"Drum-Majors in Action during the Napoleonic Wars " Topic

So, just to be clear, would it be correct to say that Elting does not cite any specific evidence back up his statement re. drummer's training, and there is nothing in Sabretache that might form the basis for such a claim?

Ditto- 'Les Campagnes d'un Musicien d'Etat-major' by Philippe-Rene Girault and 'Memoires d'un Vieux Deserteur: Adventures de J Steininger'

Have you looked up anything in La Sabretache? You can find it now online I think.

I'm satisfied with Col Elting's research and comments on the subject, so unless someone has found something to negate his comments and judgment on the subject, I would consider it closed for now.

I will look forward to any new material on the subject from any primary source or credible secondary source.

"Ditto- 'Les Campagnes d'un Musicien d'Etat-major' by Philippe-Rene Girault and 'Memoires d'un Vieux Deserteur: Adventures de J Steininger'"

I did read both memoires, Girault was a musician – a gagist – completly different thing than a company drummer.

Steininger is very good to read about the profession of deserting, he has breath taking stories to tell, like to dice out who will be executed or not, but I couldn't find anything about a 5 years training, Steinigner hardly served that long period during his training days in any army that long – later he stayed on in with the French, went even to Egypt, so he claims at least.
He claims having been in the 142e demi brigade – but this outfit did not go to Egypt.
His service record at page 258 is not matching what he claims in his memoires, neither taking part in the Egyptian campaign as well.
I doubt brech did read those memoires at all.
A good read about desertion but not about training drummers.

VW – good post. I also checked my copy of "Swords". The paragraph that Brech posted is on page 336 as he noted. Unfortunately, there is no end note nor information in the in-line text to indicate where Elting got his information from.

Hi all,

I wrote the 'Fops under fire' article linked to at the top of this feed and have just stumbled on this forum.

Regarding this controversy over the length of time to train drummers, I can't speak to the French Army as Elting does, but can shed light on the contemporary British experience.

Billy Purvis, the Napoleonic era Drum-Major of the Hexham Local Militia, recalled having to train twenty young fifers and drummers who, "with the exception of one boy on the fife, were totally ignorant of the first rudiments of Apollo's art. I had only six weeks allowed me to teach the fifes, and three to teach the drums. My readers, generally, must be aware that a considerable time is necessary to instruct the most apt novice to perform on any musical instrument, not excepting the fife and drum; but by dint of constant application, and mild, though steady drilling, my young friends, in the short space intimated above, satisfactorily finished their lessons."
The fifers and drummers were inspected by the officers and played the various duty calls e.g. the Troop, Retreat, Tattoo, etc. "with admirable correctness and skill". The Adjutant, however, remarked that this progress had been unusually rapid and praised Purvis' abilities to so quickly bring bring them up to speed. [Joseph Philip Robson, The Life and Adventures of the Far-famed Billy Purvis (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1849), p.33-34]
Clearly a 3-6 week time frame for learning an instrument from first principles was considered unusually ambitious, but was evidently possible.

I should mention that I currently serve as Drum-Major of a recreated War of 1812 British fife and drum corps in Toronto, Canada. Whilst I am aware of the hazards of using 'reenactor' experiences as evidence, I can say that new members to our corps with some musical experience on other instruments can pick up the fife or drum and, working five days a week, can master our basic repertoire of 30 or so songs including the key duty calls in 1.5-2 months. Most new drummers historically, however, had no prior musical training. Also, many though not all were in their pre-teens or teens, which would also slow their pace of learning. As a more comparable example, some of our youth volunteers (11-14) practice with us a few times a week during July and August only; they take anywhere 1-3 summers to master the repertoire, but certainly not five years.

William Green, a private in the 95th Rifles, was asked to learn the bugle in the Peninsula. Despite having no apparent prior musical training, he wrote: "I made good progress, and was returned fit for duty at the end of one month." [Where duty calls me: the experiences of William Green of Lutterworth in the Napoleonic wars, ed. John and Dorothea Teague]

As an important ancillary question, what did drummers need to learn in order to be deemed proficient? According to regimental standing orders (a plethora of which survive, e.g. Standing Orders for the Third West York Militia (London: McMillan, 1809) available on Google Books) the Boys in the regiment who trained as drummers would be considered 'complete in their beatings' and were promoted to drummers' pay (with the drum or fife-major receiving a guinea or half-guinea for instructing them) when they had demonstrated their ability to play the core repertoire of duty calls. These were the basic beatings e.g. Reveille, Retreat, the General critical to a drummer's duty and contained in various period manuals, including The Young Drummers' Assistant (c1785) or Samuel Potter's 1817 Art of Beating the Drum. So drummers/fifers/buglers apparently did not need to master the various marches, waltzes, short troops and other tunes/beatings in order to be considered proficient enough to do their job – just the basic calls required for their duty. Some military fife manuscripts have hundreds of tunes (in one case nearly a thousand – the Buttrey MS, Library and Archives Canada). Most fifers surely only ever mastered a fraction of these pieces, but over time, presumably, a novice's repertoire would expand to include these discretionary songs.

Anyway, I hope this helps. It's still tough to put a firm timeframe on how long it took to learn one of these instruments, but I think it's fair to say, from the British perspective, that 5 years is way out of the ballpark. Sure, as an experienced drummer I can say that I am always learning. A musician with five years under his belt is obviously more skilled and can play many more songs than when just starting out, and a drummers with that much experience is a very valuable asset. But contemporary evidence shows that the basic beatings, with diligent and continuous practice, could be mastered in a matter of weeks or months.

Welcome to the site Mr. Eamonn O'Keeffe !! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Have you looked up anything in La Sabretache? You can find it now online I think.

I'm satisfied with Col Elting's research and comments on the subject

.

As you cited

Sabretache

as Elting's and it would seem your own source of evidence of a five-year training period for French drummers, I thought you might be able to provide a reference as to which of the 25 volumes had in mind. It would be good if you could help us here.

MDavout

Thanks, yes there it is, in my view Elting is clearly wrong on that.

In contrast to brech I am not satisfied with Eltings reseach and I am not a blind follower of his words, clearly what he states on page 337 that drummers might be massed for greater effect, this was always the case when the battalion was formed, then drummers weren't any longer with their companies but formed a small "peloton" on their own, regardless if on the attack, or on the offense or on the wait.

Very good post Eamonn1812

So in a nutshell, what you posted is in line with what I posted earlier…

Bentinck was a drummer months after enlistment and was such at Copenhagen. He 'acquired' at great risk to his life, a set of fine drumsticks taken from a sniped French Grenadier drummer at Martinique in 1809 to replace the ones he had. And at Albuera, after the battle, he was part (as with all the other drummers and musicians) charged with the collecting of the wounded.

So five years? Perhaps to be an expert, but not to be a competent drummer in combat as that can't be learn't other than through direct experience; and in Bentinck's case, was but months after enlistment. By Waterloo, though listed in the roll as a drummer (Bentick) in Hawtyne's Grenadier Company, was by this time a bandsman.

…is about right?

Paul :)

20 Jul 2016 10:51 a.m.

I have no idea how I did that

Yes, essentially, Paul.
Good musicians do mature with time but achieving competency at the core calls necessary for performing one's duty would not have taken anywhere near that long.

By the way, out of curiosity, might you have any evidence for saying that Bentinck was a bandsman at Waterloo? :)
I know he was in the band at some point; his instrument, a serpent, is preserved in Oxford's Bate Collection. As you say, Bentinck is indeed listed as a drummer in the regiment's pay lists in 1815. Now, drummers sometimes also served in the regimental band at the same time, but his recollections of Waterloo (e.g. mentioning that he was Colonel Ellis' 'orderly') suggest to me that he was serving as an orderly drummer playing duty calls e.g. advance, retreat, cease fire etc. in battle and not serving as a bandsman – the band, of course, did not play signals under fire.
Perhaps you are going off of Crook's book, but I'd frankly treat his claims of when Bentinck was serving in the band/was a private vs. drummer with caution as he for some reason apparently did not consult the regiment's WO 12 pay lists, which give each soldiers' rank at any given time. No worries if you can't shed further light, but I thought I'd raise this in the off-chance you might have something a bit more definite on whether Bentinck was serving as a drummer or a bandsman at Waterloo. :)

Best,
Eamonn

How does any of the discussion on drummerss expertise accord with the point made on a separate thread in 18th Century Discussion here
TMP link

- referring to the British army order issued in 1778, stating that drummers were no longer to relay orders in battle; a separate point being made that at the height of battle, drum calls might frequently be inaudible and so would not be an effective way of communicating.

A recent BBC Scotland programme demonstrated a similar point that bagpipes would have been inaudible during attacks made on the Western Front 1914-18.

…in my view Elting is clearly wrong on that.

Precisely-'in your view' which is only opinion. You have not provided, in any of your postings on the subject, anything of value that demonstrates that Col Elting was wrong.

So, if the choice is between what you think and what Col Elting researched and wrote, your 'view' comes in a very poor second consistently.

Yes indeed – another point that Elting misunderstood – the battery of drums had for the line infantry a very limited role for manoeuvres in battle – they were certainly not the radio communicators he claims.

They would give – or try to give the cadence – or try to stop firing – when doing feux de deux rangs, with a coup de baguette – they wouldn't do any signals for wheeling to the right, or to the left, form a square and so on.
Drummers had their most use in camp where specific signals at specific times were given.
For skirmishers this may be different – specific orders played by the drum or the bugle did exist, where the skirmishers hopefully would hear – but all was usually a chain of shouted commands – and for skirmishers both signals and command.

Thanks for your reply Eamonn,

I got my information from 'Medal Rolls 23rd Foot-Royal Welch Fusiliers. Napoleonic Period.' Compiled by Norman Holme & Major E.L. Kirby, M.C., T.D., D.L., (1978) Which references amongst the extensive archives sourced, the Waterloo payroll.

Page: 81, 5th entry.

No date is given for when he was reduced to private but it is stated in the entry that he was member of the regimental band at Waterloo.

That he may well have had his drum at the battle is possible as it was noted in the Rochdale Observer for September 6th 1856, at the unveiling of the Wellington memorial he attended and also at the Waterloo veterans dinner on the 18th June that same year, it was reported that he beat the drum at both venues with the sticks he carried at Waterloo, Which doesn't necessarily mean he used them at Waterloo. That he was Ellis' Orderly, there was no suffix 'drummer' attached. So maybe he had a drum at Waterloo, that doesn't mean he was still holding the rank of drummer. His discharge papers show only that he served 18 years 292 days (which includes 2 years for Waterloo)as a Private with no entry of time served as a drummer in the 'Trumpeter or Drummer' section which has been struck through.

That is incorrect. Drummers tapped out the signals on the battlefield (which is why company commanders had two each) and could relay signals over gunfire and still be heard.

Again, demonstrate your 'views' with something concrete instead of merely opinion.

You have absolutely no idea of what you're trying to convey. In short, you are incorrect yet again.

Precisely-'in your view' which is only opinion. You have not provided, in any of your postings on the subject, anything of value that demonstrates that Col Elting was wrong.

Brechtel, a number of readers here have questioned the likelihood of a five-year training period for drummers in the French army, as asserted by Elting. A range of illustrative examples, both historic and contemporary, have been offered to indicate the basis of that scepticism, notably some detailed comments by Scharnachthal and Eamonn1812. All in all, it is not unreasonable to conclude that a period of training of any longer than six months does not appear to be likely, and to ask for some supporting evidence, as you regularly do yourself, would seem to be a reasonable request.

You cited the quotation from Elting as being evidence although as you know, Elting provided no source references. In conjunction, you referred to the journal Sabretache, implying this contained the source material for Elting's comments, and indeed seemed to imply that you had seen this material. However, you have declined to indicate where in Sabretache we might see such evidence.

Instead, you have pronounced that you are satisfied with Elting's assertion, and the research on which it was based, and declare the matter closed. On the face of it, this posture appears as much to be a matter of opinion as any other assertion on this thread.

You must understand that this is less than persuasive.

Clearly, unsourced statements in a secondary work do not alone constitute evidence. I would hope David Fischer has something to say about that.

that Elting did not get it right was prooved in numerous contributions – brech seemingly is unable to accept that.

I have to find the source where Oudinot ordered his drummers to beat the pas de charge on field kettles either.

As for Bentinck:

No date is given for when he was reduced to private but it is stated in the entry that he was member of the regimental band at Waterloo.

I don't think he was "reduced" to private but, actually, this was the official rank given to bandsmen in the army. I've mentioned it before: bandsmen were not enlisted as "bandsman" or "musician".

John Gleeson (on the website I mentioned earlier) quotes several army records of bandsmen which clearly show that "private" was the official army rank used for a member of the band (search for, among others: Samuel Pritchard, James Horn senior, James Horn junior, John Hagemann, John Weyrauch, Edward Vagg, John Callcott, Richard Callcott, Charles Sporleder, James Price, William Floyd, etc. etc.; there are more). To judge from these records, bandsmen's careers could be one of three:

1st: They were enlisted as "private" (most probably denoting an ordinary soldier), then became "drummer" (company drummer), and when they joined the band they became "private" again (no reduction at all!).

2nd: They were enlisted as "drummer" (company drummer) from the very beginning and became "private" when they became bandsmen.

3rd: They were enlisted as bandsmen from the very beginning and thus were listed as "private" from the beginning.

In view of the evidence I've seen so far I must admit that I share Eammon1812's doubts on Bentinck's playing in the band as a serpentist while still listed as a "drummer" (see above). But, perhaps, this was an ad hoc appointment in the field, an emergency? However, the question which I cannot answer is: were there actually any British bands present at the battle of Waterloo? As far as I know, e.g. the bands of the Guards were not.

On the other hand, I doubt not a second that Bentinck actually became an official bandsman (hence the rank of "private"), perhaps right after the battle. And certainly he was quite a proficient player of the serpent even when still a "drummer"…

There was the old fella who claimed to have played the triangle as a boy with the Black Watch at Waterloo, his father being a Serjeant with the regiment…

I think I found an authoritative contemporary source which hopefully will help to settle the question of how long it took a French Napoleonic drummer trainee to reach a drumming level sufficient enough to join the army in the field.

Moreover, this source confirms that the drum signals had to be mastered according to prescribed requirements and that- under normal circumstances – the trainees were taught their business in the depots before being sent to their units in the field.

It's a decree by Napoleon himself, dated 5th April 1811:

link

Among others, he says:

"Art. 1er
…Les colonels choisiront les tambours parmi les jeunes gens ayant seize ans au moins et vingt ans au plus.
Leur instruction sera suivie d'une manière que, d'ici au 1er septembre, ils puissent être attachés en pied au service de nouveaux battalions qui seraient formés.
…
3. Notre Ministre de la guerre donnera des ordres pour que la sonnerie soit uniforme."

I understand that Napoleon – who decreed this at the beginning of April 1811 – wanted the trainees to be proficient enough to join the army at the beginning of September 1811. That's about 5 months time.

I think we can credit Napoleon with knowing how much time was needed to teach an ignorant trainee the French drum beats. And even if we concede that it was Napoleon's habit to be a bit demanding, it would surely be unreasonable to claim his demands were beyond the feasible and usual, and that more than 6 months were needed (as correctly guessed by 42flanker above).

The idea that company drummers had to be master drummers or were trained to be so, is just absurd. They were not trained to be show drummers. They were simply expected to be able to convey the regular drum signals according to prescribed standards. Some would have been more talented than others and would have been able to accomplish more than the average drummer. But those skills would not have been necessary to fulfill the role and duties of an ordinary company drummer. Moreover, all drummers would experience continual drum training under the auspices of drum major and drum master (as laid down in the regulations), at the depot, in garrison, even when on the march. Quote from an instruction by general Schauenbourg (1793):

« On instruira les tambours à la cadence et à l'égalité du pas de 90 à la minute, restant au-dessous de
ce nombre que de le passer. On ne souffrira pas d'autres batteries que celles du règlement. Les tambours seront
exercés deux fois par jour, et aussitôt qu'ils sauront battre ensemble, leur instruction se fera en marchant. »

From here, p.13, note 1:

PDF link

Great find, Scharnachthal, thanks!

42ndflanker, yes, Triangle-Player John Scott's account of Waterloo with the 42nd is reprinted in G.Glover's Waterloo Archive, Vol.6. [excerpt]: "I was not frightened; I was too excited for anything. I played my triangle and shouted ‘Scotland forever!' till I was hoarse, and could scarcely speak a word."

The issue of what British drummers actually did in battle is complex, but I hope to be writing something on this issue in the next 6-12 months as this topic engenders frequent confusion. Earlier in the C18, drum beatings were assigned in various manuals to an unreasonably large number of commands, including make ready, wheeling etc, but by the late C18 this obviously impractical system had been pared back substantially. Drummers during the Napoleonic Wars still played a few essential duty calls in action e.g. retreat, charge. They functioned as an on-off switch for fire discipline by beating 'the Preparative to Commence Firing' and the 'Cease Fire', leaving the more detailed commands to the human voice of individual officers and NCOs. Bugles, however, were used more intensively in combat, especially to communicate over longer distances when skirmishing; light infantrymen were trained to respond to a much wider range of calls. But regardless, while some drummers/buglers played duty calls, the majority seem to have aided the musicians of the band in helping wounded soldiers off the field. However, in the chaos of battle, a few are known to have shouldered muskets, sat behind the lines during battle sewing themselves new shirts (*ahem* 95th Bugler Wm Green), and some no doubt made themselves scarce. I'm afraid I can't list all of my sources here, but Leeke's History of Lord Seaton's Regt [the 52nd] at Waterloo, p.33 and 40 (1866 edition) has a few good illustrative anecdotes.

As regards British military bands at Waterloo and in battle generally, they did not usually play in action during the Napoleonic Wars. Leeke, among others, says so categorically, as does Col. Wilkie. However, modern historians, Haythornthwaite, Holmes ('bands frequently played in action') and others have all tripped up on this point, based on uncited anecdotes (e.g. Famars, 1794) compiled by musical historian H.G. Farmer which begin to collapse on closer inspection. If anyone has any other examples of British bands playing in battle I'd love to hear them – for one, the 87th playing Garry Owen at Tarifa is possibly credible – but the overall picture is clear. Bandsmen were too busy taking the wounded from the field. As for Scott and his triangle, he was a child whom no-one had time to keep an eye on at Waterloo, what with the French and all. The fact that he was left to wander around playing his triangle further underscores the point that he wasn't needed by the bandmaster for any organized renditions of Rule Britannia or Britons Strike Home.

On Bentinck, thank you very much Paul for such a considered reply. :)
The question of whether he was a musician or drummer at Waterloo is of some interest to me because of my study of the roles of both groups in action. I've actually seen his entry in Holme and Kirby's medal rolls. The book overall is indeed well-referenced, but they still don't give the basis for the 'played in the Band at Waterloo' claim beside mentioning that his serpent survives. The WO 12 regimental pay lists from the UK National Archives demonstrate that Bentinck was serving a drummer at Waterloo.

Be cautious with WO 97 discharge papers, as they often don't always include all the ranks a soldier held. In Bentinck's case, it lists him as having served a private for his entire time in the army, which is categorically false (see the WO 12s). Even John Buttrey, the 1/34th fifer apparently behind the largest extant collection of Napoleonic-era fife music (c.1000 songs) was listed on his Chelsea discharge papers as only ever having served as a private, even though the pay lists prove that he spent most of his time in the army as a drummer (ie. a fifer).

Yes, Scharnachthal, you are correct in saying that the vast majority of bandsmen served as privates. That said, various regiments sometimes seconded drummers into the band – which was against the rules strictly speaking –  e.g. the 76th when they didn't have enough drums for all their drummers in 1815. As another example, the 1/26th's band in 1814 at Gibraltar boasted 2 Serjeants, 1 Corporal, 22 Privates and 2 Drummers – more than double the regulation number of 1 sergeant and 10 privates. So Bentinck *could* have been paid as a drummer whilst also serving in 23rd' band, although it's a bit of a stretch to say this without any hard evidence.

It is true, Paul, that Bentinck says he was Ellis' 'orderly', not 'orderly drummer', but I think based on all the other information that 'orderly drummer' was what he meant. Combined with the evidence from the pay lists and the later mention of the drum sticks he carried at Waterloo, I'd say that the most likely scenario, employing Ockham's razor, is that Bentinck was a drummer at Waterloo. I don't doubt that Bentinck was a bandsman at some point in his military career (he was discharged in 1823) but I don't think there is really any hard proof to say that he was serving in this capacity at that great battle, although we'll probably never know for sure either way.

Thank you for this – Perhaps Col Elting being only mortal, wrote 5 years when he meant 5 months.

Regards

Scharnachthal

The Word Reduced isn't mine, it belongs to the entry beside Bentinck's (Bentick) name

"Drummer Richard BENTICK (mgs)

Born at Backton, Suffolk; trade – labourer. Attested on 10th January 1807 aged 16 years. Reduced to Private, no date given. Served in Grenadier Company at Waterloo. Date of discharge not given. He was a member of the Regimental band at Waterloo. His instrument, a serpent is still in existence and has his name stamped on the bell"

That a drummer was paid 1 penny and 3 farthings extra than a Private, I suppose the word 'reduction' is used in the above quote because of that reduction in pay, unless there is evidence that he was still getting that extra payment as a private in the regimental band.

Just to make things clear on the sources used for the information….

"The Waterloo roll (WO. 100/15A: Public Records office, London.

Military and General Service Medal (1794 – 1814) Roll:
Officers(WO. 100/1): Public Records office, London.
Other Ranks (WO. 100/6): Public Records office, London.

Description and Succession Books (WO. 25/347-350): Public Records office, London.

Army Officers Awards (Napoleonic Period): J.B. Hayward, London (1969)

Military and General Service Medal (1794 – 1814) Roll: Kingsley-Foster, Germany (1947)

The Waterloo Roll Call: C. Dalton, London (1904)

Waterloo Pay Roll: R.W.F. Museum, Caernarvon

In addition to the published and unpublished sources, relevant information was obtained from Army Lists, discharge documents, reports, letters and diaries, etc, all of which are in the possession of the Regimental Museum, 23rd Foot, Royal Welch Fusiliers, Caernarvon Castle"

….Which is where the author got his information.

Paul :)

Thank you, Paul.
I have read the 23rd medal roll book, and know it is very well researched – a remarkable achievement, in fact.
I have also checked several of the manuscript archival sources you list for information on Bentinck's status, including the 23rd's WO 12 pay lists and WO 25 description books. Yet I still have not have not found anything beyond Holme and Kirby's statement to confirm that Bentinck, who was certainly paid as a drummer at Waterloo, was serving in the band in June 1815. I am also wary of the inevitable confusion between 'band' and 'drums' that is almost a constant in secondary works, and which may be behind this claim. Maybe proof exists at Caernarvon Castle, but based on the documentation I have seen first-hand (which I am happy to send on to you) and the evidence reviewed here it seems to me much more likely that Bentinck served as a drummer at Waterloo. But I'd be happy to stand corrected if something more definite emerged. :)

Eamonn & Scharnachthal, thank you for those observations.

To be honest, I find John Scott's claims made in old age fairly unlikely but the traditions of women and children up forward at Waterloo would benefit from more systematic examination.

Gary- I too did wonder whether Col. Elting might have meant 5 months instead of 5 years; but does that mean he also intended to write '10 months' instead of '10 years'?

The Word Reduced isn't mine, it belongs to the entry beside Bentinck's (Bentick) name

"Drummer Richard BENTICK (mgs)

Born at Backton, Suffolk; trade – labourer. Attested on 10th January 1807 aged 16 years. Reduced to Private, no date given. Served in Grenadier Company at Waterloo. Date of discharge not given. He was a member of the Regimental band at Waterloo. His instrument, a serpent is still in existence and has his name stamped on the bell"

Well, obviously, this statement is not actually from the contemporary army records proper but apparently is a summary compiled from various sources including some information that certainly would not have been found in the army files (such as the serpent thing…). I don't know whether the word "reduced" actually describes correctly what happened to "drummer" Bentinck when he became a bandsman (assuming that he actually became one, whenever).

But as I haven't seen the files myself, I can't further comment on the matter. Definitely, a drummer was paid more than a private in the ranks, but was he actually paid more than a bandsman-private? I have no idea. What about various bounties, privileges, exemptions from specific duties, etc.? Look what Gleeson has to say about Charles (and William) Sporleder's bounties of 11 guineas:

"…received a bounty of " Eleven Guineas "……no mean sum in 1810."

and

"That eleven guinea bounty on this record is the highest i've yet come across. I wonder why it was for so much ? I'll bet 11 guineas could have bought you a house in some parts of England in 1810."

from here:

link

But again: I've not enough information to delve into the matter.

Eamonn & Scharnachthal,

Thanks for your excellent inputs.

Like yourselves, I am not one hundred percent sure of Bentinck's roll on the day. I personally hope he was attired in his lace bedecked uniform, with his French drumsticks ready at hand to use when ordered by that tragic, very brave soldier and Commander, Sir Henry Walton Ellis, K.C.B.

Paul :)

"…Leur instruction sera suivie d'une manière que, d'ici au 1er septembre, ils puissent être attachés en pied au service de nouveaux battalions qui seraient formés…"

I understand that Napoleon – who decreed this at the beginning of April 1811 – wanted the trainees to be proficient enough to join the army at the beginning of September 1811. That's about 5 months time.

Reading the text of the decree again I'd even say that, perhaps, one should understand that Napoleon wanted the trainees to be ready for attachment to the new battalions till 1st September AT THE LATEST, which would mean that he considered the 5 months timespan a maximum timespan…

Let me add one final remark.

Eamonn1812 said:

…Clearly a 3-6 week time frame for learning an instrument from first principles was considered unusually ambitious, but was evidently possible.

Whilst I am aware of the hazards of using 'reenactor' experiences as evidence, I can say that new members to our corps with some musical experience on other instruments can pick up the fife or drum and, working five days a week, can master our basic repertoire of 30 or so songs including the key duty calls in 1.5-2 months. Most new drummers historically, however, had no prior musical training. Also, many though not all were in their pre-teens or teens, which would also slow their pace of learning. As a more comparable example, some of our youth volunteers (11-14) practice with us a few times a week during July and August only; they take anywhere 1-3 summers to master the repertoire, but certainly not five years…

The longer I think about it the more I'm convinced that during Napoleonic times drummer recruits were able to learn their business within far less than 5 months. Let's remember that those were not reenactors or part-time students, they were drilled daily till perfectly meeting the requirements as set by the regulations. We have seen what Schauenbourg said: two rehearsals a day, and as soon as they were able to beat together, continual training even when on the march. Day by day…So, anything between 2 months (the time it took the French drum majors to learn the new 1754 drum beats) and 5 months (the time provided for by Napoleon for the instruction of new drummers) seems to be more than realistic…

I agree – lets see if brech can admit that Elting and he himself was wrong on that.

I wonder if there is much point harping on about what was wrong, when we now have an inkling of what is correct.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Tango01

With my musical skills it would probably take me five years to learn how to hold the sticks correctly, never mind learn all the different campaign and peace beats.

Anyway, this might be of interest. If anyone manages to get past the 'algebra' bit, the Napoleonic video drum beats are worth listening to, while the Guard Band in the 4th video are very entertaining.

link

ps. The extract from Elting's Swords Around the Throne is actually on page 336 in the paperback edition.

Thanks my friend!.

Amicalement
ARmand

Tango01

No problem. I always believed learning to play a musical instrument is very similar to learning the martial arts. You can learn the various moves in a fairly short time but it can take years before you become good at it and earn those brown and black belts.

The topic made me curious and I checked out what some musicians thought about how long it could take to learn how to play the drums. The two websites below seem to suggest that, like learning martial arts, you can reach an acceptable level in a short time but it could take years to become really good.

I think a drummer would have to be really good to be able to play the correct beat when actually in combat and under fire. Playing on a parade ground or in your own room or barracks is far away from attempting to do the same thing with cannons and muskets firing at you. However, at the same time, I imagine there may have been exceptions if some soldiers discovered they had a gift for it and they may well have reached a good or acceptable level quicker than others. This is an unusual and interesting topic, so well done for bringing it up.

link

link

With my musical skills it would probably take me five years to learn how to hold the sticks correctly, never mind learn all the different campaign and peace beats.

Gazzola,
If you had turned out to be such a failure as a drummer the same would have happened to you as e.g. to drummer Corneil Ravier of the 69e de ligne: You would have been relegated after only three weeks to be a fusilier (without further comment)…but you'd still have had the chance to become a capable voltigeur…

p.14 [enter p.18, lower right], N°.82:

link

Scharnachtal put up enough hard evidence that 5 years for Basic training of a drummer is a wrong conclusion by Elting and brech, brech failed to bring foreward any evidence to support his claim, still trying to find that Oudinots units had to drum on camp kettles at a battle in 1805(as Elting states)

Otherwise Drummers as all professional soldiers would continue to train – to improve their skills after they mastered their basic training

…still trying to find that Oudinots units had to drum on camp kettles at a battle in 1805(as Elting states)

If you were a little more careful in your reading you would discover that it was Mortier, not Oudinot, who directed that camp kettles be used as drums at Durrenstein in 1805. See Swords, page 337.

And, again, if you don't agree with something, then post information that proves the statement wrong. You have a very bad habit of not pursuing that course of action.

The paragraph that Brech posted is on page 336 as he noted. Unfortunately, there is no end note nor information in the in-line text to indicate where Elting got his information from.

Did you think that it wouldn't be?

Perhaps you could point out where using foot or endnotes in any publication is required? Swords has over 700 endnotes, which I would think would be enough for anyone. And the Bibliography is excellent. Col Elting had an excellent personal library and was about 5 miles from a world-class library that he could and did use for research.

And it should also be noted that he produced an errata listing for Swords in the 1990s. Every author, no matter how knowledgeable, makes errors in their writing. Anyone who claims not to, and I have never seen any historical author make that claim, is on very shaky ground.

If you were a little more careful in your reading you would discover that it was Mortier, not Oudinot, who directed that camp kettles be used as drums at Durrenstein in 1805. See Swords, page 337.

Yes, it was Mortier who said… well, what?

Well, actually, this anecdote can be found in the Comte de Ségur's memoires as edited by his grandson in 1894/95. I don't know whether it's true but, actually, we are talking about "bidons de fer". Well, I think nobody is better qualified to explain what a "bidon de fer" is than VW . And, according to Ségur's memoires, this was done only because all drums had been destroyed…As I said, it's an anecdote, can't tell whether it's true or not. May be just sort of pep talk ("If you don't have drums, use your bidons"), or may reflect an actual necessity. Can't tell…

p.228:

link

Here we read:

Pour donner du cœur à ceux qui mèment l'assaut, pour indiquer à tous sa résolution d'avancer coûte que coûte, il fait battre les tambours sans interruption et là où les tambours font défaut, « il fait, au dire du comte de Ségur, aide de camp de l'Empereur, taper, par les soldats, sur leurs bidons de fer. »

From here:

link

Anyway, serious historians do mention where they got their information from in order to enable those who are interested in knowing more to check the sources themselves…

If you are attempting to say that Col Elting was not a serious historian then I would vehemently disagree with you.

You are completely wrong.

Regarding footnoting, you don't have to footnote every paragraph, sentence or phrase. Generally speaking quotations used should be footnoted but you can also name the person who is making the quotation.

If you are attempting to say that Col Elting was not a serious historian then I would vehemently disagree with you.

You are completely wrong.

Disagree as much as you want.

Serious historians do mention where they got their information from in order to enable those who are interested in knowing more to check the sources themselves.

I am completely wrong?

Oh my God!

Regarding footnoting, you don't have to footnote every paragraph, sentence or phrase. Generally speaking quotations used should be footnoted but you can also name the person who is making the quotation.

What do you mean by "the person who is making the quotation"? Do you mean it's enough to mention Mortier who – allegedly – made the "bidons de fer" (or "camp kettle", rather) quotation? Without naming the source that says so? Are you joking?

Or do you mean it's enough to mention the person who quoted the man who made the quotation (Ségur, in this instance)? Well, did Elting mention Ségur?

If so, why did you not name him? (Sorry, I don't buy literature of dubious worth, so Elting will never find a place in my library…)

However, a footnote in this instance would have been useful to help explain a statement of fact made by Col.Elting which the illustrations shared here by Eamonn and Scharnachtal, as well as common sense (to be frank), indicate was unlikely.

This is particularly so since, unfortunately,Sabretache, to judge by their archive search function offers nothing on the subject.

Great forum this,

There I was wandering around York in temperatures we do not expect or even welcome, when, in my favourite bookshop I picked up a very tired copy of "Swords around a Throne" for a bargain price. Never mind the scholarship, the accuracy, the reliability……………..what a great read it is.

Same shop I got beautiful bound set of "Campaigns of N" by Chandler. Despite everything I have read here, not yet convinced

so Elting will never find a place in my library…

Then I am very sorry for you because that is the best organizational study of the Grande Armee in English.

And the scholarship, accuracy, and reliability is first rate, whether or not anyone here agrees or not.

The following comments are from well-known and respected Napoleonic historians, who, like Col Elting who taught military history at West Point for eleven years, are all college-level professors and published scholars:

'Without doubt, Colonel Elting has written the definitive work on the Grande Armee. And it is superb reading, by turns anecdotal, descriptive, or analytical, with narrative segments that roll like cavalry charges. Elting is a master historian.'-Owen Connelly.

'Col John Elting's book will immediately become the most authoritative volume in the English language on Napoleon's Grande Armee. This massive study is packed full of information and details about the creation and operation of each component of Europe's greatest army-from headquarters to the commissariat to the postal system. In all, a brilliant contribution of immense value to any scholar or buff of the Napoleonic period.-Donald Horward.

'Colonel Elting, drawing on his vast experience both as a soldier and a military author, examines Napoleon's army from its revolutionary origins to the last days of the empire, looking at officers and men, the various arms and their equipment, administration and supporting services, as well as daily life in camp and on campaign. Based on massive research, Elting has written a definitive work that fills a major gap in the literature and will become must reading for military historians, buffs, and wargamers alike.'-Gunther Rothenberg.

Elting is a good story teller – good edutainment – otherwise I agree with Scharnachtal.

Then you have missed the point yet again.

42flanker

Elting's 767 page book (paperback) contains 69 pages of notes as it stands. Imagine the size of the book if he was expected to offer a footnote for every bit of information he placed on every page?

Plus, I don't think he would expect 'wannabe experts' to throw a wobbler over his claim it would take five years to become an expert drummer. Or worse, expect them to consider him a poor historian because he did not offer a footnote over a musical item.

If you look at the links I provided, modern day musicians appear to think you can learn to play the drums within months, but to become good at it would take years. But what do they know, eh?

Scharnachtal

Not to consider having the works of Elting in your library because it did not contain a footnote in it about a musical matter, says more about you than Elting, as does your views on Elting as a 'serious' historian. I guess you obviously believe you know more than the renowned historians mentioned by Brechtel198 and also John Keegan and the late David Chandler who described Swords as a 'masterpiece'.

An interesting point about being 'relegated' from being a drummer if found not to be good enough after three weeks. I wonder how many were relegated because they were 'not good enough?' Another aspect of time needed to find those who could play.