen in the rest of this post.

In the same set of posts on this topic, Tango made an observation that I share. Why did Davoust not publish his memoirs. His letters to his beloved wife, though were published by his daughter. Have you read them, Stephen? They re quite enchanting, but givwe us no insight into his thoughts or opinions as a general, which I find odd for such an outspoken man. As you know, Davout died young, 58 I think, and his younger daughter became his executor.

Daviut was perhaps the greatest of all Napoleon's marshals, but a source of envy (youngest marshall with no history of independent command, etc) and enmityamong some of his peers for his harsh and insulting disaprobation of so many of them. I have wondered of his daughter did not quietly censor his letters and dispose of his memoires neeath the daube in the kitchen fireplace (why there? It would be lit all year!)

But that is as far as it goes. I have no evidence of his daughter's censorship or even that he wrote any memoirs I doubt that he felt any need to justify himself as so many memoirists do (I imagine that you have read Ney's papers, since he was at the critical battle with Soult and so far as I know, both volumes are available in English. Now there is exculpatory prose! And don't forget the Emperor himself). Also, of course, he died at 58 and may have imagined that they could await his leisure time in retirement.

And, alas, something has come up, and since it is now 2342 hrs, I shall have to conclude this tomorrow.

Cheers,
Phil

I've studied Peter S. Ney extensively – and it was researching him that previous historians (in early 20th century) uncovered many details about Marshal Ney's execution.

Peter was probably not the Marshal – but if his escape story was that the King had facilitated, considering all the accounts from Royalists who were involved, then it would have been more believable.

The Peter S. Ney story is an example of why there is great value in researching and pursuing all matters from a particular time – though Peter was most likely not the Marshal, much was learned by the pursuit. I even found an 1806 newspaper from the US that reported Austerlitz as a 3 day battle won by the Russians after Alexander did away with artillery and personally led a bayonet charge. That will be framed soon!

From June 1815, the work of Davout at the Ministry of War has a large gap of materials that are missing – product of the sudden fall of the government, or something else?

As far as "traitor myths," which? 1815 was full of treason that is factual. One can argue how large a roll it played, but there were literally traitors everywhere. In fact, while Napoleon historically kept his plans close to the vest and did not share much, in 1815, the fear of traitors made him even more secretive. This is one reason why on the battlefield of Waterloo, the presence of the Prussians was kept from many of those in the HQ – they simply didn't know who might take information and run off with it. Bernard Coppens has interpreted this as Napoleon was utterly surprised at 4pm, but this is not the case. Napoleon was surprised by the magnitude of the Prussian intervention, and admitted as much in exile.

The point is, the presence of traitors impacted French operations, and considering the many mistakes, can be argued to have made a big impact.
If anything, the myths that exist are those from the past and new ones created to attack Napoleon. It is cheap theatre and unnecessary.

As I have said repeatedly, my goal was never to protect Napoleon… it is a FACT that the history of this campaign is reported horribly. Hence, the conventional interpretation of events is weak or outright wrong.

Napoleon lost – no one will ever change that – but instead of focusing on the plans of June 18th, I find the greater cause being personnel decisions of May, and Napoleon's continued belief that he could control those around him – something that hurt him during the entire Empire period. Napoleon may have awed many, but Alexander, Napoleon's siblings, and I believe Soult, hurt Napoleon and were not mesmerized at all.

My apologies, Stephen. As I was sitting down to continue this post yesterday, I received an impromptu invitation to a chili party. I realise that continuing this is Very Important, but the chili was really good. I shall enjoy the left overs for lunch.

I do not plan to attack your work, Stephen, instead I shall give the basic reasons why I do not plan on reading it.

Unhappy is the lot of the conspiracy theorist. To make the theory work, he is not given the luxury of examining counter arguments except to dimiss them, sometimes out of hand, and must direct all of his resourses to proving the point that his audience bought his work for in the first place.

To cite one officer's reaction to another's in the heat of battle, for example, may raise some interesting speculation, but it is hardly hard evidence of that officer's (and of course,I am talking of Soult's alleged reaction to poor Ney's behaviour) treachery.

Instead it is offered as just one more stone in the evidential edifice, and if some of the larger stones are seriously challenged, the whole edifice comes tumbling down, as it did in the case of the "discovery" that Napoleon was poisoned by one of his own entourage at Elba in Assassination at St. Helena Revisited, a lovely book that I shall return to later.

The common factor in your and a many other books and articles is that they purport to demonstrate that Napoleon was undefeatable in battle unless he was betrayed by the weather (Genral Hiver) or traitors whom he trusted. This, of course, is never proposed as a guiding principal, but it always informs the argument. It is even present, in an unusual way, in the Elba book.

Partly due to my own training, I tend to examine the credentials of non-fiction authors. A scholarly author, particularly of a controversial theory, has the great advantage of having been thoroughly, formally, trained in his discipline and have access to original documents in their original language. He (or she, of course, Maggie!) also has the huge benefit of having his arguments challenged, often over a long period of time by his colleagues and grad. students, and the sobering knowledge that his work will be finally judged by his peers.

This support is sadly lacking in any work by an amateur, however gifted and enthusiastic. Of course, many such authors express amazement at the neglect of his important information by the establishment, while others talk about a "conspiracy of silence" by academics who want to protect the status quo, providing a second conspiracy theory to support the first.

Also, the amateur, instead of patiently waiting to find the answers to his questions in the archives, a job much more easily performed by a pro, is left with gaps that are filled with remarks like "we may never know (but I won't let that mar my theory}" or, unfortunately, the academy, or relatives, or whoever, are wilfully concealing this evidence.

This appears to be a little more straightforward in your case. You know, of course, that two volumes of Soult's memoirs have been published, and I assume that you have read them in your search for clues.

Your appeal (that those who control the important volume will never hear, of course), has been developed by some members here into a criticism of those who have not made it available. Why should they? Out of a sense of history and an urge to answer questions that almost no one has asked during the past two centuries?

If/when they are published, what will they prove? Soult's self defense, if it appeared, would be looked on as disingenuous and self serving, and he is not likely to 'fess up and say, "Yes I was a traitor, but please don't tell anyone." Instead, you will be obliged to sift through the volume looking for evidence of his perfidy, and since you are already sure that he is a traitor, something will undoubtedly come up to support your hypothesis.

In the case of Soult, you have the added burden of proof that Soult was trying to be defeated in battle, a rather surprising decision given that it might have resulted in his death.. You are also stuck with the fact that it was he who played a major part in the rounding up of the remains of the Army of the North, under arms four days after the battle. I must say that I had been in his shoes I would have deserted the sinking ship as soon as the route of the French army began.

Finally (and congratulations on hanging in there if you have gotten this far!), I would like to glance at the most notorious example of a conspiracy theory that "proved beyond reasonable doubt" that Napoleon was poisoned with arsenic placed in his wine by one of his entourage, General, de Montholon. by, according to Amazon.com/s blurb, "Swedish toxicologist Sten Forshufvud and Napoleonic scholar Ben Weider.

I don't know why that gave no one pause (perhaps it did!). Forshufvud was a dentist who did amateur experiments in toxicology in his basement, and Dr Ben Wieder, PhD, Napoleonic scholar and founder of another Napoleonic forum, started using Dr in front of his name and PhD after it after receiving, I am told, an honorary PhD in "sports science" from a Floridian establishment to whom he donated money. You know the story, I'm sure, and have probably read the book (4/5 stars on Amazon!).

Although the book proved Napoleon's cause of death by finding toxic levels of arsenic in his hair (finally exploded when it was found that he had similar levels in hair that was cut when he was a youth). Forshufvud's ultimate intent was to show that the circle of enemies and traitors who surrounded Napoleon included one of his own entourage.

Stone by careful stone he ercted his evidential edifice until Montholon stood alone at the top as the undoubted murderer. Alas, the evidence that doomed the poisoning theory also put the kybosh on Monthalon's guilt.

Or did it? Perhaps the French Academy deliberately gave misleading hair samples……

Conspiracy theories, Stephen, however honestly presented and believed in, tend to be like quicksand. I hope that you don't get sucked in.

And now, left over chili!

Cheers,
Phil

Ah, Maggie dear,
How clever of you to have stayed out of this one!
Damned Arcturan spaceship…..

Cheers,
Phil

Phil,

I need not have said a word. Your lucid, elegantly worded, and eminently reasoned responses are among the very best I have read anywhere on anything.

You did leave out the bit about folks doing research when they do not read, write, or speak the language of those they allege either support or disprove their pet theory, instead forced to rely on the expertise of another. Imagine if I had done my dissertation research in London, Paris, various French departmental archives, Lisbon, and the Kriegsarchiv in Vienna, forced to rely on the kindness of linguistically apt strangers, I would never have been permitted to graduate, and rightly so.

and as for conspiracy theories, in addition to the He Was Poisoned by Montholon one, this does remind me of Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

I have great respect for knowledgeable people posting here and, indeed, on other websites. But I find it very interesting that people can dismiss a book by not even reading it and suggesting that the author may not have the 'desired' credentials to dare to write such a book. That is elitist snobbery at the highest by those who want to think themselves as some sort of elite. But elitist snobbery never made good history only a distorted one. The same type of people told us the world was flat because that is what they thought, and they should know, so there!

I am reading Stephens's Napoleonic book at the moment and find it very interesting. Although I have not been totally convinced, so far, that Soult was an out an out traitor, although there were certainly many others, so why not? But he raises many questions that have not yet been answered or oddly, appear to have been ignored. And from what I have read and seen, in defence of Soult so far, the only thing offered is that the job was too much for him or he was incompetent. Well, I guess that conveniently explains everything. Vary academic I must say!

Stephen highlights missing material. If such material is missing or not known publically, then how can anyone dismiss (or indeed accept) Stephen's argument without seeing the material? Only those who either do not want the missing material known or think themselves above historical integrity by thinking they are far too clever and knowledgeable to read Stephen's book or question the missing material, would accept such a cowardly way of thinking. It's a conspiracy! Ah, no need to read it then, phew! Intelligent and caring people don't throw up conspiracies as an excuse, they read and challenge the work and statements offered.

As I say, I have not yet been convinced that Soult (and Grouchy for that matter) were out and out traitors. But, so far, I have not been convinced by any counter-arguments that they were not. Stephen's book and statement needs to be read and countered, proved or disproved. Not ignored.

Thank you Maggie; praise from you is praise indeed!
Cheers,
Phil

Oh dear. Gazzola. Why is it, do you suppose, that amateur sportsmen are never compared with pros, but a sincere amateur in an an academic field can, and regularly does, complain of "elitism" if the professionally educated don't pay much attention to his hypothesis?

Imagine a sincere young man who was an effective striker for his school's football team, claims that he can beat the pros at their own game and challenges a one on one contest with any premier league player who will take him on. He rents the Emirates Stadium (ah, Highbury, we loved you!) and offers to let you watch him do his best for a small fee of 35 quid. Would you go? If you didn't, without even observing the lad's form, should we consider you a sports elitist?

I limit my Napoleonic book expenditure to about $50 USD/week. I have just ordered Gareth Glover's long awaited book, Waterloo: The Defeat of Napoleon's Imperial Guard, for $39.95 USD. to read the details of how Harry Clinton and his boys of the 2nd Division sent Napoleon's Imperial Guard packing. Should I, instead, have spent $48.18 USD (sorry, I can't read Kindle editions very well) to learn why Stephen Becket thinks that their defeat might have been due to Marshal Soult's treachery ?

Not a very difficult decision for me -- "The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne".

Cheers,
Phil

He rents the Emirates Stadium (ah, Highbury, we loved you!) and offers to let you watch him do his best for a small fee of 35 quid.

Who could possibly doubt that Boney would have been a fan of "Les Gunners"?

(Wilson, Rice, McLintock, Simpson, McNab, Roberts, Armstrong, Storey, Graham, Kelly, George, Radford, Kennedy…..the heroes of a teenage SM.)

Philin Yuma

I forked out the cash for Stephen's book because it was basically the only Waterloo title that did offer something new. It was not the same old stuff offered from a different angle or nationality. (And I have bought quite a few Waterloo themed titles this year)

But yes, I can well understand why you would prefer to read Glover's title rather than one that might challenge your Napoleonic viewpoints. For some people it is always better to play safe.

And do you really expect anyone to take any notice of your viewpoint on a title anyway, when you have not even read it?

All you have done is to try and belittle the author and offer insults. You have done so because you certainly can't argue or debate his work because you have not read it . And you would only buy and read a title if the author was well known?

And in terms of football, oh dear what a clanger you have dropped there, as well. Do you recall how surprised the 'professionals and experts' were when West Ham wiped the floor with Arsenal? They all 'knew' that Arsenal would win! You see, professionals do get it wrong, in any profession, and certainly historians do it all the time, so perhaps you should bear that in mind?

To merely dismiss someone's work, unread, because they are 'an amateur historian' would have resulted in the skeleton of Richard III under the Leicester car park never being found!

arthur1815

Good post

PhilinYuma – what trite crap.

There was absolutely no reason for you to post why you would not read a book. It was just an opportunity for you to condescendingly and arrogantly take shots in a completely ignorant manner.

Further, it enabled you to do so without addressing any of the material, because according to you, you are above it, in the hallowed air that the rest of us cannot share because of your implied superiority.

You are not superior. Further, even without having read the book, a tremendous amount has been provided and you have contributed nothing to the discussion. I submit it is simply because you can't.

The sportsman analogy was incredibly weak. Athletes compete, head to head, their entire lives, and world-class athletes emerge based on objective measures, and gain opportunities to advance. They are superior in some manner that can be measured and quantified. Eyesight for baseball/tennis, size and durability for american football, etc. etc. The academic world does not have this rigor. Success in intellectual pursuits does not require accreditation. Arthur1815 already posted one of a legion of examples.

Maggie – you also like to chime in to diminish my work, but you are never direct. You have never confronted me… except that once where you revealed you have no knowledge of the history of the French military correspondence from the campaign. You prey upon fiction writers on Amazon destroying their works in reviews because it does not meet your standards of historical accuracy, but you have never confronted me directly. And why is that? Easy to pick on someone who clearly is historically ignorant and just telling a story – who cares where the marriage licenses really came from, it is FICTION. But confronted by this "amateur", who did consult with experts (my, oh my!), and has written something meaningful , you never confront.

770-317-8108 – call me, we'll set up the public debate. It will be captured on video, and put on youtube for the entire world to see. Now is your chance – you can publicly humiliate me! Did I not realize that bringing forth facts and ideas on this well studied campaign that are not apart of the conventional narrative is not allowed unless I was part of your caste!?

Well I did – and despite all this noise, there still remains a basic fact.

No meaningful refutation.

If you are going to say that it isn't worth your time, then what does it say about *you* that reading this thread and commenting how you have here and elsewhere was worth your time?

If you have something, bring it!

You and phil can exchange emails and amuse yourselves with how silly I am, and how stupid others are for believing anything I would write or say. I do the same about you – the difference is, I keep it private. I don't comment on your book because I have not read it. Simple concepts.

PhilinYuma – are you aware of the history of the French materials on their operations in 1815?

Are you aware of at least a subset of what Soult had in his possession, and/or later gained after 1830 from the archives? (kinda tricky here! But us amateurs can sometimes find skeletons in the closet, or even under parking lots)

Can you explain what is in Soult's registry of correspondence with the army that he had? Do you know if it was the actual order book, or just a copy he made for himself?

Can you answer any of these questions? Do you even have a theory about any of these topics?

Based on your posts – the answer is a resounding no. Feel free to refute that.

Better yet, you might consider, when participating in discussion , to read up on the subject. It is far better than googling a single term…

From Stephen Beckett's post:

"Maggie – you also like to chime in to diminish my work, but you are never direct. You have never confronted me… except that once where you revealed you have no knowledge of the history of the French military correspondence from the campaign. You prey upon fiction writers on Amazon destroying their works in reviews because it does not meet your standards of historical accuracy, but you have never confronted me directly. And why is that? Easy to pick on someone who clearly is historically ignorant and just telling a story – who cares where the marriage licenses really came from, it is FICTION. But confronted by this "amateur", who did consult with experts (my, oh my!), and has written something meaningful , you never confront."

One thing I have not done, Mr. Beckett, is attack you personally. I bought the Kindle version of your book a while ago, and I have indeed read it. If I have anything to say about it, I will. But I will speak about the book, and not its author.

Maggie, please, then, contribute to the discussion of the material. Don't hide behind a weak obfuscation – when you equate the material in the manner you have in other forums, it is an attack on the author. That is absolutely fine – if you are willing to provide your own material in substantiation.

I took on this endeavor seriously, and invested tremendously in it without any hope for profit. I bring forward facts that have been known, but rarely make the common discussion. This includes many well respected works of the last few years by well known and credentialed historians.

I am attacking you, but why "personal" is always brought up as though one is seizing the high ground in decorum. There is nothing personal about it as I don't know you at all and therefore could not formulate a personal attack. Get over that – you love to attack, and have stated as much. Now YOU are getting challenged, so buckle up.

My challenge was based on a pattern of conduct, and is no different than differentiating someone who is walking from running. I boldly reassert it, and here is your opportunity to engage, which would by definition make my observation obsolete.

There is a thread here discussing a book that focuses on French operations in 1815 with particular attention to the period before the commencement of hostilities. It has a variety of theses, and proposes that one explanation for the behavior of Marshal Soult is intentional acts of sabotage. This is *NOT* a new suggestion, as it first appeared before, during, and immediately after the campaign, and off and on during the 19th century. It has reappeared in more recent works, and other historians have pondered it openly. However, previous suggestions lacked a detailed scrutiny of Soult's record. I provide it, and suggest that intentional malfeasance is a reasonable explanation. Further, for over 100 years that the French concentration has been studied in detail, there has not been a credible explanation for Soult's behavior by some of the most respected historians of this campaign.

Additionally, I demonstrate that the treason in 1815 was far more pervasive and damaging that the conventional history allows. I bring forward details of Bourmont and his staff that have long gone ignored, while an inaccurate conventional narrative is repeated that was formulated in the mid-19th century by adversaries of Bonapartism.

Finally, I propose to undermine the myth that the concentration on the frontier was a great military feat. In fact, it was a disaster. One might find this position not favorable to Napoleon… and it isn't. Napoleon made horrible decisions on personnel, and while his plan was brilliant, the poor execution led to a decisive defeat.

According to Phil…, unless one is fluent in 19th century French, and 19th century German with the ability to read the Fraktur font, then one is not qualified to propose an opinion. I reject this entirely. The merit of any work can be judged without any analysis of the author. What works one invests in is an individual choice where there are no wrong answers. However, offering a public critique without judging its merits is nothing more than petty gossip.

I look forward to some response to the ideas presented above.

Debate offer stands.

Gazzola

our 'Ammers have gone on to beat Liverpool, as well as Arsenal, both on their own turf. Mind you, we have been beaten at home twice by mediocre opposition. COYI!

Read Beckett's book on many levels. It is an extraordinarily interesting account of something I had thought incredibly dull….the last day or two before fighting started…..the concentration by the French. There is so much about DoW's "failure" to do the same, in time to help the Prussians. Clearly he was a, not a traitor, but a half hearted ally to them (we are told in "certain" books)

The whole idea seems so far fetched and unlikely…I guess a bit like a senior officer and his staff choosing to stay with the Army of the North and only then defecting en masse, at the last minute. That I have never understood. There must be more to this. Unless it is all just the chaos and unpredictability of any human activity and we somehow see patterns in chaos.

It is like JFK. The mystery was never the guy on the 6th floor, firing the three best shots of his life with an antique Italian rifle, it was Ruby that suddenly created the conspiracy myth. The only reason I know there was actually no JFK conspiracy is because 50 years have passed and guess what…..Oh, I know, the military industrial complex has still concealed the evidence.

Read the book and enjoy it. Respect the research that has gone into it. Point out the errors in facts and records, contradict the interpretations, but why get into this sort of personal attack?

I still doubt the Soult theory (as I do UFOs, JFK conspiracy, NASA fakes the moon landings, God was an astronaut etc) but the real message here (new to me and the best thing I read for 200th memorial was the firs half of;

"Finally, I propose to undermine the myth that the concentration on the frontier was a great military feat. In fact, it was a disaster. One might find this position not favorable to Napoleon… and it isn't. Napoleon made horrible decisions on personnel, and while his plan was brilliant, the poor execution led to a decisive defeat."

"Napoleon made horrible decisions on personnel,…"

My dear friend… which were their horrible decisions…?

To rest before Ligny could be a mistake… but there were some worst from the Allied side…

I'm curious! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Soult was either a traitor or incompetent in his role, to which he was unaccustomed. Ney, is these days, diagnosed with PTDS and was placed in an impossible situation, with no chance to familiarise himself with his command. Grouchy was arguably the best of them, but had limited experience of independent command and is said to always have lacked initiative. Officers were retained, despite huge doubts about their loyalty, and then deserted at the worst possible time.

The book, whether you subscribe to the Soult theory or not, is very authoritative on this, as well as on the French concentration and preparation for the invasion. Let's face it, most accounts start with the Prussian outposts pushed back…….or even Quatre Bras!

Poor old Boney may not have have had too much choice in staff, however by 1815

Stephen,

I have not commented on your book or your theory because I reviewed the manuscript for you and you already have my comments. I believe it would be inappropriate of me to comment on the book, et al, further here.

However, your conduct in defending your theory is outside the Pale. Your insults to Maggie are way out of line. She is a lady, and should be treated as such and your personal comments to her don't say well for you.

When you return you need with apologize for what you have said to her and withdraw the offensive postings. Discussions and debates should be directed on the material not on people personally. Unfortunately, the latter happens much too often undoubtedly because it is easy to do from behind a keyboard as you are not facing the person you are attacking and insulting.

You have shown yourself to not be a gentleman when dealing with a lady, and that needs to be corrected as soon as you return.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Stephen,

I have not commented on your book or your theory because I reviewed the manuscript for you and you already have my comments. I believe it would be inappropriate of me to comment on the book, et al, further here.

However, your conduct in defending your theory is outside the Pale. Your insults to Maggie are way out of line. She is a lady, and should be treated as such and your personal comments to her don't say well for you.

When you return you need with apologize for what you have said to her and withdraw the offensive postings. Discussions and debates should be directed on the material not on people personally. Unfortunately, the latter happens much too often undoubtedly because it is easy to do from behind a keyboard as you are not facing the person you are attacking and insulting.

You have shown yourself to not be a gentleman when dealing with a lady, and that needs to be corrected as soon as you return.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Stephen,

I have not commented on your book or your theory because I reviewed the manuscript for you and you already have my comments. I believe it would be inappropriate of me to comment on the book, et al, further here.

However, your conduct in defending your theory is outside the Pale. Your insults to Maggie are way out of line. She is a lady, and should be treated as such and your personal comments to her don't say well for you.

When you return you need with apologize for what you have said to her and withdraw the offensive postings. Discussions and debates should be directed on the material not on people personally. Unfortunately, the latter happens much too often undoubtedly because it is easy to do from behind a keyboard as you are not facing the person you are attacking and insulting.

You have shown yourself to not be a gentleman when dealing with a lady, and that needs to be corrected as soon as you return.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Presumably Soult has an alibi for Berthier's Bavarian bungee jump?

Those were the days. When your response was tempered according to the gender of the person addressed and challenged. (Note Gender, not Sex. The latter is a pursuit, a past time, an activity)

Not many female academics I know (plenty of them and they are terrifying) would wish to be treated differently, as they are "ladies". Personally I miss the old courtesies, but that reflects my age.

A bit of academic banter and abuse does not hurt anyone. This has gone on since the first colleges and universities were established before the Renaissance. "Your theory is flawed because you, personally, are a vagabond and incompetent" has often been the response to anything that differs from the writer's views.

Good book. Interesting theory, but much more of value in it than the Soult business. I have, in my library books really entertaining books explaining that JFK was shot by a bodyguard in the car behind,accidentally (with overwhelming evidence), NASA faked the whole thing (so much still unexplained, actually), Di was murdered by Phil (actually no, I draw the line at that for reading), Aliens visited our ancestors and created God myths etc.

I do not subscribe to any of these theories, I remain totally sceptical about Soult. But this book I will reread and thought it stood out amongst the new books for 2015. (Tim Clayton's Waterloo was the other surprise…I nearly missed it completely)

Deadhead:

Napoleon, wisely, told Mme de Stael that women should stick to their knitting and quite rightly exiled her (what, three times?) when she took up embroidery instead. Shame on you, Corrine! Good for you, Lucille!

My problem with conspiracy theories is that I am always persuaded by the "overwhelming evidence" that they present.

I completely agreed with von Daniken's evidence in Chariots of the Gods; I have spent hours studying photos of the grassy knoll, sneered at the perfidy of Montholon, and sighed with relief on learning that King George III suffered from porphyria rather than some inheritable "mental disturbance" that might affect Her Majesty (for whom I fought in foreign lands), or her lovely family.
And don't even get me started on those Merovingians or the Elders of Zion!

That said, I have always respected the integrity of Soult, if not his military prowess, and am less than willing to be convinced (as I suspect I would be, were I to read Stephen's book) that he was yet another base betrayer, even though that might help relieve Napoleon of his responsibility for the defeat at Waterloo, and for all I know, Leipzig as well. Besides, I think that I already know enough villains or incompetents who failed Napoleon at that battle to put my mind at rest about his military genius, even in defeat.

But, sir, if you are referring to me in the case of the death of the lovey Lady Diana, remember that the laws of libel in England are still very strict. Various MIs completely (well, almost completely) exonerated me of any complicity in the affair and have stated officially that Lady Di and I were nothing more than "just good friends".

Cheers,
Phil

Deadhead is perfectly correct--I do not wish to be treated differently because of my gender. I do indeed have an earned doctorate in history, I am in my seventh decade of life, and I have red hair. This I am well equipped to dish it out and take it in equal measure.

I do appreciate Kevin's gentlemanly response on my behalf--he may be as opinionated as the day is long, but he has my back when and if I need him.

However, I don't expect--or want--an apology. While I find the personal comments uncalled for, and certainly untrue, I also know this behavior is fairly typical, and I have encountered it quite often on Amazon. The perpetrators there are almost always self-published authors--and the book in question here is definitely self-published--who react with varying degrees of outrage when their work is not received with uncritical praise. They are generally referred to by seasoned reviewers as "Badly Behaving Authors," and the result is almost always unfortunate for said authors.

Mr. Beckett has challenged me to a debate. I have no intention of debating him here on this forum or indeed anywhere else. He placed an item on the open market for sale and I purchased it for $9.99 USD, to be precise, for the Kindle version of his book. As the consumer of this product, I can--and will--evaluate it the same as I would a tee shirt, vitamin supplements, or historical fiction. But I will do so on Amazon.

Not that any of you folks here are especially interested, but Mr. Beckett's slam about my comment regarding "marriage licences" actually came from my four-star review of Michele McGrath's mystery novel, "Duval and the Infernal Machine."

Unless it is all indeed a translation error.

Was Soult actually a "traiteur" and not a traitor ("traitre" in French)?

Not sure catering would have been his thing though………

Oh goody! French mistranslation jokes! Here's my favorite, and at least remotely on topic, since it warns against trying to translate French literally or just plain badly.

I once read in the correspondence section of a Chicago-area paper, the complaint that French waiters (often summoned by English and American tourists by much arm waving and loud cries of "Garcon!) are not only insolent but downright malicious.

The family ordered fraises (strawberries) and the waiter suggested that many people like them with "creme fraiche". Well, of course, they didn't speak French, but it wasn't hard to work out that this meant "fresh cream", so they ordered it. To their horror, they discovered that the stuff was more like sour cream than fresh cream. Obviously the waiter had mislead them.

It might have been worse. They might have ordered framboises (raspberries) and gotten an unchilled Belgian beer instead!

Cheers,
Phil

So still no challenges to Stephen Beckett's thesis? I was expecting his statements to be torn up in debate, proved incorrect or supported etc. Instead, we are treated with silence? Silence that is, apart from some who have tried to fob it off as a mere conspiracy and by those who have dismissed his book without even reading it!

It is annoying because Soult going into exile for a short period, is often thrown up as evidence he was not working with the royalists. But surely, if he had been working against Napoleon, they could not risk making it public or reward him for doing so straight away after Waterloo. People had lost sons, brothers, husbands, fathers, relatives and friends, during the campaign, and who knows what it may have led to had that acknowledgement been made. Better to keep him away for a while, until things cool down. (This is my thought by the way, not Stephen's, although it has arisen through reading his book and other Waterloo titles)

But Stephen's book raises many questions, as yet, unanswered. For example, pages 46-47, Napoleon was said to have ordered Soult to order Gerard with the Corps of Moselle (IV Corps), to march to Philippeville, but Soult, on 5th June, gave him orders to march to Rocroi, which was quite a bit to the south of Philippeville. This, as Stephen states, would certainly delay Napoleon's intended plans of operation. Is this correct? Can this merely be fobbed off as Soult being incompetent or as a deliberate act? However, in Siborne's account, for example, (page 29) he states that Gerard, when at Metz, received orders to march to Philipperville and reach it by the 14th June.

It is generally offered in many accounts that Soult was incompetent in 1815 and the job too much for him-but was he? It seems that Soult himself did not seem to think so and basically boasts he was better than Berthier (p223)

However, I think Stephen's statement (page 225) describes the workings and challenge of his book:
'If a criminal case was brought against Soult, the verdict could only be not-guilty. There is no proof of treason, no way to claim that we know what was in that man's heart beyond a reasonable doubt. But likewise, if a civil claim was brought where the burden was simply the preponderance of the evidence of his culpability, how could it be argued otherwise'.

I'm hope that, should people feel strongly against Stephen's thesis and have the evidence against it, that such arguments will be made. If not, then this work needs to be given its due respect and not fobbed off as a mere conspiracy, no matter what anyone thinks of the author? I'm also hoping that people will offer decent argument and debate because I'm attempting to read several Waterloo campaign accounts, new and old, at the same time as reading Stephen's book, in order to try and get a better picture. As you can imagine my head is bursting with material, much contradictory, but none seem to offer any guidance either way concerning Stephen's thesis.

Conspiracy theories are bad. This is the typical view. One reason for this is because when a conspiracy theory gains legs, it graduates to a proper place in study, shedding its negative association with the rest of the crazies. And there are a lot of crazy theories out there.

Hence, today Alger Hiss's role as a soviet agent gains validity each year. There is another batch of JFK docs due in October of 2017 – though to suggest there was no conspiracy is to disagree with the US Government's final yet less well known conclusion: link

Regardless, I certainly agree that one should always be skeptical of revisionist history.

Did Grant, fearing Custer's presidential run, and angered over Custer having Grant's son arrested as well as Custer's very public criticisms of Grant's administration, send Custer to his death at the Little Big Horn by giving the Indians intelligence which just happened to allow the biggest encampment and largest Indian army to gather right in Custer's path while the Infantry was still a day's march out… while Reno and Benteen were ordered to isolate Custer and refuse assistance? Nice how Reno was then cleared of charges, while his case files were manipulated. (this can be seen online)

There is a lot of truth (or twisted truth) in the above paragraph, and it sounds kinda interesting – but I completely made the theory up… and the key is that I cannot produce any reference to any source that demonstrates Grant had any detailed knowledge or involvement in the operations once he sent Custer west. It is the lack of these materials which make this baseless. Thus, while a layperson who has only seen the movie may be easily impressed, almost anyone who reads history would be able to at least point out the lack of supporting materials.

Speaking of Custer's stand at Little Big Horn, or of the Battle of Isandlawana, recent vigorous study has totally changed the conventional views of what happened at these battles. As they were great defeats, much was not known of the fights, and early interpretations have been demonstrated to be false. Until these archaeological and forensic analyses were done, there simply wasn't overwhelming evidence of anything. Revision occurred because the data was incomplete.

Further, if one scrubs any great defeat, one will find a conspiracy of betrayal lurking… link

Yes, there is a lot of reason to be skeptical of ideas until they are scrubbed, and many times there will be rubbish, and many times there will be totally new understandings of events.

Michael Sibalis wrote an interesting article on "conspiracy theories." PDF link

A notable quote:

"The conspiracy theorists' way of constructing a historical argument demonstrates their fundamental misunderstanding of the historical method. They raise doubts about an established interpretation and construct new hypotheses based on (often minor) inconsistencies in the historical record, while usually ignoring or dismissing the overwhelming evidence amassed by professional historians."

I agree with the above… however, the paper, and the quote, has one considerable flaw, or at least a point that is missed that should have been made.

"Overwhelming evidence amassed" – that simply is not true for all events in history. (lucky too, or what would there be for historians to do!) And as new materials are found or made widely available, events will be invariably revised. And unless you believe the history of the world is dominated by angels, I suggest activities will emerge that are shocking.

My work suggests revising elements of the conventional history of the Waterloo campaign. Unlike the Grant/Custer theory, I did gather as much evidence as I could find. Most of what I suggest is not even original, yet has not found wide distribution. To be skeptical of my theories is fine, but to judge the work unseen and publicly comment on it is simply wrong.

I accuse Soult, but even that is not unique. Bernard Coppens considers the hypothesis realistic: 1789-1815.com/soult.htm

Many others have pondered it as well, but never with detailed substantiation.

My case is based on evidence from the available record – specific actions that I believe are best explained by intentional bad acts. We don't generally claim that John Wilkes Booth simply had bad aim – he shot Lincoln in a manner that clearly indicates intent. The case against Soult is not so clear, but… and we return to the Sibalis paper… is there some overwhelming evidence that I have ignored or missed?

The point of this post is that all serious works deserve to be judged on their content. There have been numerous individuals, here and elsewhere, who have attacked my work without addressing its content.

This is wrong.

I hope that is an opinion we can all agree with.

Armand,

The decisions I was speaking about were personnel choices.

Accepting Bourmont, for example. Huge mistake.

It gets harder above this. For example, Davout could have been Minister of War and Major General, especially for a campaign so close to France and Paris. Berthier had these roles until 1807 I believe.

Davout's point was – lose campaign, Paris doesn't matter.
Napoleon's point – intrigue everywhere, have to protect Paris. Had Napoleon's government been overthrown while he was on campaign, could the damage had been fatal, or quickly restored when he marched back at the head of the guard? I think we hit the too many variables point to really guess what was possible.

Tiebreaker goes to … Napoleon. As Davout said about Bourmont, in 1813 there was one flag, in 1815 there were two. Thus, Davout's own argument today convinces me he was needed in Paris. But wait, it could have been another hardliner!

Bottom line is that I don't think any of us can really understand the situation enough – the intrigue was so well known, yet we don't have an objective measure of it. On June 18th at Waterloo, when Bernard reported the Prussians on the flanks very early in the day, Napoleon kept it from those around him. Napoleon often kept plans close to the vest, but in 1815, it was far more secretive. When Lobau was ordered to the right, the reason was not percolated down the chain of command, and hence there was great surprise when the Prussians were seen. This was the chilling impact of the intrigue – the lack of trust, and secrecy. And this definitely could have had an impact on operations – and it may explain some of the mistakes – even some of Soult's actions.

This is an example of the impact of the treason/royalists in France and the army. Even without some great act of treason, it damaged the efforts. Napoleon expected that with the first campaign and victory, these elements would be slowly purged, and he was right … but he had to win for that to matter. I document some 10-20 officer defections during the Waterloo campaign in the book – not soldiers, officers, colonels, members of Staff. Some of these are further substantiated by Wellington's dispatches etc.

As far as taking Soult? I think that was a mistake. But… Napoleon seems to have had great admiration for Soult – his center at Austerlitz, the calming presence at Eylau… so maybe only hindsight makes the choice of Soult seem bad… though he was despised by the army and Napoleon knew that.

But if Napoleon didn't trust Soult, maybe he wanted Soult close? I have seen this theorized often…

Thanks Stephen!.

Imho Napoleon choose Soult because of Wellington… he knows Soult was the Marshal with more experience against the Duque… but this still not work.

I have read that Soult really give some advices to how to deal against Wellington Army (to manouvre) but Napoleon reject it… was this true?. Who knows? (smile).

I respect Davout as the best Marshal even when his performance in the defense of Paris was not the best (I have wrote a lot of threads about this in the past here)… but when people ask what if Napoleon died before…?…. well I think it would happened what we read about 1815 campaing… each Marshal run for their safety and only one remain in the line…

I also never understand why Grouchy after his good retreat resigned… (?)

Many thanks for your very interesting threads my friend.

I have enjoyed them all a lot!.

Amicalement
Armand

Armand

I don't think the book actually convinces you Soult was an out and out traitor, but it does make you think it possible. However, I was surprised by the number of accepted traitors who defected during the campaign. I was unaware of how many and I doubt the book lists them all. And with so many, and with whatever information they divulged to the Allies and was believed, it would certainly have dented Napoleon's brilliant plans to some degree. I'm about 3/4 of the way through the book now. A fascinating but frustrating read.

Napoleon chose Soult for Major General prior to facing Wellington being definitive… but Napoleon never really told us why, so all we can do is guess. Napoleon did believe Soult was a good organizer, and Soult _was_ a good organizer. Only 1815 has made Soult lazy/incompetent…

Famously, Napoleon dismissed Soult's comments about Wellington and the british soldier – it would be as easy as breakfast and Wellington was not a good general!

It is one of the most quoted lines from the campaign – I find it in tons of books, even not about 1815… anything to take a notch off arrogant Napoleon.

Yes, there are a lot of comments about Napoleon getting advice from staff, Soult, others… and Napoleon dismissing it etc…

But once you really start scrubbing it….

Take the easy as breakfast quote – track down its source… then google the quote in French, and see what parts of it are found elsewhere…

Bottom line is, utter rubbish. Napoleon never said the battle would be as easy as breakfast. One cannot believe that and its one disputable source, yet same time not believe Napoleon recalled Grouchy and its numerous sources. Another example of how the conventional history, in the case of 1815, IS THE CONSPIRACY THEORY.

It is a strong case where the "professional historian" and the "amassed evidence" is nothing more than nationalistic cheer leading and choosing what one wants to believe.

Can anyone get to Nantes?
link

There are materials that can, and I hope will, make a big impact on this campaign. This one could explain what orders were sent to Gérard in early June, I have not seen it.

And then what Soult possessed – we have good leads, and are working hard to track it down. Updates on this before the year is out.

A fascinating but frustrating read

Gaz – Why is it frustrating? Explain

Iceblock

Because it is like a jigsaw puzzle with some vital pieces missing. You can see the overall picture but the not the complete picture. And without seeing the missing documents/material mentioned by the author, the evidence against him is not 100% foolproof. However, the author does offer a very strong case for it and one that has not yet been challenged, which has surprised me.

Just a simple question:

Why was Soult in exile until 1819?

To cover his betrayal?… (smile)

Thanks Gazzola and Stephen for your comments.

As I have said… one of the most interesting threads from years ago I have see in this forum…

Amicalement
Armand

Soult was part of the second wave of proscriptions, yet had already fled the country. (Baudus wrote a detailed account of the flight that was in Soult's hands, and to my knowledge has never been seen by historians.)

Soult was on very friendly terms with many of the King's entourage, while after serving Napoleon some wanted him hung. Unlike Bourmont, there is no evidence Soult did anything against Napoleon on behalf of the king. However, Charles X, who was always very fond of Soult, did treat him very well – rose him to a Peer of France etc. etc.

In 1819, the King allowed Soult to return, and in 1820 he was restored to Marshal.

During 1815, many worked against Napoleon. Some did it out of fidelity to the King. Some did it for money. Some did it out of spite against Napoleon. Some did it for their hopes of increased power if Napoleon fell – soon after Napoleon returned, many did not think the Bourbons would ever be on the throne again.

Hence, the simple answer – proscribed, and then allowed to return. It really gives no insight into his actions while serving Napoleon.

There is certainly no evidence that Soult worked with Napoleon to coordinate his return from Elba, and much evidence against this theory.

Consider the following – what if Soult's goal was to put himself on the throne of France.

Let's test if that is even reasonable.
First, has any military personality ever taken the throne of France? (or of the French?) Hmm….
Second, is there any evidence that Soult ever wanted greater power, to rule a dominion, etc.? Hmm….
Third, is there anything in Soult's life that suggests he would have such political ambition? Hmm….
Fourth, with such goals, were there any rumors or suspicions that Soult would desire such an outcome? Hmmm….

Of course the answers are a resounding yes on all accounts.

With the rapid defeat of Napoleon, and with Wellington practically pushing Louis XVIII to Paris (who was also racing to beat Louis Philippe, who had gone to England), the Bourbons were quickly restored. This dashed the plans of many, and wiped away the provisional government Fouché had set up with himself as President – the government Soult had raced back to get involved in abandoning the army in the process.

Once the King had power, those who served Napoleon scattered. (with some help from the King who did not believe executing France's heroes would help his cause.)

Had Soult been working in the hopes of gaining greater power, he would have a hard time expressing this to the King. First, would it be believed? Or would he be punished? We know what happened, but in late June 1815, Soult didn't know. Second, Waterloo became a huge cultural changing event in France – Soult was wise to know that being associated with France's enemies would be devastating to a political career.

Hence Soult was silent about the campaign.

Incredibly silent. (His justification of his conduct gives no details on operations.)

Indeed, Soult never turned over to the archives his materials on the campaigns – and even took materials from the archives where they remained in his family's possession until after the year 2000.

So indeed, Soult certainly hid from the world key details about this campaign. To be fair, he was not alone. Lobau refused to work with Siborne. In fact, there was a general cult of silence from many of the French higher leadership. Yet – over time, materials were brought forth, a record restored, a history developed.

But without any contribution from Soult – except, late in life, to blame everything on Ney, consistent with his June 17th morning correspondence.

Bretchel198

Yes, on the one hand his exile could be seen as the Royalists saw him as an enemy, so he had to escape execution. But on the other hand, had he stayed and been rewarded straight away, if he had been a traitor, it may have caused civil unrest. Best thing would be to lie low and be rewarded later, which, considering his following career, could be seen as what happened.

However, in my opinion, although Stephen does offers a very plausible and fascinating thesis that Soult was a traitor to Napoleon, he does not prove it 100%. So, at the moment, I do not believe that he was an out and out traitor, but I also do not accept the incompetent theory either. I think he was more over confident than incompetent, if anything, and he certainly thought himself superior to Berthier as he was said to have boasted (page 223). And I get the impression that he not only felt he was better than Berthier that he may have even felt superior to Napoleon, which may have been his reasoning for changing or not sending orders etc, which he may have felt was a better plan than the Emperor's?

The fact Napoleon did not punish him or sack him when he found out, suggests Napoleon either felt or believed Soult was loyal or, more likely, was an opportunist who would side with whoever was on top at the time. Of course, should any missing material come to light and prove otherwise, I will quite happily alter my thinking.

I believe that Soult returned to France with the general amnesty to the Napoleonic veterans. 1819 seems to be the year many returned, not just Soult.

Gazzola – your reasoning for his motives may be correct.

However, had Soult changed Napoleon's orders because Soult felt his were better – then Soult betrayed Napoleon.

Insubordination in the face of the enemy and hostilities is treason, and in most countries it is a capital offense. Good intentions would certainly be part of the defense.

Lettow-Vorbeck also wonders if Soult was doing what he thought was right with the June 10th order. It does not explain the delays of the June 5th order to Gérard, but absent the text, it is difficult to surmise who is responsible.

Keeping Napoleon in the dark on the status of the left-wing may be gross incompetence. We do not know how closely Napoleon and Soult worked on this campaign – very little was written/left about the operations.

Had Soult come forward as a traitor to Napoleon, I believe he would have been killed by someone.

Soult was specifically pardoned in 1819, as were a handful of others, and recalled to present himself to the king and declare his loyalty. He arrived in Paris on June 10th, 1819.

Stephen, I really hope you are able to go to Nantes. You are prodding one of the more interesting issues I have seen for a while.

You are touching upon an interesting issue when it comes to the relationship between a commander and his chief of staff. As a general principle a chief of staff SHOULD adjust the orders from his commander IF the Chie of staff has more updated and complete information about the situation than he can see the commander has AND there is not time to inform the commander about this and/or consider the situation again before possibly adjusting the order.
For minor adjustments the COS does not need to talk to the commander as long as he is following his intent, but he has to inform him about adjustments as soon as the commander is available.
Therefore, in the case of Soult changing orders it would not be treason unless he conciously deviated from Napoleons intent with the aim to hinder a quick concentration and saving the strength of the troops with the best route possible. You show that the concentration was delayed by at least one day. That Napoleon does not criticize Soult for this indicates that there might have been a discussion among them along these lines, but the fact of the delayed concentration and the bungling with countermarching supports your argument and thesis. … Unless we think Soult was over confident AND incompetent.

Good luck with further research :)

Rittmester – I absolutely agree – Soult certainly had the ability and authorization to implement the details of orders which could cause deviation, and certainly any initiative exercised based on the present realities would be praised.

The issue is that none of these conditions currently exist in the record.

Napoleon praised Soult in exile in a general way, but was very clear he was a mistake as Major General.

Many did not speak up against Soult either – which may seem strange – but one must never forget – after 1830, these officers (d'Erlon, but even Gourguad and Bertrand) were restored to rank and title, made peers, d'Erlon made a Marshal, etc. etc.

None of that happens if they come out against Soult.

In the book I point out how in 1815, Soult orders d'Erlon shot, and later ignores him during the campaign and makes him a goat… yet in 1830, Soult gets d'Erlon restored and praises him to the hilt.

And in the book I point out the very curious statement d'Erlon gave about June 16th in his memoirs, one where I believe he was trying to tell us in the vaguest way possible without garnering undo attention…

"I ask the reader to carefully study the paragraph that follows, because it matters that the truth is finally known.
The Emperor, heavily engaged at Ligny, sent an aide-de-camp to Marshal Ney, for him to say to lead the first corps on Ligny, in order to turn the right wing of the Prussian army. This officer met the head of the column of the first corps, which arrived in Frasnes, and, before having transmitted the orders of the Emperor to Marshal
Ney, took this column in the direction of Ligny."

What is there to carefully study? Nothing!? The details of the order are disputed to this day, but d'Erlon offers nothing that wasn't basically known… ah ha… but there is something to study.

What was the head of I Corps doing at Frasnes at that late hour? AND – Why didn't Napoleon know?

d'Erlon was well aware that Napoleon SHOULD HAVE KNOWN.

And without saying it outright, d'Erlon has asked historians for 150 years to reveal a secret he must have maddeningly took to his grave… but do keep in mind, he did so clutching a Marshal's baton.

One thing is for sure. You have added so much in your responses in this forum….you have the material already for a second edition!

Agree!!… with some more deeply investigation of others… Like Grouchy and Davout!.

Amicalement
Armand

Stephen

I have recently finished reading your book and put a 5 star review on Amazon UK. I think you will like some of what I've written but probably not all of it. But I have tried to be honest in my review. I wish you the very best in your search for further information and material. If I can be of help in any way, don't hesitate to let me know.

Confess I struggled to find this review at first. I found three reviews but latest was 8th Sept….but I persisted and there it is;

link

Well put.

There is actually an expanded book still to write on the whole subject of those who openly opposed Napoleon's return, whether by joining Orson Welles in Ghent, or defecting at various stages, right up to the attack of the Old (Middle?) Guard up that ridge where they hardly encountered the Guards, but were instead slaughtered by the 52nd….but that is another book again…….

Gazzola, I read your review, and thought it was great. You have been engaging and forthright during these discussions, and I appreciate it greatly.

In fact, I would like to say that this thread has been incredibly useful, and will serve to improve the work. Indeed, the vocal skeptics, such as deadhead, have made very constructive criticisms – and almost all comments and questions were sincerely considered. Thank you all.

What I do not tolerate are those that dismissed and criticized the work before it was read (fact, check out Facebook page of Napoleon Historical Society and ask yourself if those comments are worthy of an adult), and even to this day instead of engaging me directly (despite my apparent limitations which they so often delineate), scurry off into dark corners of the internet where they can criticize without ever addressing the merit of the arguments or engage me directly. Luckily, their true stripes were easily exposed – as they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I do wish to point out that the request on the materials at Nantes was recent as the discovery of that source was found after publishing.

In fact, a catalog of Soult's materials from 1815 was likewise found after publishing, and will be the basis of the revision. As mentioned, the location of these materials is currently being sought. I can also tell you that what was found is potentially explosive – for example, potentially the original order book! If not the original order book, then possibly one Soult made for himself! Either way, I have shared this discovery with a who's who of Waterloo historians and all shake with anticipation. (There are apparently loose orders with a notation to be copied into the register!)

Another interesting find was a 60 some odd page account of Soult's escape into exile after Waterloo – written by Baudus. The potential for this is also great – and why did Soult have it?

Finally, Soult had materials that he had to have secured from the archives after 1830 – confirmation of what was long believed.

If these materials could be found, authenticated, and reviewed, they may offer explanations for Soult's conduct that completely exonerates him. If they do, and I find it, I will of course present it. One thing that I wish everyone to know is that I have no emotional investment in the idea of Soult being a traitor. I simply see that as the simplest explanation for the facts as we know them today.

However, one must still wonder why the records, the existence of which has been most likely confirmed, would not have been placed in the archives over 100 years ago for all to study and see. I shared the existence of these materials and their sourcing with Gazzola, and if he wouldn't mind, he can confirm their existence. The only reason I'm not sharing all the details yet is that my little international team of sleuths do not know the best way to get access to these materials – and we fear 100 people asking may not be the best way _yet_. However, once all avenues we know of are pursued, then we will go loud and proud in the hopes that a possessor would share them. They very well may not realize the importance of the materials – many are simply not aware that this campaign, despite its place in history, has so many outstanding questions.

Finally, one must also keep in mind that the work is not just about Soult. Extensive passages are given to highlight Bourmont and Clouet's role, as well as the presence of traitors throughout the government and army. This work is an attempt to directly refute the mid-19th century revisionism that traitors played no substantive role in the events of 1815. They most certainly did, including providing the intelligence that led to the Prussian concentration happening 12 hours earlier.