"average age of the vets of Old Guard" Topic

What was the average age of the members of Napoleon's Old Guard ? On the beautiful painting of the battle of Borodino by Russian artist Vereshchagin, they look like men in early 30s. But on one French picture they look really old, 50-70 years old men. Long, grey mustaches, sad eyes, etc. They look more like a bunch of grandpas than soldiers.

The criteria for joining the Old Guard were at least 10 years service, at least three campaigns, and to be under 35 years of age on joining. Going by that they'd mostly be mid 30s to mid 40s.

I don't remember the battle in antiquity, but Alexander's veterans in the 60s and 70s, stomped booty over everybody on the battlefield. Even when attacked in the rear their phalanx simply turned about and annihilated the offending column. They could not be broken and dictated the peace terms for their side. Basically they sold out their commander and agreed to join the enemy, but my point being do not underestimate the killing power of a bunch of old men.

That painting is from 1897. Is the second picture you're referring to a period piece?

I don't remember the battle in antiquity

It was the Battle of Gabiene (316 BC)

According to Plutarch and Diodorus, Eumenes had won the battle but lost control of his army's baggage camp thanks to his ally Peucestas' duplicity or incompetence. This baggage also included all the loot of the most decorated Macedonian veterans (called the Argyraspides, or Silver Shields)—treasure accumulated over 30 years of successful warfare. It contained not only gold and gems but the soldiers' women and children. Antigonus responded to a request for the return of the baggage train sent by Teutamus, one of their commanders, by demanding they give him Eumenes. The Silver Shields did just that.

Lots of details on French Guard Infantry ages :
link
(the part about ages starts about 1/4 down the page)

By 1810, the Old Guard was indeed getting a bit old-ish.

One of the most depressing things I ever saw on active duty was an NCO of the 101st Airborne preparing to retire at 38 with 20 years service. I could not possibly have been younger than 32 myself, but that guy looked ancient. Mind you, his would have been mostly peacetime service too.

I would think the Old Guard would be replenish with younger veterans to replace its losses from the 1812 campaign.

A very interesting link. Thanks.

great link, and another excellent work of the Paul Dawson who addresses a lot of interesting topics

One of the most depressing things I ever saw on active duty was an NCO of the 101st Airborne preparing to retire at 38 with 20 years service. I could not possibly have been younger than 32 myself, but that guy looked ancient. Mind you, his would have been mostly peacetime service too.

Even peace-time service takes a lot out of a person…

I get confused for being in my 50s, and I turn 40 this year.

I always thought that the fully gray hair every male has in my family by age 30 was genetic …. but maybe not?

==================
French Old Guard losses in Russia were not so bad. The Old Guard, especially the French Old Guard infantry, had an important mission in protecting the person and the régime of Napoléon. As such, there were efforts to keep them fed and supplied with clothes, etc. And they rarely saw combat.

Officer combat casualties in Russia 1812 by regiment :

Being French Old Guard Infantry was safest:
1er grenadiers à pied : 1 officer wounded, none killed
2e grenadiers à pied : 2 officers wounded, none killed
1er chasseurs à pied : 1 officer wounded, none killed
2e chasseurs à pied : 1 officer wounded, none killed

Being Dutch was a bit more dangerous ….
3e grenadiers à pied (hollandais) : 19 officers casualties

Being in the line was really dangerous (examples from Compans' 5e division, Davout's 1er coprs)
25e ligne : 45 officer casulaties
57e ligne : 78 officer casulaties
61e ligne : 63 officer casulaties
111e ligne : 71 officer casualties

I think retirements had more of an effect than losses in combat.

Hello, Le Breton
You wrote:
"Being French Old Guard Infantry was safest:
1er grenadiers à pied : 1 officer wounded, none killed"

I think the lower ranks suffered much heavier casualties than the officers. From napoleon-series:
"On 19th December (1812) the 1e Grenadiers mustered 38 officers and 369 NCO's and men, loosing 2 officers and 948 men during the retreat."

Well, the two officers returned shortly to duty, as did many of the men. The report was a "présents sous armes" number and was at the worst of the disintegration and straglling in the army. In any case 38+2 officers = 40 was full established strength for the 1er grenadiers, and 9 *more* than when they started the campaign. 369 other ranks would compare to 1294 at the start of the campaign.

For the line, much larger regiments were reduced to a few officers and NCO's.

From the start of the campaign to 13 November, the French old guard infantry actually gained men – while the Dutch guardsmen and the army as a whole lost more than half their effectives.

		15 Jun     13 Nov     19 Dec     1 Mar*
1er grenadiers   31/1294   40/1315     38/369	18/404
2e grenadiers    33/1112   40/1136     39/234	17/400
1er chasseurs    31/1245   29/1514     28/435	19/460
2e chasseurs     34/1452   32/1260     30/257     16/400      
3e grenadiers   41/1165    44/542      24/17   disbanded
    hollandais
* 1 bataillon each, officers & cadres for the second bataillons 
returned in France

I am *not* saying that the French old guard infantry was "pants" or chocolate soldiers or whatever. They were the best of the best. If Brechtel pops in to say they were "superior" to all other nations' guardsmen, I will not complain (although I think such generalizations are a tad silly).

Nonetheless, their mission was to protect Napoléon and his régime, not to actually fight like line regiments did. The one time they were put into a battle in Russia, at Krasnoï, out of the 5 regiments of old guard infantry, it was the one *Dutch* regiment that did the heavy lifting.

And every effort was made to actually supply the old guard infantry, so that they could continue to do their mission of protecting Napoléon and his régime. The line starved and froze – and did the fighting. The old guard infantry served the personal needs of the sovereign. They were not even actually in the army. They were part of the "maison" or "household" of Napoléon – like his valets, palefreniers and chamberlains.

So, it was not combat losses that led to the influx of new guardsmen in 1813/1814 to which MDDriessen aptly alluded. I thought it was retirements. Reading the linked Dawson article more carefully, his figures confirm this, but also note an equal number of guardsmen being promoted into the rapidly expanding young guard as NCO's. From his sample of the matricules :
of men who joined the grenadiers in 1799-1801 and had left by 1813, 41% retired or went to the veterans, 14% were sent to the line (some for discipline reasons, some with promotion), 4% died, and 41% were promoted into the young guard.

Thank you Le Breton for your reply. I always enjoy your comments. You give so many details.

My pleasure Osage, thank you for the compiment. Your posts and comments are very challenging (and so very intersting), so I need to think/read carefully and answer in some detail.

For comparison, the Russian guard was a part of the army, was from time to time brigaded with line troops, and fought as often as the line (or as much as reserve units of the line, such cuirassier or grenadier divisions), and had no special supply lines. I do not know for sure about the British, or Prussian guards (although I believe the late period Prussians followed the Russian method).

Anyway, thanks again for starting this interesting thread/discussion.

The old guard infantry served the personal needs of the sovereign. They were not even actually in the army. They were part of the "maison" or "household" of Napoléon – like his valets, palefreniers and chamberlains.

That is a very inaccurate statement.

Where did you come up with that 'assessment'? It is actually ridiculous, much like many of your postings and statements.

The Imperial Guard was part of the army and was employed as such. The Guard cavalry and artillery was usually employed in combat, as was the Middle and Young Guard. The Old Guard infantry was made up of veterans who had earned their place in the Guard by their records of service. And they came from the Line and sometimes went back to the Line. They also trained NCOs for the Line with the Battalion of Instruction at Fontainebleu.

You have misrepresented the Imperial Guard, the Old Guard infantry in particular. They were not 'household troops' but an organization specifically employed as the army's reserve and used as such.

Napoleon's Maison was composed of two parts: the Maison Civile and the Maison which was part of the army's staff, but were formed and used by Napoleon and no one else. The only military portion of the Maison Civile were the Officiers de Ordonnance. The Maison was part of the Grand Quartier-General Imperial and the Maison Civile was not. The latter was tasked to take care of Napoleon in the field, the former was part of the operational general staff, but under Napoleon's direct supervision.

I would suggest that anyone interested in the subject of the Maison Civile and the Grand Quartier-General Imperiale consult Chapters IV and V of John Elting's Swords Around A Throne and/or the following:

-Service de l'Etat-Major General des Armees by Philippe Grimoard.

link

-In the Wake of Napoleon by Oakley Williams.

link

-Composition et Organization de l'Equipage de Guerre de l'Empereur Napoleon en 1812 which can be found in Carnet de la Sabretache, Volume II 1894.

-Relation Circonstanciee de la Campagne de 1813 en Saxe by Ernst Odeleben.

link

-Etude sur le d'Etat-Major Pendant les Guerres du Premier Empire by Raymond Philip.

link

their mission was to protect Napoléon and his régime, not to actually fight like line regiments did

Again, the mission of the Old Guard infantry was to form part of the army reserve along with the rest of the Imperial Guard. The Guard unit that was formed to actually protect Napoleon's person, etc., was the squadron of Gendarmerie d'Elite which was brought into the Consular Guard in 1802 because of the repeated attempts to assassinate Napoleon. This unit had the skills required for that mission, veteran grenadiers did not. See Chapter IX of Swords, pages 189-190.

out of the 5 regiments of old guard infantry, it was the one *Dutch* regiment that did the heavy lifting.

The 3d Dutch Regiment was Middle Guard, not Old Guard. There were only four regiments of Old Guard infantry in Russia in 1812.

For comparison, the Russian guard was a part of the army, was from time to time brigaded with line troops, and fought as often as the line (or as much as reserve units of the line, such cuirassier or grenadier divisions), and had no special supply lines. I do not know for sure about the British, or Prussian guards (although I believe the late period Prussians followed the Russian method).

Your lack of knowledge and understanding of the French Imperial Guard is noted.

I won't accuse you of 'inventing' material as you have falsely accused me of doing, but your errors in this thread are nothing short of astounding.

Napoleon attached line units to the Imperial Guard periodically from 1805 onwards.

Oudinot's provisional division, variously dubbed Grenadiers d'Oudinot, Grenadiers de la Reserve, Grenadiers Reunis and Dvisions Oudinot, was formed initially in 1803, it was formed of line units and initially as a 'junior version of the Guard.'

The dismounted dragoon units in 1806, two regiments of them, were 'attached' to the Imperial Guard. And periodically, line artillery units were attached to the Imperial Guard. And all of these units, including the Imperial Guard, were part of the French Army. To state otherwise is to ignore the Guard's formation, where its replacements came from, and its purpose.

"The 3d Dutch Regiment was Middle Guard, not Old Guard. There were only four regiments of Old Guard infantry in Russia in 1812."

Brechtel,

The 3e grenadiers were brigaded in Russia with the 1er grenadiers and 2e grenadiers (2e brigade général – baron Michel, 3e division d'infanterie de la garde – général baron Curial).

"Le 13 septembre [1810], les grenadiers hollandais furent incorporés dans la vieille Garde impériale"
Histoire anecdotique, politique et militaire de la Garde impériale
Émile Marco de Saint-Hilaire
link

"Napoléon incorpora dans les chasseurs et les grenadiers de sa propre Garde deux des compagnies de Gardes du corps à pied [hollandais]. Des deux autres, ainsi que du régiment de grenadiers de la Garde hollandaise, il forma un régiment de grenadiers qui fut classé dans la vieille Garde Impériale et reçut la même organisation
Napoléon Ier et la Garde impériale
Eugène Fieffé & Denis Auguste Marie Raffet
link

"du régiment de grenadiers de la Garde hollandaise, il forma un régiment de grenadiers qui fut classé dans la vieille Garde Impériale et reçut la même organisation"
Le moniteur de l'armée
link

"24 avril 1811 …. Quant au 2e rériment de grenadiers, il suffit de le tenir au complet; les 80 hommes qui lui manquent lui seront fournis par quatre régiments hollandais, à raison de 20 hommes chacun, Par ce moyen, la Vieille Garde, au lieu de 4,800 hommes, aura plus de 6,000 hommes"
Correspondence de Napoléon 1er
link

They are also listed in the old guard by Martinien ("Officers tués et blessés ….") and by Perrot et Amoudru ("Histoire de l'ex-garde …".)

I am sure that de Saint-Hiliaire, Fieffé, Raffet, the Monitieur de l'armée, Martinien, Perrot & Amoudru and Napoléon himself are wrong and you are right.

Your assertions are always based on sound use of contemporary sources, and never reflect your own personal opinions or fantasies.
But, please, if it s not too much trouble, on what contempryary source do you base your assertion this time ?

Napoleon officially divided the Imperial Guard into Old, Middle, and Young Guard in early 1812, before the invasion of Russia.

Old Guard:

-1st regiments of grenadiers and chasseurs a pied.

-NCOs of the 2d regiments of grenadiers and chasseurs a pied.

-NCOs of the two fusilier regiments.

-Grenadiers a Cheval.

-Chasseurs a Cheval.

-Dragoons.

-Polish Lancers.

-Mamelukes.

-Gendarmerie d'Elite.

-Artillery both horse and foot.

-Engineers.

-NCOs of the Young Guard artillery.

-Sailors.

-Veterans.

Middle Guard:

-3d Dutch Grenadiers.

-corporals and privates of the 2d regiments of grenadiers and chasseurs a pied.

-2d Lancer Regiment.

-the two fusilier regiments.

-artillery train battalions.

-Velites of Florence and Turin.

-Ouvriers.

-Dutch veterans.

Young Guard:

-Tirailleurs.

-Voltigeurs.

-Flanquers-Chasseurs (the Flanquer-Grenadiers were not formed until 1813).

-Regiment of the National Guard.

-Bataillon des Equipages.

-corporals and privates of the Young Guard artillery.

-Pupilles

Guard officers moved from one category to the next when assigned as such. They retained their original Guard status no matter which unit they served with.

The Dutch Grenadiers had not been in the Imperial Guard long enough to be classed as Old Guard. After Russia, their survivors went into the 1st and 2d Grenadiers a Pied.

"Napoleon officially divided the Imperial Guard into Old, Middle, and Young Guard in early 1812, before the invasion of Russia."

Source(s), please?

I listed several (including Napoléon himself), with links. Can you please do us the courtesy of supporting your assertion with contemporary source information?

Here we go again!

Edwulf,
Brechtel may be right.
Sometime after 18 May 1811, but before the start of the Russian campaign, it is not impossible for the French to have re-classfied the ex-Dutch grenadiers.

It would be a bit strange, however, to have the ex-Dutch grenadiers brigaded them with the 1er and 2e grenadiers. As middle guard, they would seem a better fit with one of the flanquers (part of the corps of chasseurs), the fusiliers-grenadiers or fusilier-chasseurs. These three regiments were in another "odd" 3-regiment brigade, under the général baron Boyeldieu.

On the other hand, if they were thought of as middle guard, that would explain why they were actually used in combat, why they did not receive the same logistical support (see above that they were already much diminished by November) and why they did not enjoy the same status of being a "reserve" (as Brechtel calls it) such as the French old guard infantry.

I thought it was the case that ex-Dutch old guard infantry were not seen as so important by Napoléon – they could be expended just like line troops and not harm his "reserve" of French old guard infantry that he preserved to protect his person and his régime. But maybe they were middle guard afterall – they certainly were used like middle guard (i.e. they engaged in combat).

Either way, I provided lots of contemporary sources that call the ex-Dutch grenadiers "old guard", so I am hoping that Brechtel will be able to do the same to substantiate his assertion.

can we please open then another thread – there it has nothing to do with the average age of the vets of the Old Guard??

Yes B should get into the habit to cite his sources transparently instead of attacking fellow contributors

Le Breton.
It's all good. My mind is open to either idea and look forward to brechtels evidence.

in case B list is unsourced, forget it

in case B list is unsourced, forget it

For someone who spends most of his posting time either making mundane remarks or personally attacking people and contributing little to the discussions, that statement is incredible, and not in a good way.

Perhaps this might illuminate the Imperial Guard designations somewhat.

What is interesting, is that the corporals and privates of the 2d Grenadiers a Pied, the 3d Grenadiers a Pied, and the 2d Chasseurs a Pied of 1812 were all Middle Guard, while the officers and NCOs were Old Guard.

Imperial Guard Classifications
Monsieur Courtois, who was the Imperial Guard's chief of personnel in 1812 before the invasion of Russia, established for Napoleon the distinctions between Old, Middle, and Young Guard.

Rank and File:

Old Guard:

-1st Chasseurs and NCOs of the 2d Chasseurs.
-1st Grenadiers and NCOs of the 2d Grenadiers.
-NCOs of the two fusilier regiments.
-Grenadiers a Cheval.
-Chasseurs a Cheval.
-Dragoons.
-1st Light Horse Lancers (Polish).
-Mamelukes.
-Gendarmerie d'Elite.
-Both Foot and Horse Artillery.
-Storekeepers of the Parc.
-Pontonniers.
-Sapeurs.
-Sailors.
-NCOs of the artillery attached to the Young Guard.
-Veterans.

Middle Guard:

-3d Grenadiers (Dutch).
-2d Light Horse Lancers (Dutch)
-Corporals and privates of the 2d Chasseurs and 2d Grenadiers.
-Fusiliers Chasseurs and Fusiliers Grenadiers.
-Artillery Train.
-Velites of Turin and Florence.
-Artisans.
-Veteran's Company of Amsterdam.

Young Guard:

-Voltigeurs.
-Tirailleurs.
-Flanquer-Chasseurs.
-National Guards.
-Pupilles.
-Train des Equipages.
-Corporals and gunners of the artillery attached to the Young Guard.

Officers:

Old Guard:

All officers assigned to:
-1st, 2d, and 3d Grenadiers.
-1st and 2d Chasseurs.
-Fusiliers.
-Grenadiers a Cheval.
-Chasseurs a Cheval.
-Dragoons.
-Both Lancer regiments.
-Mamelukes.
-Artillery.
-Pontonniers,
-Sapeurs.
-artillery train.
-Sailors.
-Lieutenant Colonels, majors, and captains of voltigeurs, tirailleurs, flanquers, and national guards.

I'll help Kevin with sourcing. This appears to be from Anatomy of Glory. I have the 1978 edition and this can be found on pages 221-222. However, there is no citation as to a period source for what is posted. We either accept Lachouque, or we keep looking for a period source.

Mind you, I am not suggesting that Kevin is wrong, rather that he has not provided a contemporary source for his information. Frankly, I think he is correct, but a period source would be nice…

Strange that he is unable to provide this, so Anatomy of Glory, and wrong – Old Guard, Grenadiers à Cheval – I could say Young Guard as well – at least those two squadrons raised in January 1813.
Le Breton came up with good sources, so far his sources are much better than AoG – in case nothing better – laws, degrees, come up – I stick with that. B won't be able to supply any decent citations and sources to back up his opinion.

The date was early 1812, not 1813. So, the information given was before the large expansion of the Guard in 1813-1814.

And Lachouque is a valuable source, especially as in this case he cites a primary source of information-the Guard's chief of personnel.

If you don't agree, then supply something that contradicts it. All you can do, apparently, is comment on the poster, not the information. That's a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy.

In fact, the Old Guard in 1812 were much smaller than some of us (including me) thought. In another aspect, the Old Guard in 1815 were larger than thought.
You can find the orginal source in Margueron, Campagne de Russie, partie 1, tome 3, p. 222-224. It was a decision made by Napoleon himself on 11th October, 1811.
dlib.rsl.ru/viewer/01004437234#?page=222

MOYENNE GARDE
 
– 2e régiment de grenadiers à pied
– 2e régiment de chasseurs à pied
Les officiers et sous-officiers de ces corps sont de Vieille Garde. Les soldats reçoivent une solde inférieure à celle de la Vieille Garde.
 
– 1er et 2e régiments de fusiliers
Les fusiliers, quoique recevant une solde plus forte que celle de la ligne, étaient considérés comme étant de Jeune Garde, parce qu'ils se recrutaient par des conscrits. Mais ensuite, puisqu'on y admit plus que des tirailleurs et voltigeurs qui comptaient plusieurs années de service, ils paraissaient devoir être classés dans la Moyenne Garde.
 
– 3e régiment de grenadiers à pied
– 2e régiment de chevau-légers lanciers1
Les officiers de ces corps reçoivent les appointements et le logement de la Vieille Garde ; mais ils ne jouissent pas des autres indemnités ni des mêmes prérogatives. Les sous-officiers et soldats y reçoivent une solde et des masses intermédiaires entre celles de la Vieille Garde et de la Jeune Garde.
 
– Bataillons des vélites de Florence et de Turin
Les officiers sont mieux payés que ceux de la ligne, et les vélites cumulent, avec le traitement de la ligne, la pension de 200 F que paient leurs familles.
 
– 1er et 2e bataillons du train d'artillerie
Ces corps sont composés partie d'anciens soldats, partie de conscrits, et ils se recrutent dans les bataillons du train de la ligne et dans la conscription. Le décret du 12 avril 1808, sur l'organisation de l'artillerie de la Garde, leur a conservé la solde dont ils jouissaient d'après le décret du 12 thermidor an XII ; et cette solde est plus forte que celle de la ligne.

VIEILLE GARDE
 
– 1er régiment de grenadiers à pied
– 1er régiment de chasseurs à pied
– Régiment de chasseurs à cheval et compagnie de mamelouks
– Régiment de dragons
– Régiment de grenadiers à cheval
– Régiment d'artillerie à pied
– Régiment d'artillerie à cheval
– Compagnie d'ouvriers pontonniers
– Compagnie de sapeurs
– Gendarmerie d'élite
Tous ces corps reçoivent la solde de la Vieille Garde.
 
– 1er régiment de chevau-légers lanciers polonais
Ce corps reçoit la même solde et les mêmes masses que les chasseurs à cheval de la Garde, et il a toujours joui de tous les avantages accordés à la Vieille Garde. Cependant, on est dans le doute s'il ne doit pas être classé dans la Moyenne Garde.

Thanks I was looking for that for ages – the situation is more complex

see again Margueron tome 1er

Situation of January 1812

"Margueron 1812
Tome 1, p. 31

1er, 2e, 3e régiments á pied – Vieille Garde

Foot note 1
Au point de vue de l'avancement, de la solde et de la retraite, la Garde se divisait en jeune, moyenne et vieille Garde (Voir à ce sujet le rapport du ministre de la guerre, du 11 octobre 1811.)
Les contrôles ne portent jamais ce trois dénominations ; ils se bornent à celle de jeune et vieille Garde.
"

@von Winterfeldt
Yes, the French are a bit confused about the Middle and Old Guard.

The one that always baffles me is the reference to the "Middle" Guard as being the attackers at Waterloo that Wellington's line defeated.

Ney called them the Middle Guard and so did Napoleon, albeit ex-post, but the Middle Guard units were not reactivated in 1815. Hence all 1815 Guard formations were either Old or Young, but not Middle.

It could be that the junior battalions were still perceived by both commanders as Middle Guard even though no such designation had been revived, and even though per Margueron above it wasn't even accurate!

Yet it doesn't seem like the kind of error someone like Davout as Minister of War would have made or allowed to pass uncorrected if made by someone else.

The official decrees creating the 3d and 4th regiments of Guard grenadiers and chasseurs in 1815 designated those regiments as Old Guard.

There were no Middle Guard units in 1815.

…the French are a bit confused about the Middle and Old Guard.

That is probably why the Guard's chief of personnel got involved. One of the problems involved pay and allowances for the personnel in the Guard and a definite determination of status was important.

von Winterfeldt, Robert Woo -
Interesting. Thank you both. So, a difference in pay, advance and pensions effecting various ranks in variou sunits in various ways. With actual source citiations. Thank you agian.

Brechtel,
"Lachouque is a valuable source, especially as in this case he cites a primary source"
Actually, (i) Lachouque does not make clear what is happening – leading to your rather innacurate assessment that the 3e grenadiers (as a regiment) was Middle Guard, when it is clear that the situation was not really thus, and (ii) Lachouque does not cite a source, he mentions one – citation means giving us the ability to find the document )or other medium) wherein he found the information, tracking sufficient for us to also find the document and read it for ourselves.

Saying "he has a source" is not the same as citing a source. I make this point because you do seem to conflate "having" a source with "citing" one.

From USC :
"A citation is a reference to a published or unpublished source that you consulted and obtained information from while writing your research paper …. Citation shows your readers where you obtained your material, provides a means of critiquing your study, and offers the opportunity to obtain additional information about the research problem under investigation …. Properly citing the works of others is important because: Proper citation allows readers to locate the materials you used. Citations to other sources help readers expand their knowledge on a topic. In most social sciences disciplines, one of the most effective strategies for locating authoritative, relevant sources about a topic is to follow footnotes or references from known sources ["citation tracking"]."
link

@Le Breton

Does B cite Lachouque or just ASK Brown, a huge difference, I would prefer more intellectual honesty.

I cannot comment on Lachouque but on AKS Brown

"Courtois established once and for all the distinction between Old, Middle, and Young Guard in the following extract:

page 221

Lachouque, Henry and Brown, Anne : The Anatomy of Glory – Napoleon and his Guard, London 1978

For intellectual honesty :

" This book is a free translation of a monumental work from which, with the author's permission, I have eliminated many names and details."

page XV (Translator's preface)of the above mentioned work.

In case of intellectual honesty one should be point blank clear what kind of source is used and then cite according to accademical standards in the original language and providing translation in case of need.

As one clearly can see – the statement – once and for all – is wrong – it did not take in account the further und future developement of the Guard, as in 1813 for example.

Also Brown does not cite a source, citation would be foot noted and then translated, what a difference to Margueron.

Okay – would this help?

This is from Napoleon's Correspondence link :

18565. – TO MARSHAL BESSIERES, DUKE OF ISTRIA,
Commanding the Imperial Guard, at Paris.

Paris, March 10, 1812.

My Cousin, order that the 3rd Division of the Guard, composed of the three regiments of the Old Guard, leave Metz for Mainz, to wit: the 3rd regiment of Grenadiers, on the 13th; the 2nd Chasseurs and the 2nd Grenadiers, on the 14th or the 15th. These regiments will only stay one day in Metz. The ambulance division with its equipment, a company of sappers, a battery of artillery served by the gunners of the young Guard and two foot artillery batteries, totalling sixteen pieces of cannon, with sixteen infantry caissons and their supplies, will also leave Metz for Mainz. The three regiments of cavalry leaving from Paris will only rest in Metz and will continue on their road to Mainz. All the reserve artillery of the Guard will march with the Grenadiers, the Chasseurs and the Dragoons. Finally, the artillery park of the Guard, including the Reserve of the Guard, as well as the Engineers' park, the bakers and the administrators, will also start on the 15th for Mainz.

In case you move down a bit from the correspondence

it states the the 3rd Divison (Old Guard) comprised of 1st and 2nd Chasseurs and 1st, 2nd and 3rd of Grenadiers – in total 10 battlions.

(…)

the third or Old Guard division will be commanded by general Curial.

It provides further first hand decisions what eagles were carried into Russia, about the "fanions" of the Young Guard etc.

Does B cite Lachouque or just ASK Brown, a huge difference, I would prefer more intellectual honesty.

Why do you ask something that you don't provide yourself?

Anne Brown was the translator of The Anatomy of Glory as well as being an excellent historian in her own right.

The unjust criticism of her is unwarranted. Perhaps if you had more experience in the study and writing of history, as she did, you might offer more here than unjust criticism of others.

Anne Brown was also a founding member of the Company of Military Historians, an excellent organization that does great work in military history.

I cannot comment on Lachouque but on AKS Brown
"Courtois established once and for all the distinction between Old, Middle, and Young Guard in the following extract:
page 221
Lachouque, Henry and Brown, Anne : The Anatomy of Glory – Napoleon and his Guard, London 1978

You can find the same information which Mrs Brown translated for The Anatomy of Glory on pages 227-228 of La Garde Imperiale by Commandant Henry Lachouque.

The 2d and 3d Grenadiers a Pied as well as the 2d Chasseurs a Pied are listed as Middle Guard.

Sorry, Kevin, but AoG is of limited value (at least the translation I have) as a serious historical reference as it lacks ANY footnotes. At all. There is a bibliography of sorts, but not citations anywhere. It's an entertaining read and I would say directionally correct, but on finer points like those discussed here, I'd go elsewhere.

We'll have to disagree on that point. Lachouque names the gentleman who compiled who was who in the Imperial Guard regarding who was classed as Old, Middle, and Young Guard in early 1812.

And that is both in the orginal French by Lachouque and in the translation by Mrs Brown.

Naming a guy is not a citation.

That there may have been some degree of Old, Middle and Young Guard status for the various personnel is not beign debated. The question was as to the 3e grenadiers as a the regiment.

We have from the Correspondence :

"Paris, March 10, 1812.
My Cousin, order that the 3rd Division of the Guard, composed of the three regiments of the Old Guard, leave Metz for Mainz, to wit: the 3rd regiment of Grenadiers …."

Napoléon (and Margueron, Saint-Hiliaire, Fieffé, Raffet, the Monitieur de l'armée, Martinien, Perrot & Amoudru) was wrong and you know better because Lachouque named a guy who made some list which no one else will be able to go look at because there was no citation. Oh, and we do not know if this list was a proposal, was ever approved, was ever revised, etc., etc.

"Monsieur Courtois, who was the Imperial Guard's chief of personnel in 1812"
Actually he was
"chef du 5e bureau, personnel de la garde impériale, 2e division, départment de la guerre" – chargé de la tenue du contrôle de la garde impériale et correspondence relative à cet object; les expeditions relatives aux promotions dans la garde

Actually, he was more of a head of a records department than a chief of personnel : his remit was to keep the roster of the guard, and correpsondence relevant to the roster, and to send notices relative to pormotions
See the Imperial Almanach
link

I doubt that such a person could re-classify whole regiments of the guard.

Back to October 1811, Margueron notes proposals for "moyenne" pay and benefits for some personnel, as mentioned above.

Margueron concludes : "Les contrôles ne portent jamais ce trois dénominations ; ils se bornent à celle de jeune et vieille Garde"

b is not using Lachoque, he is using ASK Browns Anatomy of Glory, which is in fact not a close translation, in effect it is a tertiary work and won't fit to be regarded as a good sources.

Unless he doesn't quote correctly, I assume he made it up.

You assume wrongly.

I have both editions, in French and English, so your false comments and misrepresentations are completely in character.

And I gave the page numbers in Lachouque's original version.

Didn't you recently make a comment regarding intellectual honesty? You should take your own advice.

I doubt that such a person could re-classify whole regiments of the guard.

Opinion, not fact (as usual). Perhaps you could explain why not? If the man is given the assignment, and it was not to 'reclassify' but to straighten out an administrative problem, I don't see how it would be a problem. He was a staff officer with administrative ability.

And the official classification was done in early 1812, not late 1811.

I move on, the age of the vets – expertley answered by Le Breton, idem old or young guard

I won't waste my time