"A Bold and Ambitious Enterprise " Topic

Philin Yuma

Good try but not good enough. You need to read Dempsey's chapter on the captured colours. In it you will see that the question of how much material the French captured, besides the staffs, and how much the British retained, remains unanswered.

Besides the above, my point was that people were trying to make out someone was incorrect in terms of the number of captured British colours, based on certain information given some time ago.

But, as you have proven with your own post, we cannot take for granted that whatever source we chose to go by at the time or in the past, will always be correct or agree with other or later sources. Information and facts are constantly being changed or challenged, which, as I say, you have shown in your own post. So thank you for that. Much appreciated.

Ben Avery

You do need to stop trying to make out what people think and what context they have interpreted other posts. As usual, you are completely incorrect. I'm wondering if you will ever learn. And be careful, because you are coming over as an Aberrant-wanna-be.

The problem is that Aberrant does indeed come over here as someone who just wants to provoke and insult Kevin, rather than join in or add any worthwhile contributions to the topic in question. So in a way, I can see why you feel compelled to support him.

And I did not say the posts in the other threads related to Kevin in any way, they were aimed at other members with military experience, who did a good job of defending their viewpoints and showing Aberrant up as someone who is just out to provoke and insult, as he does here.

I think Kevin is correct to ignore Aberrant. I do hope you do not become another Aberrant.

Phil

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.

Thing is that Dempsey's tome came out originally in 2008, Burnham and McGuigan's in 2010.

That aside, It's Kevin who has made the claim on many occasions that the British lost 22 colours in the Peninsula, It's for him to do the right thing and post the sources. I have even made it easier for him by not requesting the regiments concerned or the dates of the actions. All I'm looking for is the name of the places where the 22 were lost.

Ben Avery:

Gazzola is just trying to deflect and turn the debate.

I will gladly continue the debate with him on the British colours captured during the Napoleonic wars, just as soon as Kevin posts what has been requested.

Paul :)

Gazzola, you raised posts on another thread and wrote 'seems to suggest he has a problem.'

That would appear to be an excellent example of 'making out what people think'. You really should try reading what he wrote in full though, but the point seems to have passed you by entirely.

I certainly did not suggest you said the posts were about Kevin, so I'm not sure why you seem to think I did.

…I presume in Desert Storm where he shelled an oil tanker, turning the crew into crispy critters without "losing a night's sleep"

I never stated that I 'shelled an oil tanker.' Once again you're making things up. And as we were in the middle of a desert and not near the Persian Gulf during the war, it would be quite impossible to fire at an oil tanker.

So, once again you have misrepresented what I have posted. And it seems to me that it has happened too many times to be either accident or coincidence. False accusations are never attractive or correct.

Regarding the reference to the cited '22 British colors taken' I gave the reference and the page number. I'm quite satisfied with it and that was my point in the exercise. It isn't up to me to look up the units or actions where those colors may or may not have been lost. Since a few of you are interested in the subject, then please have at it and look them up.

Of course, as the subject is British losses I doubt that you have the interest as all you do is demonstrate faux outrage at anything said that tarnishes what you would consider 'British honor' or achievement.

Get over it and take your misplaced nationalism somewhere else.

Well Gazzola, I cannot quite work out if you missed too many reading classes in school or if you are just a mischievous little creature who enjoys creating arguments by deliberately misquoting and misrepresenting what other people have written.

Actually, I think I know which of those two is correct;).

As for the rather wretched Mr Kiley, I see that he is playing his usual trick of making a claim and then running away screaming "No, you go and look it up!" when asked to back it up.

What a funny lot so many of the ex military Americans on TMP are; they seem to have such delicate sensibilities and be so easily offended.

Kevin

I have asked kindly for a minimum of sources from you of where those 22 colours were captured. You are sure that the number is accurate, so much so that you have repeated the claim very recently.

So to post the names of the places where they were seized should not be very hard for you to comply with the request. Especially as you have assured many that you have such an extensive library in which to work from

As you know Kevin, I have made claims on another site pertaining incidents during the Wars and you have questioned them so I 'without prevarication, always brought sources for the perusal of you and others. I'm sure that a reciprocal reply on the matter of the 22 colours as outlined above, would be a honourable gesture on your behalf. Perhaps you could ask your good friends Gazzola, Tango1 or even your many other good friends on the Napoleon.org site to help?

Paul :)

As for the rather wretched Mr Kiley, I see that he is playing his usual trick of making a claim and then running away screaming "No, you go and look it up!" when asked to back it up. What a funny lot so many of the ex military Americans on TMP are; they seem to have such delicate sensibilities and be so easily offended.

'Haters gotta hate' as the saying goes. Good luck with that. I feel very sorry for you in your anonymity.

Aberrant

I think you recent post to me has just proved Kevin correct. You only want to insult and provoke. Well done for establishing that. LOL It is known as shooting oneself in the foot and both your feet must be full of holes by now.

Paul,

You sometimes support your contentions and points, but you more often bring insult and mockery, which is why I tired after awhile of discussing anything with you.

I quoted a source on the point of British colors lost in the Peninsula. It was originally part of a discussion on another forum. If I recall correctly, you answered both angrily and insultingly, which is your usual mode of forum behavior if the British army comes into play and it doesn't conform to your idea of what happened. That's too bad, and generally reflects badly on yourself.

Your disagreement with Triani and Carmagiani's book should motivate you to find out just how many British colors were lost in Spain and Portugal from 1807-1814, in order to prove those two authors wrong. I have no desire to do that as it is not my point. Nor do I have to support their findings as I've seen nothing of any significance presented that contradicts their point. So, your disagreement with them, which is perfectly fine, should lead to research into the regiments who served in the Peninsula and see what happened.

Apparently you don't want to do that, but you do want to argue about it, ad nauseum. So, good luck with that.

Lastly, when you are presented with evidence contrary to any of your stances, you disregard it, and usually with insult. A point of that is the issue of allied squares being broken at Waterloo. I have the evidence from Brigadier Pilloy's letters to the contrary, and that is a historical hint for further research. Yet, you either attack anyone who writes or questions the old British claim, and too many times misrepresent what was said.

And that is why I generally will not respond to your postings because it usually degenerates into nonsense. I would suggest that you clean up your act and present your ideas and points in a civilized manner. I will not engage in your 'war of words' because it is futile and contributes nothing to the overall worth of the forum.

Ben Avery

I did read the whole of the posts in both topics, and that is the impression Aberrant creates. But apart from that, it is quite clear in his post here on 7th March, 11.14am PST, where again he insults those with military experience.

He sounds like someone who does not have an enemy to fight anymore, so is trying desperately to create new ones. I feel rather sorry for him. But never mind, perhaps he'll get over it and might one day post something relating to the topic being discussed. Might be a long wait though.

dibble

The problem and difficulty in trying to prove how many British colours had been lost has already been highlighted in previous posts. Those lost at Albuera being a prefect example. Some say 3 colours lost, some say four, some say five and some say six.

As Dempsey displayed in his excellent title on the battle, there appears to have been attempts to cover up how many British colours were lost. He offers the extract from the diary of E.C.Close, an officer of the 2nd/48th Regiment, in which he states that two colours captured from the Buffs were clearly seen in French hands by everyone.

That suggests there must have been a substantial amount of colour remaining on the staffs for them to be recognised as belonging to a certain regiment. So that is a problem with just one battle. Of course, Brit-lovers like yourself will no doubt deny any cover-ups, that would never happen. No, no, no, not the British. Next thing you'll be saying is that they deliberately bombarded civilians. As if! LOL.

Brechtel.

Where is said evidence that you say that I ignore? Put up said evidence.

The other site has all our diatribes on it, which, at a cursory glance, is almost exclusively evidence brought by me.

Come on! Put up your evidence! Now would be the time for you to shut me up. By the way! It was you who started to cast the insults and I who retorted in kind. But then again,

Even though you annoy me and insult me at times, I will never ever ignore you Kevin.

These websites are full of people who you have insulted 'off the bat' so I don't expect any other way with you, thus I always look forward to questioning your many Nappy wars fairy tales.

Please, please post a link where I have ignored your evidence.

22 British colours captured in the Peninsula was and still is, flagged up by you as being accurate. Is that figure accurate? Yes or no?

Paul :)

Like I said:

Gazzola is just trying to deflect and turn the debate

I will gladly continue the debate with him on the British colours captured during the Napoleonic wars, just as soon as Kevin posts what has been requested.

Paul :)

dibble

I wonder why little union jacks go erect and people put on their tin hats, every time the B word is mentioned, especially if it is in a negative context or challenges the rosy view of Brit-lovers.

But no, it is not me trying to deflect and turn the debate. We are talking about how can we find out how many British colours were captured in the Peninsular. Kevin quoted from a book that twice gave the number as 22, which may or may not be correct. You disagree with the book, so I am assuming you have written to the remaining author to explain why you disagree with that number, should 22 not be a typo error? Please let us know when you get a reply.

But your feeble attempt to put down my post raises two questions:

1) Do you disagree with the different totals offered by different sources, concerning how many British colours were actually captured at Albuera?

2) Do you disagree with the officer who states in his diary that he, and others, saw the enemy with the captured colours belonging to the Buffs?

Gazzola,

Excellent points.

Any army at any time is open to criticism since no army is perfect. Denigrating it merely out of bias and prejudice is what I object to, and along with that comes the ad hominem nonsense that too many resort to.

I've been an admirer of the British Army for a long time (note my collection of Britains toy soldiers for over 50 years) but it is not an uncritical admiration. And I am an admirer of the Grande Armee, again not uncritically. And I am a great admirer of the United States Marine Corps, of which I am very proud of being able to qualify to be a Marine, both physically and mentally. It wasn't easy.

And those who denigrate anyone's military service, and especially the United States Marine Corps, are, in Henry Lachouque's words, embarrassed by the existence of an elite. Those people should be ashamed of themselves.

Like I said:

Gazzola is just trying to deflect and turn the debate

I will gladly continue the debate with him on the British colours captured during the Napoleonic wars, just as soon as Kevin posts what has been requested.

Paul :)

Paul,

I suspect that you will die of old age before that happens; Mr Kiley has made a career of this sort of behaviour.

As for his most recent, rather bizarre, post, it does show his tendency to assume what other people are thinking or what their views are without having sufficient evidence to do so. That is rather similar to his approach to the question of the number of British standards taken in Spain.

Just for the record, I served alongside and trained alongside US marines. The vast majority of them were good chaps with a robust attitude to life; blokes who would not get their knickers in a twist over being criticised in an online forum.

…blokes who would not get their knickers in a twist over being criticised in an online forum.

Would you like to make a bet on that? You'd get the same answer that I gave you or worse.

And if you did it in public or face to face to a Marine, active, former, or retired, which I sincerely doubt that you would, you'd be spitting teeth.

Just sayin'…

By the way, Marines is always capitalized, never lower case. Maybe one day you'll actually learn something.

You can check the book Les Trophees de la France (Paris 1907) by Commandant Verillon. He lists the number of British colors lost to the French during the period 1792-1815. He numbers 42 total colors lost, 22 of them in the Peninsula. He does not list them by regiment, but by campaigns. I don't believe that there is a listing by regiment in any British publication on the British Army, though I have not looked extensively. It does appear that the British are somewhat reluctant to discuss the subject and, as been clearly demonstrated on this forum, somewhat ‘touchy' on the subject.

The volume can be found on Google Books:

link

Now that I have done, or at least well-begun, your homework for you perhaps you can be both polite and civil. I doubt it, but you never know…

From page 85 of the afore mentioned volume, this information is taken for captured colors by the French from from the main belligerents from 1805-1815. The French lost 60 eagles in the same time period.

Austria: 230
Prussia: 370
Spain: 320
Russia: 92
Portugal: 45
Great Britain: 34

Brechtel198

I would not waste another post on Aberrant. Perhaps something happened to him in his past involving the Marines or some other military unit, that has made him this way? Who knows? But it is clear he just wants to provoke people with military experience and obviously with you. And it is also clear he has added nothing to the debate and shows no sign of doing so. Personally, I think the poor man is just looking for new enemies to provoke, which is rather sad, if not pitiful. And it is very interesting and revealing that, unlike those he insults he has not got the courage to offer his real name. I wonder why that is? My advice, ignore the sad man.

As for dibble, well it is interesting that he has not argued my points, so he must agree that different sources offer different figures for the number of lost British colours. He must further agree that, due to this, finding out the exact number might be near enough impossible. His posts also suggest he will not be contacting the remaining author of the first book containing the information you offered. Typical dibble, I guess.

But we are talking about something concerning the British and you know how rattled 'some' people become when that happens. And it does not matter how many sources you throw at him, as far as people like dibble are concerned, if they are not British they don't count-why-well, because they are not British. LOL

He lists the number of British colors lost to the French during the period 1792-1815. He numbers 42 total colors lost, 22 of them in the Peninsula. He does not list them by regiment, but by campaigns. I don't believe that there is a listing by regiment in any British publication on the British Army, though I have not looked extensively.

There is a listing by regiment in "The British Army Against Napoleon": link

If one reads the text of the book by Commandant Verillon, there is quite a lot of info including dates, actions, regiments involved, and in some cases a short description of the circumstances.

For example – p.78 "Combat d'Almeida (24 juillet 1810). Un drapeau anglais est pris par les troupes du general Loison."

Another – p.68 "Combat de Prieros (3 janvier 1809) – Dix [that's ten in english] drapeaux anglais sont enleves par l'infanterie du general Merle et la cavalrie du general Colbert".

There's more if one continues to dig into it.

Stephen

Yes, there is. And the table referred to is also very interesting in that it lists, by country, the colors captured by the French from 1792-1815.

From 1792-1799 the French captured 593 colors; from 1800-1815, they captured 1,175 colors. Quite a haul, actually.

I would not waste another post on Aberrant…

Gazzola,

Of course you are absolutely correct, once again. And Aberrant has not contributed on iota to the forum he has done nothing but cause trouble.

for this work see

link

It would be interesting from where Verillon draws his data, he might easily have copied old legends and mistakes, so far dibble discussed this topic with great authority and knowledge.

Regarding the alleged 10 flags taken on 3 January 1809, I searched 3 other references and found no mention of this incident nor of Prieros. Moore's army fought a rearguard action at Cacabelos on this date resulting in the death of French cavalry general Colbert.

The references include Oman Volume 1, Corunna by Christopher Hibbert,and Napoleon's War in Spain by Lachouque-Tranie-Carmingniani.

Stephen

Pieros is a village about 1.5km west of Cacabelos; the French called the action after it and misspelled it.

Napoleon himself wrote that the claim of 10 standards captured there should be disregarded as it was clearly an error.

Therefore, it is apparent that Commandant Verillon is not a reliable source.

Well, Mr Kiley, you are a deeply unpleasant little chap, aren't you? Making threats on the internet? Hilarious.

I made no threat to you or anyone else. You have made a false accusation. I merely told you what might happen if you were to pursue a certain course of action in public.

If you were to say that to me in public, I'd just walk away. You're not worth the effort.

At times, I find it hard to believe that you were a marine. Perhaps you could respond to the substantive point about the source you provided being contradicted by Napoleon himself?

"Ecartons immediatement les dix drapeaux anglais qu'il donne comme pris au combat de Prietos, le 3 janvier 1809, erreur manifeste and incomprehensible."

Although this is probably futile, I've never mentioned the action concerned and 10 colors captured there.

That was brought up by someone else.

If you disagree, then the logical course of action would be to do research and find out which British regiments actually lost colors during the period. It would take a little work, so perhaps you're not up to it?

Have you read the reference? Perhaps if you actually took a look at it something could actually be discussed historically, instead of you merely throwing insults and posting nonsense.

Again, I feel very sorry for you.

The source that you gave mentions 22 colours taken in the Peninsula; in your words: "He lists the number of British colors lost to the French during the period 1792-1815. He numbers 42 total colors lost, 22 of them in the Peninsula."

stephen1162 has shown that the same volume includes the 10 Prieros colours in that 22: "Combat de Prieros (3 janvier 1809) – Dix [that's ten in english] drapeaux anglais sont enleves par l'infanterie du general Merle et la cavalrie du general Colbert"

Napoleon said: "Ecartons immediatement les dix drapeaux anglais qu'il donne comme pris au combat de Prietos, le 3 janvier 1809, erreur manifeste and incomprehensible."

As Napoleon himself states that 10 colours were not taken at Prieros, and Verillon included those 10 in the 22 British colours supposedly captured in the Peninsula, that rather proves that Verillon, a source that you put forward in support of a claim of 22 captured colours, is wrong.

However, I am sure that you will find a way of denying that.

It would be interesting from where Verillon draws his data, he might easily have copied old legends and mistakes, so far dibble discussed this topic with great authority and knowledge.

The link to Verillon's work has been posted. Perhaps you might try and read it?

Kiley has continuously put up that 22 colours were captured in the Peninsula. He has also said to me on another site that I should disprove the 34 British Colours that were 'supposedly' captured between 1804-1815.

I have hit back with:

The British (if the KGL are included) lost a total of 15 colours in all theatres during the Napoleonic wars 1804-15

That the French lost less Eagles than the British lost Colours is not in dispute, in fact I agree with all that side of the data that I have read. But what has to be remembered is, is that if a British regiment was destroyed, they would loose one or possibly two colours. The same could not be said of the French.

And remember! I had posted this on another site in January 2015:

The so called '10 colours at Prietos' alluded to as 'captured' by the French would have been at the battle of Cacabelos (Prietos) 3rd January 1809, the only significant engagement that happened on this day involving the British. which was a rear-guard action during the retreat to Corunna.

The British rearguard contingent at this time was commanded by Maj Gen the Hon Edward Paget and consisted of the following:

15th hussars*
20th
28th
52nd
95th*
91st
1x Horse Artillery battery*

Seeing that those units that I have starred definitely never carried colours at this time, it means that those regiments that did carry colours must have been wiped out, that one battalion must have had two sets (four flags) of colours or two battalions must have had three colours each. This must also mean that Colbert's death at the hand and eye of Plunkett, was totally and utterly avenged () and overshadowed in history by the total destruction of Paget's division …Err NOT!

I wonder if anyone could perhaps kindly ask Massena to reply to this signal destruction of some of the finest regiments of the war.

And:

Quote:
4 colours at Talavera. Units not identified….

I posted this too, which I think was quite true, apt and funny:

link

Paul :)

That the French lost less Eagles than the British lost Colours is not in dispute, in fact I agree with all that side of the data that I have read. But what has to be remembered is, is that if a British regiment was destroyed, they would lose one or possibly two colours. The same could not be said of the French.

The French ended up carrying a lot less eagles than all their opponents did standards. Anyone wanting to compare the two needs to multiply the French figure by a lot.

It is a mighty haul of flags, especially if accurate; although as pointed out, comparing eagles to flags on a like for like basis is a little disingenuous as their distribution was very different.

Interestingly, excerpts from the book Whirlwind linked are online, including the table of loses on page 233. It gives five lost in the Peninsular, with qualifiers:

link

true – British battalion 2 colours, French infantry regiment (3 to 5 battalions) from 1808 onwards, one eagle, light infantry none carried in the field, Young Guard none, due to Boney fear to read about captured French eagles in foreign newspapers

It is a mighty haul of flags, especially if accurate; although as pointed out, comparing eagles to flags on a like for like basis is a little disingenuous as their distribution was very different.

Interestingly, excerpts from the book Whirlwind linked are online, including the table of loses on page 233. It gives five lost in the Peninsular, with qualifiers:

It would be very difficult to verify if completely accurate because over 1,000 captured colors were burned in 1814 in Paris in order that they would not be recaptured. So the records would be either somewhat inaccurate and incomplete.

Subtracting the ten British colors claimed and not captured in Spain, that leaves twelve taken in Spain and Portugal which seems a reasonable number. The number given in the reference seems a little too low. However, we'll probably never know for sure.

Thanks for the link, there Burnham is usually doing a good research – I count – 5 Colours (including the fragmented ones) – lost in the Penisular, the others were captured in different campaigns – not connected with the Peninsular.

So brech. – not surprisingly – ignores recent research and discussion of sources.

So Ben Avery is spot on with his conclusion, brech. extremly far off.

Brechtel198

This is getting hilarious now. The posts here have proven my point that 'certain' people will quite readily accept British sources as gospel, because they are British, but will quickly dismiss non-British sources because they do not agree with their viewpoints. LOL

And Aberrant is the funniest of all. He posted against Napoleon being offered as a source for the number of British colours captured at Albuera: 28th Feb 10.12am -'I would find it hard to put any faith in a message from Napoleon regarding the number captured.'

But then he writes: 9th March 3.26pm-'Napoleon himself wrote that the claim of 10 standards captured there should be disregarded as it was clearly an error.'

So we see clearly Aberrant accepting Napoleon as a source because it supports his viewpoint but dismissing him when it does not. The man is clearly a hypocrite who doesn't even know what he is writing.

Gazzola, I posted the link because it is in English and is a breakdown of lost colours, with dates and locations. It even includes the disputed ones. Kevin wasn't aware of such a listing and I happened to find it. It's certainly a starting point, whilst you perhaps translate the French account?

Whilst it's true that we shall never know for sure, the 22 figure certainly seems to be suspect. I'm the meantime we should congratulate Bonaparte on choosing an item that could be hidden away in a knapsack or horse's anus when necessary, to avoid capture.

Gazzola, don't you have any billygoats to harass?

If you were a little slower with the fingers and a lot faster with the brain, you would realise that there is a huge difference between taking Napoleon's word when he is claiming lots of standards were taken and when he is stating that some claimed ones were not.

The key question to ask is: "Why would he say that?" In both cases the answer is obvious.

I realise that you like to see things in a black and white way; unfortunately, the real world is not like that and we have to look at each statement on its own merits.

Ben Avery

A nice list of captured colours.

But what about the other Flags/Standards/etc. that were taken from the British?
At Buenos Aires the 71st lost both King's and Regimental colours.
As well a smaller Guidon of the 71st was also taken.
And a United Kingdom Union flag, a Royal Marine colour, a Naval red ensign and an odd looking flag attributed to the 95th were also taken.

So do these also count? Did the British lose two OR seven colours at Buenos Aires?

See the following article:
link

Cliff

So do these also count? Did the British lose two OR seven colours at Buenos Aires?

No, two. Similarly, French battalion and company fanions are not normally counted as captured standards. Although the incidents are full of interest in themselves, obviously.

Camcleod

As well a smaller Guidon of the 71st was also taken.

That guidon was a pipers, so not a regimental or King's colour.

The 95th didn't carry colours, and the Union flag that was captured was a not very well made' pennon. The Royal Marines had Colours but didn't take them into action because their personnel were made up of detached units 'in the main'

The captured kings and regimental colours of the 71st.

Paul :)

And here is that Marine Flag?. 'R.M.B' could mean anything.

And the oddly proportioned union flag.

Paul :)

I assume RMB refers to a composite RM battalion, taken from men on the ships. It certainly doesn't look like anything official but would make a change when painting, assuming you were putting a battalion of marines on the table.

I've realised that my French have far too many eagles present though.

Look!!!

An oil tanker for those who think it has to be a ship…

Probably the very one Kiley fired on… who knows.