"English 'Gentlemen'?" Topic

From Napoleon the Great by Andrew Roberts, pages 333-334:

'Wright next landed General Charles Pichegru, the former Brienne instructor, French Revolutionary War hero, and Jacobin-turned-royalist, along with seven co-conspirators at Bivelle on January 16, 1804, and returned to Walmer Castle in Kent, where British naval intelligence was based. Wright was acting under the orders of Admiral Lord Keith, commander-in-chief of the North Sea Fleet, who reported to Admiral Early St Vincent, the First Sea Lord. St Vincent's own orders from Lord Hawkesbury were that it was 'of the utmost importance that Captain Wright should be involved in the fullest latitude.' Other documents, including one from Keith specifying that Wright 'is employed on a secret and delicate service', connect the British government intimately with the Cadoudal conspiracy, at the highest levels of both. Further evidence of direct British government involvement in the 1804 plot to murder Napoleon lies in several letters, the first written on June 22, 1803, from a Mr Walter Spencer to Lord Castlereagh, a senior British cabinet minister, asking for the repayment of L150 for himself and L1,000 for Michelle de Bonneuil, a royalist plotter with several identities who is known to have met Louis XVIII's brother the Comte d'Artois (the future King Charles X) in Edinburgh during the Amiens peace. Spencer said the money had been advanced 'relative to a political intrigue planned by Lord Castlereagh to abduct Bonaparte in 1803', which was co-ordinated by Mr Liston, the British envoy to The Hague. (Plots to 'abduct' Napoleon at this time were transparent covers for his assassination.) Although there is nothing directly incriminating from the government side in the exchange-as might be expected-George Holford, a member of parliament who was Castlereagh's closest friend in politics, wrote to Spencer saying that if he would 'take the trouble of calling in Downing Street his Lordship will see him upon it.' This would hardly have been the case if Spencer had been a crank.'

It should also be known and understood that Pitt while out of office was 'in residence' at Walmer Castle in Kent as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports and undoubtedly knew what operations were being conducted from there, unless he was both deaf and dumb or just plain stupid.

This is getting tedious now! It's not evidence. Just like the other half dozen authors you have quoted. No evidence whatsoever of the British government or Pitt ordering the assassination of Napoleon. Roberts himself is an even bigger napoleon fawner than you are! If he had the evidence, don't you think even he would quote a source to it?

Roberts footnotes his work. Have you read the book or are you still carping and carrying on an unreasoning rant?

"all three authors quoted used the relevant primary source material for the quoted sections in their books. If you're actually interested, then look up the source material."

I did. The results from Sr. de la Huerta's chapter on the rue Nicaise bomb, the one quoted by Brechtel, are below.
Overall, there are no primary sources, only secondary sources. The citations are at about the level expected of a high school student of modest research capability (wrong pages, wrong titles, wrong years, padding the list of sources by re-citing his sources' footnotes, padding the list with textbooks, etc.).
Of all the citations, only one page (from Hall – at the bottom of the list) actually speaks to British involvement or knowledge of the plot. Sr. de la Huerta then goes on to misuse this reference to deem the British responsible for the plot. Several other of his own sources conclude exactly the opposite.

Overall, this tertiary source is essentailly of no value as independent historical research analysis.

==================================

--- 4 citations to Lenôtre "Paris Révolutionnare : Vielles Maisons, Vieux Papiers" (given incoorectly as 1909 – should be 1906)
The work is set of lavishly illustrated short "canned" biographies and descriptions of famous streets and buildings of the revolution. The material appears to be reprints from the popular magazine Le Monde illustré, where Lenôtre worked as a reporter.
See : link
See : link
The pages in question do not mention the British.

--- 2 citations to Bourrienne's memoires
The pages quoted are bout Baonaprte's expereicnces at Toulon and immediately after (of which of course Bourrienne had no personal knowledge). The actual pages dont seem to relate to the matters being covered in the chapter. So there may be a mistake in the citations.
The pages in question do not mention the British.

--- 1 citation to a general list of works – without page numbers, a kind "see also" mini-bibliogrpahy
The three "standard works in French:
…. de Martel, "Étude sur l'affaire de la machine infernal du 3 nivôse an IX" (1870)
See : link
Essentially clears the British from any involvement – does not mention Pitt or Wyndham
…. Loredan, "La machine infernal" (1924) – incorrectly named, should be Lorédan, "La machine infernal de la rue Nicaise" (1924)
See : link
Essentially clears the British from any involvement – does not mention Wyndham, mentions Pitt once
…. Thiry, "La machine infernal" (1952)
See : link

A college textbook (?)
Sydenham, "The Crime of Nivôse" in a textbook "French Government and Society 1500-1850 (1973)

Darrah, "Conspriacy in Paris : the strange career of Joseph Picot de Limoelan " (1953)
(also explicitly cited twice)
See : link
Does not focus on the British. Mentions Wyndham once. Says the plot was conceived and organized by the comte d'Artois and Cadoudal (page 138)

"For police reports housed in the Archives Nationales" AN F7 6271, 6332, 3829
See : link
…. The descriptions for these archive numbers seem correct :
…. Affaires politiques [Bureau des émigrés] (an V – an XIV)
…. Aliasses et dossiers [Rapports de la préfecture de police de Paris] (an VIII – an IX)
Note that these are section numbers, and omit the usual details of carton identification and document number : three 3 listed sections comprise over 30,000 documents.

--- 2 citations to Dwyer "Citizen Emperor: Napoleon in Power 1799-1815" (2013)
See : link
The British are not mentioned on the referenced pages

--- 3 citations to Sparrow, "Secret Service : British Agents in France, 1792-1815 (1999)

--- 1 citation to Emsley, "Napoleon: Conquest, Reform and Reorganization" (2015)
A little illustrated booklet – perhaps intended for high school students as a supplemental or "Cliff Notes" style summary? No memtion of Pitt or Wyndham.
See : link

--- 1 citation to Urban, "The Gentleman's Magazine", XLV
Defective citation. It is from a popular magazine in 1856. It does not mention the British.
See : link

--- 5 citations from Hall, "Pichergru's Treason" (1915)
Correct title is "General Pichergru's Treason"
Also, Hall's primary sources are listed by de la Huerta, as if de la Huerta had actually seen them himself. However, the numbering scheme for these is vintage 1915, and has changed.
This is the only accusation against the British :
See : link

This reminds me of that scene in Waterloo were the Irishman from the 27th is caught red handed with a looted piglet.

Can we promote Kevin to Corporal? He is very good a defending a hopeless position.

"if those historians have based their quotes on those papers, what were they? what paper or letter Quotes the British government (or Pitt) ordering the assassination of Napoleon?"

They didn't base their quotes on any papers that they ever saw themselves. The based their accusations against the British by over-stating the impact of a few snippets from primary sources quoted by Sir John Richard Hall in "General Pichergru's Treason", published in 1915.
link

Hall gives as citations with regard to the British and attempts on Napoléon's life :
F. O. France 56
B.M. Add. 87,9222, Windham's diary

Some of Brechtel's modern authors will reprint these citations as if they themselves saw the documents. Others will just allude to the them in a general way. As none of them refer to the documents with archive citations in use after 1949 and 1972, we can be rather sure that Brechtel's tertiary sources never even laid eyes on the primary source material. And they went way beyond Hall (the one who did see the documents) in accusing the British. Hall summarised, "Once it was discovered that the affair of the 3 nivoise was the work of the Chouans, Bonaprate loudly accused the British government of having instigated them to commit their dastardly outrage. Nor, if the facts of the case be impartially cnsidered, is it possible to dismiss the charge as altogether unfounded. Most certainly, no member of Mr. Pitt's government had any knowledge that there was a plot to blow up Bonaparte with gunpowder".

For "F. O. France 56" ….
From the beginning of 1950 a revised filing system was adopted by the Foreign Office archives (FO). This system was based on: i) an initial letter (or letters) indicating the Department concerned, ii) a file number, iii) a further number indicating the particular paper in the file.
link
This primary source might be also now in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office archives (FCO):
link

For "B.M. Add. 87,9222, Windham's diary"
Archive material held by the British Museum Department of Manuscripts (usually with references beginning ‘Add') and some other Museum records are held by the British Library since 1973.
The correct modern source citation for this document is :
BL Add MS 37921-37924 (Windham Papers. Vols. LXXX. through LXXXIII. Folios 23, 41, 47, 91)
link
link

The diary of Willliam Wyndham published in 1866 had none of subject entries quoted by Hall. It is termed as "entirely distinct" from the manuscipt diary held in the British Library collection.
link

The bottom line remains that the British supported the Bourbons in England and supported the assassination attempts against Napoleon.

Do you actually know what a tertiary source is? Huerta's book is a secondary, not a tertiary source.

Bourrienne has long been discredited as a source at all because it was ghost-written.

Nice try, but keep going if you like. British governmental involvement in the conspiracies/plots against Napoleon are fact, not error, and the idea that Pitt was involved is also accurate.

The plots and conspiracies while Napoleon was First Consul were repetitive and were failures, fortunately.

The bottom line remains that the British supported the Bourbons in England and supported the assassination attempts against Napoleon.

I am not sure who you are addressing? Both Breton and I, at any rate, have made our opinions clear on the question of British intelligence interests and government support for French dissidents.

I would suggest that the bottom line, as you call it, is that you made an assertion [re.training camps, etc.] which was questioned, and in support of your assertion you then cited authors whose reliablity was questioned in turn, after which you insisted that the footnotes(etc) in the relevant works, such as they were, would bear out the authors' claims.

It is now becoming clear that not only do the footnotes in which you have placed such faith fail to bear out your initial assertion but they indicate a pretence to scholarship which is at best sloppy and at worst, I am astonished to learn, bordering on the laughably fraudulent.

You also, rather quaintly, cited French authors who supported the case against your assertion. I wonder if you had actually read them.

It is interesting that your opinion of Bourienne should be so low, since Pocock in his book relies on Bourienne's memoirs considerably in the passages relating to Cadoudal. In Ch. 7, 17 out of 27 references are to pages in Bourienne. It's not possible to be more specific since, unfortunately, the numbered sources listed at the back of Pocock's book are not linked to the text. No matter, since in none of the passages cited is there any mention of Cadoudal organising 'guerrilla training camps in Hampshire' (p.130). All in all an interesting approach to historical enquiry.

For an equally interesting approach we might turn to the 'Notes and Sources at the back of Cronin's 'Napoleon' (Paperback, 1990) For Chapter 16 and his reference to Cadoudal in England (p. 240) he gives us this:

"Cadoudal Plot. Letters from English agents in Stuttgart and Munich, in the Liverpool Papers." (p.461).

While pausing briefly to wonder what agents in Germany might have to say about "a training camp for conspirators and guerrillas [two ‘r's'] at Romsey" (p.240), after casting around further in the Notes and Sources, we find an earlier reference to "the Liverpool Papers in the BM." That would appear to be all the information on offer.

This is what you described as 'one of Cronin's sources,' which you recommended we consult. It is in fact Cronin's only source on this topic. However, it would seem Cronin was not particularly interested in anyone finding and reading his source material. A curious approach to historical method, indeed.

If 'The Liverpool Papers' contain a reference to 'guerilla training camps', there it will have to remain. I don't feel too cheated, however, since I suspect that after sifting through lord knows how many screeds of Mss, I would be none the wiser.

Dilly dilly.

"The plots and conspiracies while Napoleon was First Consul were repetitive and were failures, fortunately."

Fortunately for us who like to read books and play wargames on military history, rather than spending our time on more practical and, uh, useful matters. But kind of a strange statement.

Cronin's source "citation":
"Liverpool Papers in the BM"

Cronin = tertiary source = baised hack job

Liverpool Papers
Scope: The Earls of Liverpool (Jenkinson, Hawkesbury, etc.).
Location and Catalogue: Add. MSS 38190-38489, 38564-38581, 59772, 61818, Loan 72/1-68.
link

Add. MSS 38190-38489 – 16th century-19th century – 298 volumes, 2 rolls and one box of rolls
Add. MSS 38564-38581 – 14th century-18th century – 18 folios
Add. MSS 59772 – 1770 to 1812 – 124 folios
Add. MSS 61818 – 1763 to 1836 – 118 folios
Loan 72/1-68 – 1500 to 1899 – 68 volumes

Clearly, as is typical for such tertiary sources, Cronin did *not* look through all of the above to find his "training camps". He never laid eyes on all that lot.
Some other secondary source did see something more or less relevant to Cronin's theme, and instead of citing that source, Cronin just copied that source's reference to the "Liverpool Papers" – probably not realizing that these were not 10 manuscript pages but the equivalent of a small library's worh of materials.

It appears that the ability to identify these by the indexation of the British Museum started after 1915 (the bulk were donated in 1911). Before 1915, an author could only identify these documents with a description (e.g. "Liverpool to Wellington, 1 January 1810"). The papers had been in the possession of the Rt. Hon. Henry Berkeley, 2nd Viscount Portman (1829-1919) – his wife was a great-grand daughter of the 3rd Earl of Liverpool. The papers had not been made generally available to researchers.

The only place I could find, other than Cronin, where *any* author ascribed something to the "Liverpool Papers" was a three-volme biograoghy of the 2nd Earl Liverpool commissioned by the family in the late 1860's from Charles Duke Yonge.
link
link

The was the un-named secondary source of Cronin – who may or may not have ever realized that this story of the Munich and Stuttgart agents was already well known. Indeed, what was really in the "Liverpool Papers" was information leading to denials of British culpability in any assassination plots by Hawkesbury (later Lord Liverpool) which were published in 1804.

====================

The case of the Munich and Stuttgart agents was no obscure item that could only be found by some accidental record in an archive. It was a cause cèlebre in the era (like the case of Captain Wright), and appeared in French and Enlgish newspapers in 1804.

A rather detailed discussion of the actions of Francis Drake in Munich, from 1817:
link

For a good detailed modern treatment of Drake and his peer Spencer-Smith in Stuttgart, see :
The Alien Office, 1792–1806
Elizabeth Sparrow
The Historical Journal
Volume 33, Issue 2
June 1990, pages 361-384
link

Brechtel,

We read your books.
We checked their poorly documented "sources".

There is no proof of "training camps" and no proof of British involvement with assassinations. There is no question of British intelligence interest and government support for French dissidents. But you have insisted on more than this. You have insisted on "training camps" and assassinations.

But your sources don't provide any conteporary evidence for these. None at all. They – really Cronin and his flock of parrots – merely assert these things.

So, do *you* have any real evidence? Or are you, like your tertiary sources, just insisting on what your biases tell you instead of what can be supported with evidence?

Do you actually know what a 'tertiary' source is? Seems to me when anyone wants to denigrate a source because they disagree with it, they label it a tertiary source.

The five volumes I have listed are secondary sources, by definition. See:

link

Brechtel,
Secondary or tertiary, your sources (and their sources where they are listed or even suggested) do not provide one iota of contemporary source support for your assertions about "training camps" or assassinations. Can you?

Wow. What did I miss here.

Nothing much Edwulf. Just a little testiness, which was probably a symptom of the discussion having run its course. That, anyway, was my contribution to the deleted posts. I have no idea what happened after that. Whatever answer is elicited to Breton's remaining question, I don't think there is much more to be said.

To continue after the vulgar uproar, the following was suggested to me and I happen to have a copy of the book to hand:

Secret Service: British Agents in France, 1792–1815, by Elizabeth Sparrow.

Sparrow mentions that it was William Pitt that first organized the British ‘foreign secret service', page xi:
‘Attack being the best form of defense, George III's government under William Pitt very quickly also formed a foreign secret service for the support of counter-revolution in France…'

I cannot see Pitt organizing something so important and then bow out of knowledge of its operations.

William Pitt's knowledge of ‘The Grand Conspiracy' as Sparrow names Chapter 15 in her book, is quite evident on page 278, regarding the ferrying and landing of Cadoudal and his confederates in France:

‘…this was after Wright had landed Cadoudal and his associates, following another of Le Moine's requests to Nepean. This operations was certainly known to Addington and Hawkesbury, to the Smiths at Walmer and therefore to William Pitt…'

It is quite clear that the British aided the royalists/Bourbons in their attempts to destroy the French consular government and to murder Napoleon, both financially and materially with the use of the Royal Navy.

Lastly, I would suggest looking up the sourcing for Pocock, Cronin, Lloyd, and Horricks. You've taken time to attempt to excoriate these authors/historians but it doesn't appear to me that you have supported that effort with actually finding where they got their information. Unless you do, you cannot prove them wrong.

Pocock uses both volumes of the Windham Papers, the two volumes of the private correspondence of Lord Granville Leveson Gower, The Journals and Letters of Fanny Burney (12 volumes), the Correspondence, Despatches, and Other Papers of Viscount Castlereagh, and Elizabeth Sparrow's book among others.

Lloyd does not use Cronin, but used material from the Public Records Office, such as material from the Admiralty, the Home Office, and the War Office. All of that is manuscript material. Huerta used the Windham Papers and the Correspondence of William Wickham among others, such as the Publications of the Naval Records Society.

If you haven't checked these and other sources listed in the authors' bibliographies, I suggest that you cannot discount their conclusions on the subject. Which ones of the above references have you checked?

And you didn't answer the question that was put to you: did you read the material?

The bottom line is that Great Britains' government invested large sums of money to conduct intelligence and counter-intelligence operations in France against Napoleon and his government. They also supported the royalists financially and materially in their efforts to murder Napoleon and wreck his government.

‘…this was after Wright had landed Cadoudal and his associates, following another of Le Moine's requests to Nepean. This operations was certainly known to Addington and Hawkesbury, to the Smiths at Walmer and therefore to William Pitt…'

And what primary source(s) does she cite for that?

Lloyd does not use Cronin, but used material from the Public Records Office, such as material from the Admiralty, the Home Office, and the War Office. All of that is manuscript material. Huerta used the Windham Papers and the Correspondence of William Wickham among others, such as the Publications of the Naval Records Society.

So, what specific source(s) from the Public Records or Admiralty, etc, does he cite for the assertion that the British hired assassins to kill Napoleon? What primary sources support your assertion?

I would suggest looking up the sourcing for Pocock, Cronin, Lloyd, and Horricks. You've taken time to attempt to excoriate these authors/historians but it doesn't appear to me that you have supported that effort with actually finding where they got their information. Unless you do, you cannot prove them wrong.

That's not how History – or any learned field – works. An author makes an assertion of fact, and it is on him or her to document that assertion with the primary sources. If he or she does not do so, then there is no reason to accept the assertion, unless and until it is backed up by somebody else (preferably multiple somebodies-else) having done the primary research.

Accepting an unproven assertion without documentation, for no reason other than that it supports your biases, is no better than reading fiction. That is what everybody on this thread has been – unsuccessfully, as usual – trying to explain to you.

And you didn't answer the question that was put to you: did you read the material?

Did you "look up the sourcing for Pocock, Cronin, Lloyd, and Horricks"? You've told others to examine this-or-that source, but without doing so, yourself? How are we supposed to "look up" an undocumented assertion?

You have Zero patience for anybody making an assertion that is not backed up by primary sources – when you don't like the assertion. For example, you wrote:

"I would suggest that if you disagree with something posted, support your position with actual material or at least name a source. Suggesting to someone to read a publication is not support for a particular point of view."

— Kevin Kiley, TMP link

Or, on the site you referenced in the OP:

"I would suggest that if any ideas are contested on any forum, then supporting documentation and evidence should be supplied. If not, then the point is moot and that clearly demonstrates a 'right' and a 'wrong' answer."

— Kevin Kiley, napoleon-series.org.

That's not how History – or any learned field – works. An author makes an assertion of fact, and it is on him or her to document that assertion with the primary sources. If he or she does not do so, then there is no reason to accept the assertion, unless and until it is backed up by somebody else (preferably multiple somebodies-else) having done the primary research.
Accepting an unproven assertion without documentation, for no reason other than that it supports your biases, is no better than reading fiction. That is what everybody on this thread has been – unsuccessfully, as usual – trying to explain to you.

The authors referenced did source their material, but were not accepted by those who disagreed with the material.

So, the next logical move is for those who disagree to look up the authors' sources and then find out for themselves.

If not, then the point is moot.

Again the documentation was provided. Did you expect the authors to quote verbatim from their sources instead of referencing them? That isn't the way history writing and research works. They can do that but don't have to.

And I have posted relevant source material that the authors used.

What is very clear is that you and others don't understand the historical method nor historical inquiry.

What is clear is that you won't accept the conclusions of these authors, which is fine, but you won't do the necessary work to disprove their conclusions-as usual.

Have you read the books that have been listed? There's six of them now. If you haven't posting material against those authors is nothing but unproven and unsupported bias.

That just makes you and others nothing better than cheap-shot artists.

Your link to the Napoleon Series only goes to the web page, not to any thread.

The authors referenced did source their material, but were not accepted by those who disagreed with the material…. And I have posted relevant source material that the authors used.

So then I'll ask you again: in the quote from the Sparrow book, above, what primary source(s) does she cite to support her assertion that the British hired assassins to kill Napoleon?

This is straightforward: is there a footnote or not? If so, then what primary source does it cite?

Did you expect the authors to quote verbatim from their sources instead of referencing them? That isn't the way history writing and research works. They can do that but don't have to.

I expect that anybody making an assertion of historical fact, should be able to back it up with citations of the primary sources used.

What is very clear is that you and others don't understand the historical method nor historical inquiry. What is clear is that you won't accept the conclusions of these authors, which is fine, but you won't do the necessary work to disprove their conclusions.

I understand it well enough to know that that statement is absurd. In your very peculiar version of "the historical method," apparently we are supposed to believe an undocumented assertion unless somebody can "look up" sources that aren't cited and might not even exist, and dis-prove the assertion.

So if I've got an author's work in front of me, and it says that Napoleon paid for assassins to kill William Pitt, and there is no citation or documentation… OK, Kevin: explain to me how you'd dis-prove it. How would you look up "the sources" and prove that assertion wrong? And until you can do so, then – in your own words:

"What is clear is that you won't accept the conclusions of this author, which is fine, but you won't do the necessary work to disprove their conclusions. That just makes you nothing better than a cheap-shot artist."

Agreed?

Brechtel, you are aware you are repeating yourself, yes? These points have all been addressed already, either here or on NSDF in the parallel discussion there. There is no point our repeating ourselves in turn.

Scroll back and you will see where, having examined the sources cited in the textual notes, we have presented our conclusions with the deficiencies explained: Cronin, Lloyd, Pocock- and Huerta for good measure. Horricks provided no notes. You can accept them or not as you choose.

For the benefit of members here who don't look at the Napoleonic Series Discussion Forum- here are the salient points made there:

NSDF 12/2/2017, 12:31 am
Cronin Napoleon- ("Cadoudal ran a training camp for conspirators and guerillas at Romsey in England")- his Notes and Sources for the whole 'Cadoudal conspiracy' section in Chapter 16 cites: 'Letters from English agents in Stuttgart and Munich in the Liverpool Papers.' No source reference.

[See le Breton's analysis of 'Liverpool Papers' above on this thread 02 Dec 2017 5:21 a.m]

Pocock Terror cites numerous page references from Bourienne's 'Memoires' but does not link them to the text. None of the passages in Bourienne make any reference to Cadoudal organizing "guerrilla training camps in Hampshire" as described in Pocock's text.

[Bourrienne:"long been discredited as a source at all because it was ghost-written"- Brechtel TMP 01 Dec 2017 3:29 a.m.].

Horricks Napoleon's Elite -(Cadoudal "had been running the Royalist guerrilla training camp at Romsey")- has no footnotes. He lists Cronin in his very short bibliography.

Paul de Met* has already commented on the relevance of Lloyd's footnotes in The French are coming. [Lloyd] doesnt' mention any training camps but implies Cadoudal actually ignited the bomb in the Rue St Nicaise attack of 1800, so that "there is little doubt" this "ruthless and dedicated killer" had returned to Paris to assassinate Bonaparte.

[*Paul de Met- Date: 11/30/2017, 12:03 pm

I have just checked Lloyd's book – the passage quoted by Kevin is not supported by any references or evidence, although there are 45 references for other statements in the relevant chapter.*] ENDS

Is it wrong to be enjoying this..

Perhaps Kevin, you should E.mail Elizabeth (or four of the five other authors) and asked her if she found such evidence, and if she did, could she point you to it. And while you are at it! Ask her why she didn't post such important information in her book.

If I were an Author, I would be publishing word-for-word the evidence in my book and those six other authors would have too. They seem keen to publish other extracts from archives, why not from an archive that shows detailed information of the Romsey training camp and the order to assassinate Napoleon by Pitt or the British Government?

The obvious reason they haven't printed such evidence is because there are none.

PS. I've had a quick read of the parts in question in Pocock's tome and like Cronin, (the other book mentioned which I have) there's no evidence there either.

I await the bombshell contained in:
The French are Coming: The Invasion Scare, 1803-05 which hasn't been delivered yet.

Paul :)

Is it wrong to be enjoying this..

It's called Schadenfreude, it's perfectly acceptable and cathartic.

As a final word, for completeness' sake, I had the opportunity to check Andrew Robert's footnotes to his narrative on the subject of Cadoudal, in Napoleon The Great as quoted above.

I can report that for p.333-34, where Roberts states that on 23rd August, 1803 Wright, a ‘Royal Navy Intelligence officer', landed Cadoudal in Normandy, in Note 35. he cites 'Horne, The Age of Napoleon p.55.'

On p.55. of Horne's work there is nothing relating to this subject.

However, leafing back to pp.29-30, Horne does refer, inaccurately, to ‘two further plots'- one associated with Cadoudal, and another with Generals Pichegru and Moreau. On p. 30 he mentions Wright dying in prison. Nowhere in his book, though, does Horne refer to the events of 23 August 1803.

There are, arguably, a number of references Roberts could have cited, but he didn't. Sloppy? Lazy? Token? Worse? How are we to judge?

Roberts goes on to describe the landing of Pichegru by the same route and Wright's return to Walmer Castle "where British naval intelligence was based. [Note]36"

Anyone turning to 'Note 36' for more information about Pichegru or that sinister military installation in Kent will be directed to p.350 of Bingham's Selection of letters of the First Napoleon, Vol I (1884). There they will find an anecdote regarding Bonaparte's's comment to Talleyrand on the reported death of Tsar Paul I, "The English missed me on 3rd Nivose but they did not miss me at St Petersburg." – but leaving us none the wiser as to Pichegru or Walmer Castle.

More oddly still, farther down Roberts refers to a letter from a British agent seeking reimbursement for a plot 'relative to a political intrigue planned by Lord Castlereagh to abduct Bonaparte in 1803.'

Why, in 'Note 38', he should then cite a letter from Napoleon's Correspondence Generale dated to April 1801, is not clear. If somebody would care to root out letter number 6233, p.664, to see if there was some form of Consular prescience at work, that might be interesting.

I wasn't able to access the book cited in 'Note 37', Haythornthwaite's Final Verdict (1996) for reference to documents that "connect the British government intimately" with the Cadoudal conspiracy, at the highest levels. I feel quite relaxed about that.

STOP PRESS. 'Note 37.' In a passage quoted earlier in this thread, Roberts refers to:
"Other documents, including one from Keith specifying that Wright 'is employed on a secret and delicate service,' connect the British government intimately with the Cadoudal conspiracy, at the highest levels of both. [Note] 37"

'Note 37' refers the reader to 'Napoleon: The Final verdict,' ed. Philip Haythornthwaite, p.294. Turning to p.294 of that book, in an essay by Peter Tsouras entitled ‘Napoleon's Words,' we find dicta on thoroughness, strategy, effective use of time, but no mention of the British government, Admiral Keith, Captain Wright, Georges Cadoudal, or documents of any description. Nor, in the pages dealing with the period England was threatened with invasion (pp.45-57), is there any mention of British government espionage.

On p.194, however (thinking laterally), we do find reference to Admiral Keith, but only as the naval officer into whose custody Napoleon was placed after the Treaty of Paris in 1815.

Nothing about, ‘secret and delicate service,' the British government, or Cadoudal.

The above selection is taken from little more than a single page of Robert's oeuvre. I leave forum members to draw their own conclusions about the quality of this particular author's homework.

6233 in Napoleon's correspondence appears to be to Berthier about muskets: link

I can't see anything that relates to this stuff in the correspondence of 1st April 1801 – that is all military correspondence. There is a letter to Fouché on 30th March 1801 that refers to Fouché or Talleyrand speaking to one Montlosier who comes from England. Can't really see how it relates, mind. link

Thank you, Ww. I rest my case.

I think that many of us can too!

Paul :)

Wow, some people really do not like Napoleon, do they? And they certainly can't stand anyone writing anything positive about him, his life or his many achievements. I guess that says more about them than anything else.

But you can see clearly that they just want to put the great man down. They obviously know more than celebrated authors like Andrew Roberts and Vincent Cronin. Course they do. These biased Anti-Nappers obviously spent as much time doing research as the authors they pathetically try to destroy! And if any historian/author offered anything negative about Napoleon then they are in there saying what a good historian they are. Well, they must be because they agree with their biased points of view.

It is sad and yet so funny to see people trying to put the great man down. They just can't accept, as a mere mortal, that he made such a name for himself and his place in history, and in such a short time too, something the bawling of the anti-Nappers and wanne-be and wish I was historians will never change. Sadly, for them you can't change history.

Yet, some, ignoring the reality of history and blinkered by their own bias, still try to lay the blame for everything negative happening during the period, on Napoleon himself. They want to believe he wanted to conquer the world, so he must be bad. But they don't want to believe his opponents wanted to conquer the world. No, they're the good guys. Yeah, of course they are. They weren't trying to build empires, were they? LOL

So why did these peace loving nations keep fighting Napoleon. And why did Britain keep funding these 'peace loving' nations? Even in 1815 when Napoleon strolled through France and back into power, with the Royalist ruler wobbling out of the country as fast as he could, did they refuse to move against him unless their paymaster handed out the cash? Surely, if he was so bad then they did not have to basically become Britain's mercenaries and wait for payment before acting? But they did and accepting this fact does not mean you hate Britain (now or then) although some will obviously try to throw that absurdity out.

Napoleon was not a saint, but there were no saints opposing him either. They were all greedy for their own empires, especially Britain. And those who keep boringly and desperately throwing up Hitler in their arguments should try accept that the allies fought against Hitler for moral reasons, but the allies during the Napoleonic period, especially Britain, fought Napoleon because he was a trade rival and a good one, which is why they wanted him out of the way. It is doubtful the British empire would have existed had Napoleon not been defeated.

Anyway, I am pleased to see people debating and arguing over Napoleon. It shows that Napoleon and his achievements can still divide people and cause debate, and probably always will do. But the fact is, as I've stated before Napoleon will always be remembered for making history, while others only for trying to stop him, in which, even after Waterloo, they failed, and is why history proudly boasts a wonderful section known as the Napoleonic period.

'Napoleon was thus not some nemesis-doomed monster, a modern exemplar of ancient Greek drama or any of the dozens of historical constructions that have been thrust upon him. Rather, Napoleon's life and career stand as a rebuke to determinist analyses of history which explain events in terms of vast impersonal forces and minimize the part played by individuals. We should find this uplifting, since as George Home, that midshipman on board HMS Bellerophon, put it in his memoirs, 'He showed us what one little human creature like ourselves could accomplish in a span so short.' (page 814 Napoleon the Great by Andrew Roberts)

I don't think any of us little 'human creatures' attending this site will ever achieve anything similar and in such a short time. That is why I agree with Andrew Roberts and consider Napoleon as one of the greats of history, along with Alfred, Caesar, Hannibal, to name but a few. Like them, he made his place in history and like them, it will always remain.

@ Gazzola

I'm not sure it's a question of they just want to put the great man down. It's more, I suspect, that people perceive Napoleon as an extraordinary military leader but one who was deeply flawed. Neither trumps the other sufficiently to justify saying we should overlook all other aspects of him.

The most obvious criticism of Napoleon is that in the wake of a revolution that intended to overthrow a hereditary monarchy that handed out thrones, favours and sinecures to family and sycophants or to buy off dissent, Napoleon took power and instituted, er, well, a hereditary monarchy that handed out thrones, favours and sinecures to family and sycophants or to buy off dissent.

There is really nothing to choose between Napoleon and the Bourbons in that respect, except that the Bourbons pillaged just France for personal benefit. It was precisely this similarity that animated opposition to him for so long. Napoleon's rule was a case of Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Correlli Barnett observed once that Napoleon the diplomat set impossible tasks for Napoleon the general. I think that's a trenchant but fair critique, as is that acknowledged by John Hussey in his recent Waterloo book, where he notes that Napoleon had absolutely no vision, coherent, articulated, or otherwise, of what a better peacetime Europe would look like if he had his way. What he had in mind was for his family and lieutenants to take over as many thrones as were going and to create however many he needed.

I've never seen a count of how many crowns there were in Europe after Napoleon, but I would guess it was quite a few more than before. This is extraordinary, if you think about it, given that he came to power following a revolution whose slogan was Liberté, égalité, fraternité.

Some of this was inevitable – France had been an absolute monarchy for centuries so obviously when the monarchy fell another was likely to replace it, in the same way that what replaced Tsarism and then Communism in Russia were all remarkably similar. But every peace or treaty he signed was either certain to lead to further hostilities (Schoenbruenn, Pressburg) or was intended to, and was engineered to be broken but with himself then in a more advantageous position because of it (Amiens).

He was a huge figure and the person in whose time I would most like to have lived, but he was as Clarendon said of Cromwell "a great, bad man".

Just for fun-why bad? Because he opposed the monarchs of Europe and did his best to defend his empire?

Really?

A 'bad man' would not have instituted the reforms that he did, sponsor new law codes, guarantee freedom of religion, improve education, etc…

Just asking…

Equating Napoleon with the Bourbons is a great insult to the former and a compliment to the latter.

The Bourbons as a ruling house in France, Spain, and Naples had greatly degenerated from Henry IV.

Corelli Barnett's book on Napoleon is rife with error and to my mind cannot be used as a reliable reference. In short, the book is garbage.

The debate has just widened very significantly from whether the British government supported assassination plots against Napoleon to the much broader question of Napoleon's place in history.

There are lots and lots of varying views on the latter- to which I am not adding here- just for clarity.

But referring to the OP about assassination, and the debate which has been going on about the sourcing of various accounts- Le Breton, 42 Flanker, Dibble, Whirlwind's reviews of primary sourcing above must really call into serious question the accounts on this subject from Roberts, Cronin et al (especially Roberts). Those accounts look quite threadbare in terms of their claimed primary sourcing now.

Kevin- I'm genuinely agnostic on the assassination subject (because I don't know enough) but the guys on the other side of this debate have presented some quite compelling material to cast doubt on the accounts of a British sponsored/supported/concurred (pick any term) plot. I'm a post graduate ( a long time ago) in early modern European history whose job requires me to use historiographic techniques frequently, so that hopefully gives me at least just enough knowledge of how to compare and evaluate historical evidence to make a valid post here.

I'm NOT saying there wasn't a British assassination plot, but those guys have really shot quite big holes in the evidence produced for it so far. Your call completely, but if it were me I would give them that point on this occasion.

Napoleon's place in history is another, much more significant question, which I'm sure will be debated a bit more.

Hopefully this post won't place me on one side or the other of the broader debate, but I felt I needed to make the comment.

The debate has just widened very significantly from whether the British government supported assassination plots against Napoleon to the much broader question of Napoleon's place in history.

That typically happens at this point in the show. I've seen it a million times:

A Certain Person (hereafter known as C.P.) makes a factual assertion, backed up by a few English-language secondary sources.

CP gets asked for the primary sources. There aren't any, so he obfuscates, repeats himself, tries to distract by throwing out insults, name-calling, and tells people to "look it up" themselves; it's their job to "disprove" his assertion. (He of course won't accept any sources or documentation they provide.)

So they do look it up, find the sources, reveal that he's wrong, and post it. CP carries on for another couple days obfuscating, repeating himself, distracting with name calling, and so on, until he either does a runner, or he or a sidekick try to change the topic to, "Boy, you guys sure do hate Napoleon! You're so biased!" Sometimes people take the bait and the topic goes off-rail, but not so much anymore. People have figured CP out.

"if it were me I would give them that point on this occasion."

That would be an extraordinary thing to witness. In the years I've seen this show, I've never – not once – seen CP concede a point or admit that he was wrong, no matter how clear or damning the evidence against his original assertion. I have never seen him even acknowledge the existence of facts contrary to his opinions.

For example, on this thread he got fact-checked by multiple people, then did a runner and never even admitted the existence of contrary facts in the sources that he himself had recommended:
TMP link

And again:
TMP link

Here again, quoting Elting, getting fact-checked, demanding sources, getting them (primary), ignoring them, and then claiming that others must prove him wrong:
TMP link

Here's one on which he cribbed citations from an English-language source, misrepresenting that he'd read the original, got it wrong, and tried to wriggle out, never admitting fault or error:
TMP link

And he does it again here, and is busted again:
TMP link

On this thread he asserted that something was a "myth," got fact-checked, and did another runner:
TMP link

I may not be a historian and "don't understand the historical method," but I do understand the importance of facts and of keeping good records.

Don't think the debate has widened … it's about whether there is evidence the British did what Kevin says they did and they evidence he has to prove it.
Which from what I've seen here says there isn't any. None!

Gazzola has tried to mask the issue with a Epic post railing against "Anti Nappers" but since that's irrelevant to what has been posted (Nothing bad has been said about him, no mention of Hitler in this thread…. good old fashioned deflection technique… Gazz could have a career in politics.) in this fascinating master class on bad use of sources and how certain historians perpetuate myths/lies with out checking their sources, we can discount it.

This is perhaps the greatest Napoleonic thread in recent history.
I'm saving it and in depressing times I can read it and have a good laugh.
Just when you think TMP has died, it unleashed this gem.

Whether it's a widening of the debate or deflection in some of the last few posts, I agree the main subject is the story of an assassination plot with British involvement- and the sourcing supporting or refuting that story.

On that score, the evidence in support of it, such as it was, now looks pretty poor, largely as a result of some good source work by TMPers. Like Napoleon or hate him, the source review work above is quite compelling.

I'd say TMP is doing pretty well. Actually it seems to have become a kind of historical veterinary surgery where old Napoleonic tall stories are put to sleep.

Although I liked some of the latter stories- there is quite enough colour to the period without adding any in retrospectively. Still- I guess it helps the likes of Andrew Roberts etc flog general interest books at the '3 for 2' airport bookshop end of the literary market (where I got my copy).

Garth,
Wow.
So this is a pattern?

It's certainly interesting that Roberts appears to have hofschroered* the primary sources. I'd have said he was pretty reliable. This is a man who walked about 30 of Napoleon's battlefields as part of his research – or did he…?

* hofschroer.
(verb)
to claim a source says something it does not, relying on the unlikelihood of anyone checking to get away with it.
"Pflug-Harttung concluded that Wellington received the message at 9am"
synonyms: bullsh*t; make up; fabricate
"the writer all too often hofschroers the actual record"

While it is fun to imagine conjugating the verb "to hofschroer," I think there's probably a simpler explanation:

Some people on this thread got flak from A Certain Person for calling his referenced books "tertiary sources," but there's a lot of truth in that. Some authors just crib footnotes. They read a secondary source, look at that source's footnote, and just copy it over to theirs without bothering to do the work of looking at the original, themselves. So old mistakes (or old lies) get copied and recopied.

I'd bet that's especially true when the tertiary author doesn't read the language of the original and has no intention of finding it in the archives himself. He might not even know what the footnote in question means. TMP has many threads about a well-known US Napoleonic author who mistakenly thought that "Derselbe" was a German author, when in fact it was just an old footnote meaning "see previous footnote." The American author had apparently just copied the footnotes from some other secondary source without checking even to see what they referenced. It gives the impression that he'd seen the originals, when in fact he hadn't.

Whether such practices are mere laziness or deliberate academic dishonesty is beyond my powers to deduce. I'm not going to try to tell you, however, that I never did it myself as a sleepy college lad. In my defense, though, I was 19, hungover, and wasn't trying to make any money from the resulting, er, 'scholarly' product!

Well Garth in the Park described very well how the mind of ACP works, a pattern, yes indeed.

a well-known US Napoleonic author who mistakenly thought that "Derselbe" was a German author, when in fact it was just an old footnote meaning "see previous footnote

That is hilarious!

Hofschradenfreude, perhaps…?

I think the most literal English translation of 'Derselbe' is 'the same'. But you're right- in literary footnotes- it would absolutely be used in the same way as we use 'idem'- to refer the reader to the immediately previous note.

I'd love to know which author is being referred to, although I have my suspicions. Great anecdote.

@ Seneffe,
TMP link

Some other classic threads there.

I'm waiting for Bill O'Reilly to write "Killing Napoleon" and finally settle this controversy.

Undoubtedly those who doubt the veracity of the referenced authors would endorse O'Reilly wholeheartedly, no matter what he writes.

If he has the evidence, then his book will be a first. If that's the case, then I for one will hail his research.

What about Tim Clayton, Killing Napoleon: Another fawner who nailed his tricoloured flag to the wall

I am an Associate Fellow of the University of Warwick, an Honorary Research Fellow of the British Museum and an Honorary Research Fellow of the University of East Anglia.

I'm currently developing two major projects: one is a contextual biography of James Gillray and the other is on a book about the British government's campaigns in the first years of the nineteenth century to assassinate Napoleon Bonaparte while fixing in the public mind an image of him as a warmongering, murderous tyrant.

Wider current research interests include the print trade in the period 1778 to 1830, the production of political satire and propaganda and the military history of the Napoleonic wars.

Find out more about my recent research publications.

He has this hyperbolic diatribe plastered on his page too!

Killing Napoleon tells the story of how a war came to be fought not against a nation or a system but against one man. In seeking to restore Bourbon rule in France the British attempted to assassinate Napoleon and succeeded in assassinating his reputation. British publicists eventually convinced the world that the diminutive Corsican Usurper was a bloodthirsty tyrant. At twelve Napoleon nailed his pet dog to the door; at fifteen he got the washerwoman's daughter pregnant, poisoned the girl, then courted her sister. His favourite amusement was to frequent hospitals in order to enjoy the agony of sufferers. His mother was a , his sisters were s, his wife was a but he couldn't get her pregnant because he was actually a homosexual.

timclayton.co.uk

Paul :)

"widely acclaimed as the best book on the campaign"
- well, now!
- I can't wait to see his footnotes.