"A Bold and Ambitious Enterprise " Topic

Still getting it wrong I see. As already pointed out to you by Kevin, it was 1807, not 1803. You really should check your facts and posts before making them.

Did you not post the following?

…was a "debate" on whether the 1803 expedition Copenhagen…

Where did Gazzola state that Copenhagen occurred in 1803?

Ah Gazzola, yet more contradictions.

I say you brought up 1807 – you say I should read more carefully, but then confirm it.

And you tell Phil to check his posts for typos?

Carry on.

Ben Avery

Oh dear, you just don't learn, do you. Please point out where I said I did not bring up 1807?

I'll make it more simple for you. When grown ups debate something, statements are often made. These lead to other statements for or against that statement being made. Okay so far?

So, as in this case, someone mentioned that nations should have the right to make up their own minds as to who they ally themselves to or trade with. Still with us?

A good point made but proven not the case in reality. This was proven by my mentioning that the British did not allow Denmark to make up their own minds in 1807. See how it is connected? If not, ask someone.

Someone then disagreed with the event not being considered as a raid. Well guess what, this led to the grown ups discussing and debating what it should be viewed as. I do hope you are still with us?

What happens you see, is known as discussing, debating and arguing your corner or viewpoints, supported by various links and sources. Just a shame you were 'too busy' to take part, eh? LOL

Still getting it wrong I see. As already pointed out to you by Kevin, it was 1807, not 1803. You really should check your facts and posts before making them.

Did you not post the following?

…was a "debate" on whether the 1803 expedition Copenhagen…

Where did Gazzola state that Copenhagen occurred in 1803?

Ignore the above posting as I was in error about who wrote what about which action.

My apologies, especially to Gazzola.

Brechtel198

No problem. It happens to all of us. But it is a shame that a 'certain' Union Jack blinker wearing Brit-lover can't admit it when he had been shown up as telling a porky pie. LOL

I didn't say you had denied bringing it up Gazzola – I just made an observation which was correct and you decided to start adding lots of excuses to justify it, for what reason, I have no idea. That's it. Although, of course, it's now three threads you've brought it up in. How boring indeed.

You know I didn't post in the original threads (as I said), but like you say, it does seem to keep coming up. Mainly from you it seems, although Tango seems to have had a good go too.

@dibble

I found this in my "archives" – maybe of some interest to you

"Posted By: John Cook <mailto:cook578@btinternet.com?subject=Re: British flags in the Peninsular War?>
Date: 3/9/02 11:02
In Response To: British flags in the Peninsular War? (Prince Imperial)
As far as Colborne's Brigade at Albuera are concerned these are the facts.
In a letter written by Captain Gordon of 1/3rd Foot immediately after the battle he described how they were suddenly attacked by enemy cavalry in their right and rear, a mixed force of Vistula Lancers and hussars which was initially mistaken for Spanish horse and had not been seen because of dead ground and smoke. Accounts also talk
about a rain and/or hail squall at the same time.
The King's colour 1/3rd was carried by Ensign Charles Walsh. The staff had been cut in two by a cannon shot and Walsh was wounded. His attempts to save the colour were seen by Lieutenant Mathew Latham who seized it from him.
Latham was attacked by a number of lancers and what was left of the staff was seized by a French hussar who delivered a sabre stroke which cut off the nose and one side of Latham's face. Latham continued to fight off the French cavalry with his sword but a further blow severed his left arm.
Latham was thrown to the ground with the colour at which point the 4th Dragoons arrived and scattered the French cavalry. Latham was discovered, some time later, still
alive, with the colour which he had removed from the smashed staff and successfully concealed beneath his body.
Captain Stevens of the 1/3rd Foot recounts how Ensign Edward Thomas refused to surrender the Regimental colour when called upon to do so, at which point he was killed and the colour carried away (by Captain Vincent Konopka of the Vistula Lancers).
However, Major Mervin Nooth of 1/7th Foot described in a letter written immediately after the battle how his battalion had recaptured some abandoned British guns which
had fallen into the hands of the French and Sergeant Gough of 1/7th had discovered the Regimental colour of 1/3rd Foot with these trophies.
Captain Gordon of 1/3rd confirmed that the colours which were "were taken and retaken three times, are now in our possession fixed on two halberds.".
Soult in his despatch, apparently, claimed the capture of a colour of the 3rd Foot, but this was wrong at least insofar as the French did not retain it. The regimental inspection returns to the Inspector of Colours in 1813 show both Albuera colours still in the hands of 1/3rd Foot, described as "so worn and disfigured that I cannot report on them.".
These remained in use, nevertheless, until the end of the war in 1814, when a new set was presented.So, 1/3rd Foot did not loose their colours at Albuera.
2/31st Foot appears to have been in reserve, insofar as it was away to the left, had not deployed for the fire fight and was still in column. It was able, as a result, to form
square quickly and there has never been any suggestion that 2/31st lost colours.
Furthermore, the survivors of 1/3rd were combined with 2/31st, 1/57th and 2/66th to form 1st Provisional battalion commanded by Colonel Leith of 2/31st. It is documented that this battalion carried the colours of 2/31st Foot. 1st Provisional battalion was at Estremoz until August 1811 by which time returning prisoners from 1/3rd and 1/57th, together with drafts from 2/3rd in England, meant that 1/3rd and 1/57th could be reformed under their own identities.
The King's Colour 2/48th was taken by Marechal de Logi Dion d'Aumont of 10th Hussars. The Regimental Colour of 2/48th is also claimed by the French but I have no further details.
Letters written by Lt Dobbins and Lt George Crompton of 2/66th confirm the loss of both colours from that battalion. Dobbins wrote "I am sorry to say that the French got our colours, but not until we had two officers killed, two wounded and nine sergeants killed and wounded defending them.". Crompton confirms that the King's and
Regimental colours were lost.
Inspection returns of 2/66th in 1813 show only "Only half the battalion at Roncesvalles, forming the left wing of the provisional battalion; no colours retained. It had sent its colours (quite new) to Lisbon in 1812.". These colours were replacements for those lost at Albuera but as 1st Provisional battalion was still carrying those of 2/31st, 2/66th had no need of them.
To summarise:
1/3rd retained their King's colour and recovered their Regimental colour.
2/31st did not loose any colours.
2/48th definitely lost their King's colour and probably lost their Regimental colour.
2/66th definitely lost both their King's and Regimental colours.
So, the total lost was at least three and probably four.
Other French claims of capturing British colours, that I know of, are as follows:
Four colours taken at Talavera one of which was by marechal de logis Legout-Duplessis of 5e dragons. The colours are not identified by French records and I have yet to find any British documentation to substantiate the claim.
One colour taken at Almeida by the troops of general Loison on 24 July 1810. The regiment from which the colour was taken is not identified and I have yet to find British evidence.
Six colours taken at Albuera. It is established beyond doubt that this is not correct and that only a maximum of four were taken.
One colour taken at Salamanca by sous-lieutenant Gullinat of 118e of line. Marmont says in his report that the colour was brought to him after he had been wounded and placed on his stretcher. The colour, again, is not identified and no British evidence has turned up yet. Napoleon said of Marmont's report that it "contained not a word of truth as to the real state of things.", but then he was probably a bit pissed-off with him.
General Delaborde reported subsequent to Rolica that a colour belonging to 69th Foot was taken but couldn't be found after the retreat. This would make 69th Foot a singularly unlucky regiment but it wasn't, as far as I can see, present at Rolica.
This totals thirteen allegedly taken in the Peninsula of which it is possible to identify four. Neither Jean Regnault nor Pierre Charrié are able to identify the others so they remain a mystery.
The authorities of the Musée de l'Armée say that amongst the trophies from Albuera were the King's and Regimental of 1/3rd. The King's was aupposedly destroyed by the mob in 1830 and the Regimental burned during Sebastiani's funeral in 1851. This is impossible unless these artifacts were pieces of the colours. Both were fought over and badly damaged in the process and it is not impossible that the French retained pieces. The main parts of what were left of the colours were definitely retained by the regiment. The King's colour of 2/66th was also destroyed in 1830 and the Regimental did not find its way to the collection until 1865. All that remains of two colours of 2/48th is the central design from one of them.
Re: British flags in the Peninsular War?
Posted By: John Cook <mailto:cook578@btinternet.com?subject=Re: British flags in the Peninsular War?>
Date: 3/9/02 14:37
In Response To: Re: British flags in the Peninsular War? (Eclaireur)
EC,
The colours of 1/57th carried at Albuera were presented in 1803. The staff of the King's was shot through 17 times at the battle, that of the Regimental 21 times! The colours themselves were similarly riddled but they remained in use throughout the war and were still being carried in the battles of the Pyrenees. A new set was sent out to replace them in 1813.
The 'Albuera' colours were retained by Colonel Inglis who commanded the battalion throughout the Peninsular campaign. They were exhibited by his grandson Captain Inglis in 1891. I don't know where they are now.
The French claimed four colours from Bergen op Zoom, which are identified in Samuel Milne's study as those of 1/4th Foot and 2/69th Foot, what became of them in French hands is unclear. They were recovered from a canal by the French, where they had been thrown under the mistaken impression that it was the Zoom. I don't know what became of them in French hands.
The one taken at Quatre Bras is the well known King's Colour of 2/69th Foot. I am not sure if this was a replacement set for those lost at Bergen op Zoom and I have seen it suggested that they were carrying the stand belonging to the 1st battalion. It was claimed jointly by cuirassier Henry and marechal de logis Massiet of 8e Cuirassiers.
Colours confirmed taken at Waterloo by the French comprise one from 8bn KGL, one from 5bn KGL and another from the Hanoverian Luneberg Landwehr battalion.
Regnault, however, says four colours were taken at Waterloo, by fourier Palau of 9e Cuirassiers, marechal de logis Gauthier of 10e Cuirassiers, an unidentified cuirassier of 10e Cuirassiers and an unidentified chasseur of the Chasseurs à cheval de la Garde respectively.
According to Houssaye they were deposited in Caillou farm and later abandoned. One of them was later allegedly found on 26 June in Soissons by de Lafontaine, ADC to Grouchy, and given to Grouchy but it subsequently disappeared without trace. I have yet to find any British evidence to substantiate these claims and I wonder if Regnault was not repeating Houssaye.
Charrié also cites the colour of 8bn KGL and the Luneberg Landwehr battalion and two 'English' colours taken by Palau and Gauthier, "one other" colour taken by the Chasseurs à cheval de la garde and a "Hanoverian" colour taken by capitaine Klein of the same regiment.
He makes no mention of the colour taken by a cuirassier of 10e Cuirrasiers that Regnault does. So, other than the KGL and Luneberg colours it is all a bit nebulous to say the least – Charrié calls it confusing and contradictory.
John

Ben Avery

Wow, you really can't move on, can you? But honestly, your posts are becoming more and more embarrassing. I'd quit before people stop reading them, if they haven't already done so.

And here we go again. Having to explain things to you. Things you should really already know. But never mind. Apart from the Russia 1812 thread, which also turned into a long and heated debate on Copenhagen, due to the reasons I gave you, the other threads were about – wait for it – Copenhagen! I think that might have had something to do with people discussing – Copenhagen. If only you had joined in, eh? But you were obviously 'too busy' for those threads – not the long Peninsular Sieges thread, of course, as we know, just the Copenhagen threads. LOL.

And for your information, it wasn't boring at the time. The topic only became boring when you, who did not post in the other threads at the time, aka your porky pie reason for not doing so, suddenly decided you wanted to debate it when the other debates were over and everyone had stopped posting and expected everyone to go over the same aspects and viewpoints again. Sorry, but life is not like that, although I think I was decent and polite enough to go over so much with you for so long. No need to thank me for that by the way.

Anyway Ben, as I have said before, this topic will pop up again. Just try not to miss it next time and er, try not to be 'too busy', eh. LOL

the quotes from John Cook – are by they from the napoleon series org forum, quite a long time ago, there brech is a regular there – he seemingly ignored that discussion about captured colours or it excaped his attention.

Thanks for that Von Winterfeldt,

I have used John Cook's info before and I once added to it on the A.C.G site with this account about the 8th Line Battalion at Waterloo.

"Now, If we read this extract from Belle-Alliance Pflugk-Harttung letter no.38 Report of the 8th Line Battalion of the Kings German Legion: (Gareth Glover's Waterloo Archive volume II, page 91, No 27)"

"The enemy infantry retired and his cuirassiers drove in on the battalion in a violent charge. Unfortunately the regiment lost its Royal Colours because the bearer, Ensign Moreau, was badly wounded, and so was Sergeant Stuart, who picked them up afterwards, both left lying on the battlefield."

Here's the post:

link

There is a good run down of British captured Colours in: The British Army Against Napoleon. by Robert Burnham ( American) and Ron McGuigan (Canadian), page 233 Table 6.44 'British colours lost in combat': which gives a rundown on all British and K.G.L colours lost between 1804-1815 'With the exception of the battalion colour of the 8th Line at Waterloo that I outlined in the A.C.G post above.

Paul :)

In the link above I mention the 73rd temporarily losing their colour at Quatre Bras, which is a typo. I meant 33rd.

Paul :)

A shame we are not discussing the book mentioned in the first post: A Bold and Ambitious Enterprise by Andrew Bamford. My copy has not yet arrived so I will not be able to start off or join in any debates on it for a while, should it contain something worth discussing further. Also, I am not sure if people are aware of it, but the same author is also bringing out an eyewitness title: Triumphs and Disasters 1813-1814, in a few days which covers the same campaign. Along with the title Walcheren 1809, it is really refreshing to see books covering these campaigns becoming available. I'm hoping they will make for some very interesting reading, and who knows, they may even lead to some very interesting debates in the not too distant future. I think we have been quite spoilt, book wise, lucky us. Or not so lucky, if like me, the books yet to read pile is getting higher rather than lower. LOL

thanks dibble, another information which is worthwile to paste and copy

I finally found what I was looking for re Massena and his claim for 22 British colours captured in the peninsula, who, as we have seen in this thread, is full of denial!

This was the what entailed on the 7th of December 2013 on the A.C.G

Dibble201Bty
"Answer my question over on the Napoleonic forum on the dates and places for the 22 colours that were captured by the French in the peninsula." I asked you kindly, but as usual you ignore because you are ignorant of the facts and you have no information to back up your silly claims…."

Brechtel-Massena-Kiley

If you don't care for the captured colors comment, then prove it wrong instead of posting a demand which will not be answered. I don't react well to demands from anyone, especially a person who has turned out to be nothing but a puissant.

link

And for those who are interested. My reply:

link

Paul :)

Anyone expecting the ex-Marine and self appointed Napoleonic expert Mr Kevin Kiley to respond with data and hard facts is living in a fantasy world. He is excellent at making sweeping statements based on pro-French sources and then running away when challenged while throwing a variety of insults at his challengers.

The quote given earlier in French states that the claim of 10 colours taken at Prietos should be disregarded as an obvious error.

Interesting that Cook's information claiming that only four British colours were taken at Albuera is taken as gospel. That might not be exactly correct.

Guy Dempsey, in his title Albuera 1811, published 2008, commits a four page well researched chapter on this very subject and, although he states that British sources only admit the loss of four colours, he also states 'The definitive answer is that the British force lost five colours in all – the king's colour and regimental colour of both the 2nd Battalion of the 48th Foot and 2nd Battalion of the 66th Foot and the regimental colour of the 3rd Foot (Buffs).' (page 296)

He goes on to describe how British sources mention that the two colours of the Buffs were retaken or later found, so not lost, but the reality depends on how much of the actual material of the colour remaining do you still consider as the colour?

Dempsey also records an extract from the diary of E.C. Close, an officer in the 2nd/48th regiment, who states 'There was much effort made to prove that the Buffs had not lost their colours; but they were seen, along with the others, in the hands of the enemy after the battle. A piece of one of the Buffs [sic] colours was preserved in an officer's pocket, it was said, and again, that Colonel Stuart [sic] had ordered a sergeant to put by a scrap in his pack. One of the Buff's standards was afterwards retaken by the Fusiliers, and returned to the regiment.' (page 298. Albuera 1811)

As further support for more than four colours captured, the authors goes on to describe how Napoleon had decided to include the captured Albuera colours in a presentation to Marie-Louise in a public ceremony and then transported to the Hotel des Invalides.

'I also want you to deliver [to Les Inavlides] a hundred or so flags which have been captured in Spain, of which six are English. Don't make a fuss about them except for the six English flags captured at the battle of Albufera [sic] which must be deposited with great pomp…' (page 298)

Aberrant

Why did you feel compelled to describe a member is an ex-Marine? What difference would that make? Perhaps you have something against Marines or even the military?

And then you also you feel compelled to describe Kevin as a self appointed Napoleonic expert. Really, can you please point out where he said that?

Yes, he has a vast knowledge of the period, has taken part in numerous heated debates on this website and others, and has had Napoleonic titles published. Yes, I suppose, to some, that could consider him as an expert. But he would never claim that himself. But thankfully for us all, he is willing to share his knowledge and take part in numerous debates, often full of insulting minnows like yourself. And we are lucky that he has not run away from this website as other knowledgeable Napoleonic enthusiasts have done when the going got tough.

Personally, I think you need to control those little voices inside your head. It is not healthy.

Gazzola,

You seem to be the most frequent insulter of the Napoleonic boards; you even manage to attempt an insult or two when telling me off for "insulting" your friend.

Your lack of self awareness is startling. Either that or you obtain some sort of weird gratification from insulting people.

If Mr Kiley was to try to back up his claims with facts rather than (sometimes inaccurate) references to pro-French secondary (at best) sources, most people would take him rather more seriously.

Returning to the subject of British standards taken at Albuera, I would find it hard to put any faith in a message from Napoleon regarding the number captured.

The issue of the number of colours taken at Albuera will probably never be resolved; there is some evidence that five colours were displayed in 1827, with the missing one being that of the 1/3rd Foot. Supposedly, this was too fragmentary to be put on display so it is possible that the 1/7th Foot recovered the majority of it towards the end of the battle and the French were left with a few fragments.

Anyone expecting the ex-Marine and self appointed Napoleonic expert Mr Kevin Kiley to respond with data and hard facts is living in a fantasy world. He is excellent at making sweeping statements based on pro-French sources and then running away when challenged while throwing a variety of insults at his challengers.

The quote given earlier in French states that the claim of 10 colours taken at Prietos should be disregarded as an obvious error.

First, there is no such thing as an 'ex-Marine.' There are Marines, former Marines, and retired Marines. Presently, I'm a retired Marine.

And if you wish to engage in nothing more than ad hominem attacks what is your point? In short, don't judge others by your own low standards. I've never claimed to be a 'Napoleonic expert' and your comments are more fit for the school yard than a history forum.

And I do stop replying to postings when it gets old, unproductive, and nonsensical, the latter applying to your posting.

Finally, as to the '10 colors' captured I never posted that or believed that. The number of 22 British colors captured in the Peninsula is from Napoleon's War in Spain by Lachouque, Trainie, and Carmagiani, 125: 'It is interesting in this context to recall that in seven years of campaigning in the Spanish war, the French army had captured 387 trophies, among which were 320 Spanish colors, 45 Portuguese colors and 22 British colors. The French army had lost only 11 eagles, 8 of which had fallen to the British.

If you need a definition of what an ad hominem attack is, I would be more than happy to provide one for you. It should be noted if you don't already know, that the ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy.

Thanks very much, Gazzola, I appreciate it.

And as 'Aberrant' is anonymous, I do think that says it all from the 'minnow.' ;-)

Well, Mr Kiley,

As you are no longer a Marine, having retired from that service, you are, by definition, an ex-Marine, regardless of any USMC bull about terminology.

It is somewhat disappointing to see that your style has not changed in the years since I last encountered you on another forum of which I believe you are no longer a member.

You still cry "ad hominem attack" every time that someone accuses you of partiality, poor scholarship, failing to admit when you have been proven wrong, and refusing to answer questions when you are challenged to back up your claims. It is not an ad hominem attack to point out those failings as they go to the core of of your unreliability as a source of information on the Napoleonic period. Of course, the irony is that you are not above launching ad hominem attacks yourself; indeed, like Gazzola, you seem partial to them. Is he your sock puppet?

Do you really regard Napoleon's War in Spain by Lachouque, Trainie, and Carmagiani as a reliable and accurate source? If so, that would put you in a very small minority.

I am fully aware that it was not you who made the comment about the 10 colours taken at Prietos; is your ego so large that you think that everything is about you?

If you believe, along with Lachouque, Trainie, and Carmagiani, that 22 British colours were taken in Spain (note that they state "The Spanish war", thus excluding actions in Portugal), perhaps you could list them. If you cannot, or will not, I suspect that most observers will draw their own conclusions.

As you are no longer a Marine, having retired from that service, you are, by definition, an ex-Marine, regardless of any USMC bull about terminology.

You are only displaying your own ignorance on a large scale and you certainly don't understand the Marine Corps or Marines.

Your venom is noted along with your hypocrisy.

I believe that you and I are done and as you opened this particular ball, perhaps you will have the graciousness to close it as it is to no purpose.

Of course, to do that you would have to be a gentleman. And you have to be a man before you are a gentleman, so I suppose that makes it 0 for 2 for you.

Kevin.

So you still insist that the British lost 22 colours in the Peninsula. No they didn't.

You make these claims because you read it(I say you originally read it on another site)in the book 'Napoleon's War in Spain'. Why don't you post the names of the regiments that lost said colours. You can either start from January 1809 and work your way forward. You will probably have trouble with the N.C.O 'de la 5e Dragons', who claimed to have captured 4 at Talavera

And just to reiterate. The number of 22 British colours that you keep on quoting as being captured include the 10 that were supposed to have been captured at Cacabelos.

If you are saying that that figure of 22 doesn't include those 10, then perhaps you could tell us what your information says, and the breakdown of where those colours were captured. And to make things simple, you don't have to include the names of the regiments involved.

Paul :)

@Abarrant

Be carefull not to be drawn in the mud.

brech is very successfull drawing people into counter productive discussions – and then they retreat or get banned, the list is endless, all experts about the Russian army left this board in deep disgust – un ami, Seroga, Chuvak, Alexandre.

I am usually surprised how brech is allowed to attack and insult on this board, needless to say Gazzol as well – while others get muzzled for the slightest cough.

As to brech being pro French, this isn't true either, he is pro Boney, he strongly dislikes a lot of esteemed French generals like Dupont, Marmont, Bernadotte, Moreau and others.

As to brech being pro French, this isn't true either, he is pro Boney, he strongly dislikes a lot of esteemed French generals like Dupont, Marmont, Bernadotte, Moreau and others.

Dupont sold out his own troops and demonstrated an outstanding level of moral and physical cowardice in his first independent command.

Marmont turned traitor and turned over his own troops to the allies.

Bernadotte turned on his own people and his former troops and fought against France.

Moreau conspired against the government and was exiled for treason and then turned against his former comrades to help the allies.

Excellent choices for men to admire and promote-well done. Those four certainly didn't end up being 'esteemed' especially by their countrymen.

And, yes, I am pro-French for the period and greatly admire the Grande Armee, so once again you are incorrect.

Aberrant

Firstly, I would take care when reading von Winterfeldt's silly posts, especially since he tends not to post direct to those he likes complaining about. And he knows full well that knowledgeable people left because they could not take being challenged, their arguments proven wrong or simply could just not cope or accept that people may have a different viewpoint.

As to insults, people give as much as they get on this site, and if a count was ever made I think myself and Kevin would be at the top of the list for those being insulted. But unlike others, we can take it and don't go crying to the editor about it every time it happens. And, to be honest, the most feeble insults, like yours, I tend to just laugh at. That is about all they deserve.

Napoleon was not trying to impress anyone with his letter, so he had no need to lie about the six colours. But he did want to impress by displaying the six captured British colours in public.

Anyway, Guy Dempsey offers a very good argument for at least 5 British colours being captured at Albuera, and that section, along with the rest of the book, is well worth a read.

dibble

The book Napoleon's War in Spain does indeed mention 22 captured British colours on page 125. However, it may well have been a typo error and perhaps it should have read as 12? That's just a suggestion, not a fact, by the way. But it is odd that VW claimed he could not find it in the French version? I'm assuming that he can read French?

The information is offered below some Peninsular War images, along with one that depicts the British displaying the captured French eagles in public. Unfortunately, the text below the images does not give any details on which regiments the alleged 22 captured British colours may have belonged to, or, in fact, who actually wrote the text. As you know, there were three authors for the book, namely Commandant Henry Lachouque, Jean Tranie and Jean Carlos Carmigniani. I believe the first two are now deceased but I am not sure about Carmigniani.

But perhaps, rather than making demands on Kevin, and since you seem so keen to find out, that perhaps you could write to the remaining author and see if there is any information concerning sources that might support such a number, should it not be a typo error. Worth a try, don't you think? I mean, you have gone on about it for quite a bit, haven't you?

As to putting down the book, it is interesting to read what the late David Chandler said about it in the foreword.

'It is a particularly welcome event for historians to find an important French work devoted to the history of the Peninsular War, 1807-1814. (page 9)

'Thirdly, the authors pay tribute to Wellington's great tactical skills on the battlefield, and the implacable nature of British hostility and determination as important factors in their defeat.' (page 9)

'It is hoped that these few paragraphs will serve to supplement this brilliant evocation of the Peninsular War, as seen by French soldiers and scholars, which the pages of this beautiful book represent. Understandably, the authors have played down certain aspects of the struggle and given stronger emphasis to others, but purely objective history makes for dull reading, and that is a charge that will certainly never be launched at this well-translated volume.' (page 10)

As you can see, Chandler not only rates it quite highly, it is a title that cannot be classed as anti-British.

So Kevin has been posting incorrect information then for some years and as recent as a day or so ago! If it was a 'typo' how come that you see it as such and Kevin not? How come Kevin hasn't admitted the mistake if it was a 'typo'

It's not hard to do, especially as you have found it easily to dismiss as such (even though you do use a caveat).

If I read in a history book that the French lost 22 eagles in the Peninsula to the British, do you think that I would take what I had read as verbatim?

Surely as an historian, Kevin would have checked the facts before making such a statement.

But I suppose I should realise that Kevin does no such thing, he just posts information that is untrue, unfounded, out of ignorance and not caring. Not good traits of a histiorian and teacher methinks.

Paul :)

Apparently, attempting to ignore you and your postings doesn't work.

You have continually made ad hominem comments, posted misrepresentations and inaccuracies about me personally, and generally made defamatory comments that are not warranted by any stretch of the imagination.

Now I'm asking you to stop.

I have no problem discussing any historical topic which should be en exchange of ideas. Personal comments are not conducive to civil discussion and debate.

So, please stop the inaccurate and false accusations. All you are doing is showing yourself to be an offensive being acting outside the Pale.

In short, grow up. I have entertained more mature behavior in historical discussions with my former students who were between 12 and 14 years old.

Failing that, I would suggest that you get a life. All you are doing here is demonstrating ignorant and abhorrent behavior which is, in simple terms, just plain stupid.

An instance of a former USMCR officer leading by example:

I have no problem discussing any historical topic which should be en [sic] exchange of ideas. PERSONAL COMMENTS ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO CIVIL DISCUSSION AND DEBATE.[My caps]
So, please stop the inaccurate and false accusations. All you are doing is showing yourself to be an offensive being acting outside the Pale.

In short, grow up. I have entertained more mature behavior in historical discussions with my former students who were between 12 and 14 years old.

Failing that, I would suggest that you get a life. All you are doing here is demonstrating ignorant and abhorrent behavior which is, in simple terms, just plain stupid.

Terms like "practice" and "preach" come to mind, Kevin, particularly when it comes to typos!.

Cheers,
Phil

Ignoring you hasn't worked either. If you have nothing good to say, why do you bother to post?

Or, is attacking others posters the reason that you post at all?

Hark at you!

You wont put up evidence which means you have none. If you did you would show me out to be wrong thus a fool in the eyes of the rest on this and the other forum that I frequent along with you.

That you call me a child is OK by me, but for you to prevaricate and squirm seems to be akin to a schoolboy who has been found out by his teacher.

I have shown that you do believe that the British lost 22 colours in the peninsula, ‘you keep post the nonsense, a number that the source where you got it from' included 10 colours captured at Cacabelos.

Do you ever check your sources before making your claims? By your track record it seems you most certainly do not! Indeed, Perhaps people should look at and question the sources that you have used in your published works and the information that you put up on these sites. Some of your posts may be accurate and informative, some are spin and misinformation and some are based on long outdated information penned by long dead historians or latter day historians who use the same data and spin techniques as you!

It amazes me why David Hollins was banned on this and other sites when his main target was people peddling spin, myth and misinformation (not withstanding his Hoffi friendship). At least if he is reading this ‘in one form or another' can smugly say to himself, TOLD YOU SO!

Paul :) (Aged ten and three quarters)

yes a pity to see that a lot of excellent contributors were banned – as you say for example Dave Hollins, or Steve Smith, indeed targeted with peddling spin, myth and misinformation.

Also I would like to see my Russian heros – un ami, Chuvak and Seroga back.

By the way! I can tell you all now that the source claim of 22 colours being lost By the British did not come from Jean Regnault's Les Aigles Imperiale 1804-1815. I have copy number 308 of 350, have had parts translated, and I have gone through it on numerous occasions and can not find anything saying "22 ou vingt-deux couleurs capturées à Prietos" or anything like it.

That Regnault and his book is quoted in Napoleon's War in Spain, on page 125 is only in the context of the illustration that was used. The claim itself was made by the authors (Lachouque-Tranie-Carmigniani) in the text to the caption which was 'La Triste Parade du 18 mai 1811' which translated means 'The Sad Parade of May 18th, 1811'. the said illustration can be found on the facing page of page 243 of Regnault's book.

So The reason I know that Kevin is quoting John Cook's post in the Napoleon series is because if Kevin had actually read the caption in 'Napoleon's War in Spain', He would not have quoted that the information had come from Regnault.

The number 22 for captured British colors in the Peninsula is taken from Napoleon's War in Spain: The French Peninsular Campaigns, 1807-1814 by Jean Tranie and JC Carmigniani, page 125, citing the book Les aigles imperials et le drapeau tricolor by General Jean Regnault.

And even that great pro-Nappy historian and friend of Kevin's, John Elting used Regnault as his source, calling it "The definitive work on the subject" and you can be sure that if Elting had read such claims of 22 colours captured in the Peninsula, he would have made a point of highlighting it. Especially as Mr Elting made a point of qouting William Morris and the B.S about the 69th trying to 'cover up' the loss of the Kings Colour at Quatre Bras.

Paul :)

dibble

I'm afraid you have just proven yourselves a hypocrite. You accuse Kevin of offering incorrect information based on dated sources, although also admitting that some of his work is accurate. I suggest firstly, that most of his information is accurate but disliked by people like yourself and Phil, because it disagrees with your viewpoints, especially concerning anything to do with the British

But the main reason I consider you and Phil, as hypocrites, is because you have used old INCORRECT information in this argument over colours here, in the same way as you did on the Armchair General website, when, on the 24th November 2013, the question of 22 captured British colours was raised. As you did there and here, you highlighted Cook's information stating that the British lost 3 colours and 1 staff at Albuera. As I pointed out in my post here (28th Feb), Guy Dempsey in his brilliant book on the Battle of Albuera (2008) offers recent and well researched evidence that 4 colours, if not 5, were lost, proving the information you employed to support your argument was incorrect.

But everyone makes mistakes. You have quoted Cook, who was incorrect, and Kevin has quoted from the War in the Spain book, which may (or may not) be incorrect. But to accuse someone of something you clearly do yourself, is comical.

And I suggest you read my post again concerning the War in Spain book. I did not say I saw it as a typo error, I suggested that it may well have been one. And if so, the mistake would have been by whoever included it in the text, not Kevin or anyone else who reads the book. And as we can see via the Cook versus Dempsey info offered, the question on how many British colours were actually captured throughout the Peninsular War is still under debate.

As for knowledgeable people leaving the website, they have been coming and going all the time. Many leave because they just can't take their viewpoints being challenged. But some of them, like Kevin, and despite the constant insults, especially from you and Phil, have remained and are willing to share their knowledge. I would not blame Kevin if he did not offer any further posts to you or Phil but I do hope he continues to post to those of us who welcome his input, whether anyone agrees with his viewpoints or not.

Brechtel198

It is completely understandable if you decide to no longer post to dibble or Phil on Napoleonic matters. They are both hypocrites who do not practise what they preach, that is quite clear.

The same goes for VW, who appears to like stirring things up without actually posting directly to those he likes to talk about in his posts and appears blind to any insults thrown at you or me. You just have to laugh at his posts and especially when he referred to me as Gazzol! LOL

Anyway, my copy of A Bold and Ambitious Enterprise by Andrew Bamford has recently arrived. It looks to be a good read but like Robinson's equally good read on the Battle of Quatre Bras, judging by the source list, at least 95% British, it looks extremely one sided and the reader may not know who or how many opponents the British faced. If so, I do hope someone brings out a title with the French perspective to even things out. Bamford has also brought out an eyewitness book Triumphs and Defeats 1813-1814, but that too looks to contain mainly if not all British accounts.

Gazzola

24th November 2013, the question of 22 captured British colours was raised. As you did there and here, you highlighted Cook's information stating that the British lost 3 colours and 1 staff at Albuera. As I pointed out in my post here (28th Feb), Guy Dempsey in his brilliant book on the Battle of Albuera (2008) offers recent and well researched evidence that 4 colours, if not 5, were lost, proving the information you employed to support your argument was incorrect.

But everyone makes mistakes. You have quoted Cook, who was incorrect, and Kevin has quoted from the War in the Spain book, which may (or may not) be incorrect. But to accuse someone of something you clearly do yourself, is comical.

I have posted where I got my sources from and I have (amongst many others) read Dempsey's excellent tome. but to equate losing the cords and staff of colours is not the colours. Part of yes, the whole, definately not. It would be the same as if an Eagle lost its ribbons and flag.

So four colours captured yes. The list I posted was from The British Army Against Napoleon. They are listed on page 233 table 6.44 and was a for instance and not an exhaustive run down. And Mister, at least I put up information and may be historically contentious, but at least it isn't a hearsay quote lifted of a website.

The 53rd lost part of the Kings Colour at Salamanca, the staff, and a piece of cloth. So again, the colours were not lost.

Paul :)

Gazzola

Anyway, my copy of A Bold and Ambitious Enterprise by Andrew Bamford has recently arrived. It looks to be a good read but like Robinson's equally good read on the Battle of Quatre Bras, judging by the source list, at least 95% British, it looks extremely one sided and the reader may not know who or how many opponents the British faced. If so, I do hope someone brings out a title with the French perspective to even things out. Bamford has also brought out an eyewitness book Triumphs and Defeats 1813-1814, but that too looks to contain mainly if not all British accounts.

It's obvious that there is a dearth of French sources so the accounts will probably be mainly from the allied perspective. Perhaps he should make up the French side of the story like a certain other 'historian' does.

Paul :)

dibble

Mister? LOL

I have not researched other British colours lost, just those at Albuera, so cant make any comments on that score.

But the British definitely lost four colours at Albuera, and it appears at least two colour staffs. Had the staffs not been captured there would have been no need for mention of what was left of the colours having to be 'fixed on two halberts.' (Dempsey page 297)

But, as you know, since you say you have read the book, Dempsey goes on to say: 'It is consequently reasonable to assume that the staffs themselves fell into French hands, perhaps with shreds, or even larger pieces, of the colours still attached, and they would certainly have been considered as trophies by their captors. Lieutenant Close was one British officer who believed that the Buffs did in fact engage in a form of cover-up with respect to the status of their colours playing off the amount of cloth retained.' (page 298)

This raises the question of when and how much material should be considered as the colour? The French, as Dempsey suggests, may have had a fairly large amount of material still attached (or may not), while what the British had may have been much smaller. Also, the question of how much the French may have captured can be seen to be related to the information offered by VW in his post here 25th Feb: 'The regimental inspection returns to the Inspector of Colours in 1813 show that both Albuera colours still in the hands of the 1/3rd Foot, described as so worn and disfigured that I cannot report on them.'

'So worn and disfigured', or did they really mean 'so small and insignificant'. And a new set of colours had to be given to the regiment at the end of the war, further indicating that there may not have been that much left after the battle. This then, implies that that we cannot say for sure that the Buffs did not lose any colours at Albuera or that the British only lost four overall. But, before you blow a fuse, at the same time, it also means we cannot say for sure that they did lose more than four. The fun and games of research, eh?

In terms of the book, A Bold and Ambitious Enterprise by Andrew Bamford, at first glance it does looks to be a good read, but, as already mentioned, it also looks to sadly consist of a one-sided viewpoint. In terms of a lack of French sources, as far as I can see, the author does not mention or suggest this, but does state the bulk of his sources were British. And yes, I do hope, as already mentioned, that someone will offer a French perspective, possibly Andrew Field who did so with his Waterloo and Quatre Bras titles? Until then, it means readers of Bamford's book may have to undertake some heavy researching of their own, should want to ascertain which French units were involved and how many troops they may have had, in order to obtain a more complete account.

I believe there was a comment earlier regarding the Tranie/Carmigiani book Napoleon's War in Spain that it only covered Spain and not Portugal.

That isn't the case. The subtitle of the book is The French Peninsular Campaigns 1807-1814 and the campaigns in Portugal are indeed covered in the book.

The chapters are listed by year, and not by number, so if anyone is interested French operations in Portugal are covered in 1807, 1808, 1809, 1810, and 1811.

Date. Page.

1807. 15

1808. 23

1809. 69

1810. 95

1811. 117

1812. 137

1813. 153

1814. 171

Paul :)

Brechtel198

Due to the recent discussions, I was looking through Napoleon's War In Spain again, admiring the brilliant images and uniform and flag plates.

Some of the black and white images are great but I particularly loved the full page colour image of the struggle for Saragossa 1809 by Baron Lejeunne (page 85) and the wonderful full page colour painting that depicts the courageous and stubborn defence of Burgos by the French in 1812 by Heim (page 140).

Of the many black and white images, I also admired the image of the lancers attacking the British at Albuera 1811(page 127), which almost looks like an old photograph. And interesting to note, is that in the text accompanying the image it is stated that General Regnault listed the British as losing six colours at the battle.

I note that the staggeringly rude and ungentlemanly Mr Kiley has not yet supplied the identities of the 22 British colours supposedly captured by the French in Spain.

Perhaps Colonel Elting forgot to list them, or it is not in any of those English language sources upon which he relies. Of course, it could be possible that he just cannot find 22 of them but is not enough of a gentleman to admit it;).

Still, such things are mere details; what mattered overall was that, despite setbacks, the British and their allies defeated Napoleon and packed him off to a well-deserved exile.

Aberrant

If the only thing that mattered overall was that Napoleon was defeated by the Allies (and note it took two armies against his one to do it in 1815), then there would be no need for this website or other websites covering the Napoleonic period. It is a bit like saying that the only thing that mattered was the Germans being defeated in World War 2.

Your silly posts suggest you are somehow unaware that people posting in the Napoleonic boards are discussing everything involved with a wonderful period of history – the battles, the campaigns, the characters – everything. Not just the outcome. The fact you seem unaware of that suggests you should stick to the periods of interest you have stated on your profile, namely World War 2 and Modern. I don't know if you post in those related boards but I'm pretty sure they don't just talk about the outcome.

And your petty and abusive posts suggests that, for some reason, you appear to have a grudge with Kevin or the Marines, or perhaps both, and are using some very interesting debates in an historical period that you have no interest in, to insult him rather than add anything of importance or interest to the discussions in any way. I suggest you grow up and stick to the periods you claim you have an interest in.

Gazzola,

Aberrant apparently is what he accuses others of. His insults are apparently calculated to bait and annoy, so I would recommend ignoring him completely.

He's also a cheap-shot artist and has contributed nothing of value to the thread here.

Lastly, he's anonymous which makes him suspect character-wise and appears to be very courageous behind the anonymity of a keyboard.

He is also aptly nicknamed, as aberrant is defined as 'straying from the right or normal way.'

Brechtel198

Yes, it would appear so. This is also clear from his posts in the Ultramodern board (February & March 2016: Topics-, Modern UK Civil War and Military begins recruiting women for combat jobs). His posts also suggest he seems to have a problem with those who have a military background.

Ignoring him may well be the best advice, whoever he is.

That's an 'interesting' view of what he wrote in that thread Gazzola, although unsurprising. Perhaps you should re-read for comprehension as his point seems to have eluded you.

The'problem' is with people who served in the military 25+ years ago without seeing combat, holding forth on current events as though they are authorities on geopolitics and counter-insurgency warfare, by virtue of the aforementioned experience (and in the process occasionally coming out with some pretty abhorrent views). When challenged, they tend to assume their 'veteran' status makes them immune from criticism as others 'were not there' and couldn't possibly understand 'the things they've seen'.

In all fairness, Ben, Kevin reported on That Other Site that he did indeed see combat, I presume in Desert Storm where he shelled an oil tanker, turning the crew into crispy critters without "losing a night's sleep"

I had the doubtful "honour" of engaging in hand-to-hand
combat in Kenya. I was proud of it at the time – I was a particularly ignorant teenager, who lapped up the "it's all a larf" attitude of British combat infantrymen at the time -- but it certainly did not give me any insight into the Napoleonic wars, aside from the fact that veteran Napoleonic infantrymen on both sides were a hell of a lot tougher than we were.

Cheers,
Phil

Oh, those comments in the other threads weren't about Kevin, Phil. Gazzola decided to interpret them without context.

I've been to Kenya on exercise, but don't envy you your experiences.

Well, John, I'm not sure why you place me in the select company of "hypocrites", but Paul is certainly good company.

I think that what you were trying to say was that Dibble had made a (hypocritical?) error by answering Kevin's error in quoting an outdated book by countering with an outdated source of his own.

The problem here is that your argument implies that the most recently published work by an author with established credentials must be correct in all statements of fact and supercede all previous works.

By that standard, the updated second edition of Albuera the Fatal Hill (1812)by Mark S. Thompson, who is fluent in French and Spanish and has a PhD in the history of the period, should be the work to consult.

If I understand your remarks clearly, then his work should be more modern and therefore more accurate than that of Dempsey's excellent Albuera 1811, which was publish on the bicentenary of the battle.

On p.123, Thompson reports that both the King's and Regimental colour were captured by the Polish Lancers and recovered after or during the the bAttle, the former by a sergeant of the 7th Fusiliers and the latter wrapped around the body of our regimental hero, Lieutenant Latham.

I assume, confidently, that Dibble is referring to the Buff's King's colour, of which the Polish Lancers retained the staff and the cord, but not the colour itself. You must judge for yourself whether this constitutes a "colour".

Cheers,
Phil