"L'Enforceur Legros and his little axe" Topic

Someone recently commented in passing (in the thread on John Hussey's Waterloo volumes) that Paul Dawson, in one of his own books, demolished the myth of Sous-lieutenant Legros, nicknamed L'enforceur breaking open the gates at Hougoumont with an exe, by showing that his unit didn't have any axes.

I was just wondering – what was the nature of his proof that the unit (presumably 1er Legere) had no axes at the time of the battle? It seems improbable that a record exists which states this explicitly. Is it perhaps just evidence that they did not normally have axes (perhaps because they had no pioneers?)?

How many eye witnesses said he had an axe?
I'll take their word for it.

The first to report it was Adolphe Thiers in 1861. In 1815, he was an 18 years old student, not a soldier at Waterloo:

link

If the United Services Magazine goes with it then it is good enough for me. Also I cannot see an infantry regiment having no sapeurs or axes while attacking a fortified building. And it is a great story which even the Guards go on about.

It seems the gate of Hougoumont was smashed at least two times, or both wings at the same time by two different officers. Possibly Vieux had given the axe of one of his men to Legros, so that he himself had only his shoulder left as a tool. Or he just wanted to demonstrate the answer to the riddle of steel:

link

On enterra le général de Caraman, le commandant de Serigny et le commandant du génie Vieux, un géant, héros de Waterloo. Il y avait enfoncé d'un coup d'épaule la grande porte de la ferme d'Hougoumont, opiniâtrément défendue par les Anglais.

[After having taken Constantine in 1836.] It were buried … and the commandant of engineers Vieux, a giant, hero of Waterloo. There he had thrust open with a push of his shoulder the gate of Hougoumont, which was tenaciousy defended by the English.

I thought it was generally accepted that the North gate had been left open to ensure resupply and reinforcement. The attack just stormed through before the defenders realised what was happening….but then they counterattacked and they all struck those dramatic poses, while the artist sketched an outline for his painting.

Is some of this confused with the breaking of the dovecot-covered gate of LHS? Also said to be with an axe and by Light Infantry……

Thank you for those references, Oliver (and for subtly reminding me that Legros' nickname was l'enfonceur, not l'enforceur – I did know that, honest, I did).

Thiers was writing in the 1840s and 1850s, I believe, but he must have known many Waterloo veterans, so I am inclined to presume that his story of Legros and his axe was at least an anecdote current among men who had been present at the battle and maybe even at the assault on Hougoumont itself.

It would be interesting to hear, though, exactly what were Paul Dawson's reasons for rejecting the story. Could someone who has the book tell us?

Now I remember why this question seemed familiar to me ;-)

link

So Mauduit (1854) is the first source for Lieutenant Legros' deed.

It takes three Frenchmen to destroy one British gate.

In 1844, Petiet (who was no eye witness, but seems to quote from memoirs of colonel Cubières of the 1er léger) attributed the deed to a sous-lieutenant Boucher:

link

Andrew Field in his excellent Waterloo: The French Perspective, names two officers who might have used an axe to break into the Chateau de Goumont.

The first is Sous-Lieutenant Bonnet, 'an old soldier of the army of Spain', who won his commission for being the first man into the breach at the siege of Tarragona. Bonnet was given the mission by his regimental commander, Colonel Cubieres of the 1st Legere and was killed in action there.

Captain Mauduit, a sergeant in the 1st Grenadiers a Pied, credits Sous-Lieutenant Legros also of the 1st Legere. Legros had been an engineer sergeant and had retired in 1814, but returned to duty when Napoleon came back from Elba. He was also killed in action. It was said that he obtained an engineer's axe to do the feat. See page 243 of the above reference.

I don't believe the story is a myth and either Bonnet or Legros was responsible for breaking into Hougoumont by the gate.

The name Bonnet is given in the 1996 edition of Petiet's memoirs. Whether it is a misreading of the 1844 text (which names Boucher), or perhaps a better reading of the original manuscript, I can't tell, as I don't have access to the 1996 edition:

link

Is there a British source that describes a determined Frenchman hacking at the gate?

If the gate was hacked apart, what was there to force shut again (and bar with whatever it was tradition claims it was barred)?

I find it hard to believe that a whole egiment of infantry had no axes/spontoons/halberds/hatachets of any kind.

If they had to force the gate, they would have needed a means with which to do it, so I would think an axe would be used.

But then, I think that Dawson's Guess is as good as anyone's who has delved deeply into the action.

I'm not going to commit myself to what actually happened as there is no real evidence stronger than probables.

What makes these occurrences difficult to pin down is that there were many forced gates (North gate and others) incidents which 'could' have made the accounts confusing and mistaken recalls, and all seem to have happened within a couple of hours of each and other.

PS. Lt.Diedrich von Wilder of the Nassau Grenadiers lost his hand to a blow from an attacking 'chasing' Frenchman's axe as he was trying to close the door to the farm house. So that account at least goes some way to showing that Axes were used during the assault

Paul :)

It doens't matter if there is something hard to believe, in case read Dawson and the farce of the smasher, Dawson is discussing it in great detail, Mauduit a fairey tail writer, one of the worst so called memoires about Belle Alliance – and Thiers yes – another constructor of myths.
Dawson put forward strong arguments, which are plausible at least for me, the rest is as they say "history"

Thank you again, Oliver. Well found. It seems fairly clear that someone did use an axe on the gates during the forced entry into the courtyard, even if the precise identity of the brave man, or men, is uncertain. Though I'm a bit puzzled, if the gate was smashed with the axe and thrown down, as to how the Guards were able to close and re-fasten the gates after they had cleared the courtyard. (Cubieres said Boucher struck the 'ouverture laterale' of the cart gate – its 'side opening, but I'm not sure what that means, exactly – the hinges? or just one of two leaves of the gate).

I'm still wondering why Paul Dawson was so sure the 1er Legere could not have had axes, though.

Cubieres, or perhaps Mauduit, tells the story charmingly. I was amused by the refreshing candour with which Cubieres describes how 'il allait s'eloignier rapidement' when he realised the Guards had spared him.

Aussi tres amusant is the spluttering indignation of the British officer's refutation in the United Service Magazine of Thiers' absurdly partisan description of the battle (Thiers was not a great historian – his extreme bonapartiste chauvinism too frequently lead him astray), especially when he contrasts the chivalrous sparing of the unhorsed and wounded Col. Cubieres with the very different treatment of the unhorsed and wounded Ponsonbys by the French lancers (an interesting contrast, in the light of the recent debate here about British 'atrocities').

Sorry, von Winterfeldt – I had typed my last post before I saw yours, but its actual posting was delayed by difficulties getting children to school through the snow drifts which still block many of the roads round here, and then by the membership system being temporarily closed for maintenance.

So Dawson discusses the whole episode in great detail? You implied before that he says the assaulting French unit had no axes, and my curiosity as to what evidence he might have found for this assertion remains unassuaged. I'm reluctant to buy the whole book for this purpose – would it be possible for you to summarise his argument on this particular point briefly?

"On enterra le général de Caraman, le commandant de Serigny et le commandant du génie Vieux, un géant, héros de Waterloo. Il y avait enfoncé d'un coup d'épaule la grande porte de la ferme d'Hougoumont, opiniâtrément défendue par les Anglais."

I had meant, but forgot, to comment on the above snippet found by Oliver (thank you again, Oliver). If the gate was in fact pushed open by a shoulder charge, and not smashed open with an axe, then this might explain how the Guards were able to re-fasten it closed afterwards.

Perhaps the big gate doors had little mini-gates in them – side-openings?

A wicket gate…..common enough but the whole purpose was to allow folk in one at a time, through a door within the gates themselves. Not ideal for an assault.

I stick with the British record which says the gates were left open for access……… equally writers all contend now to tell us just how many penetrations there were into Hgmt to confuse things

@dh

That's it – a wicket gate

@Fatuus Natural

Sorry I am involved in other projects at the moment, I would advise in case of interest to obtain the book by Dawson.
I often disagree with him, but the gems he dug out consulting archival material are priceless.

These insepection reports are often eye openers, and yes even some British units were badly equipped and lacked billhooks.

For that – and to asses the low quality of the British soldiers of 1815 compared to the Peninsular War see the assement of a British veteran officer :

The Correspondance of Sir Henry Clinton in the Waterloo Campaign, two volumes edited by Gareth Glover.

When I did archival research myself – it was interesting to stumble across unheard information, like that French regiments – had no musket slings at a certain time period, or that artillery gunners had no muskets, and so on.

All the best and good luck with your research

Confusing is it not?

Hussey p107-9 talks of Le Gros and his axe and suggests that it might have been better if the party had held the gateway, securing it for those following. A fire-fight rather than an incursion, against such odds.

Field (The French Perspective) quotes Petiet and names the individual as Bonnet

Clayton (Waterloo). Now it is Legros and he quotes Clay as seeing the colonel carrying "a large piece of wood or the trunk of tree in his hands" to reinforce the gates

Cornwell (Don't laugh) largely ignores it, presumably sure that Sean Bean closed the gates personally in the TV version

Glover (Myth and Reality). Again Legros and his axe. He suggests, however, that von Wilder's misfortune must have happened in the Southern courtyard and, so, after a minor break-in through the southern gate.

Over to experts again to tell us what the primary sources say, although they seem few and far between on this subject.

von Winterfeldt: well, thank you for taking the time to tell us what you have. I gather from what you say that Dawson's evidence must have been a report of an inspection of 1er Legere, presumably made at some date prior to Waterloo, which stated that the regiment had no axes. This hardly seems conclusive proof that no axe was used at Hougoumont, but my curiosity on the point is now assuaged, so thank you again!

indeed no conclusive proof but Dawson puts forward an excellent discussion so you can form your own opinion.

I hope this is not too snarky ….

Lieutenant du génie Pierre Vieux (1791-1937, mort pour la France à Constantine), officer adjoint de l'état-major du génie du 1er corps (Drouet d'Erlon)
link

Listed as a captaine du génie, wounded, by Martinien. HE was not actually promoted to capitaine en 2e de sapeurs du génie until 1816.

The lieutenant du génie Vieux is reported, first by Charras as far as I can tell [Jean-Baptiste Charras – Histoire de la campagne de 1815 (1857)] and then by many others, as the taking an axe to the gate at La Haye Sainte, until being twice wounded, then passing the axe to others.

However, the maréchal Canrobert remembered him as being at Hougoumont, when dictating his memoirs for the first time, in 1862 and 1863. The maréchal's Souveniers were not pubished until 1898, after a second round of dictation in his old age.
link

As the lieutenant Vieux was assigned to the 1er corps, perhaps the maréchal Canrobert may not have remembered correctly.

Yes!

not only could I not remember his name but I also accused him of being a Light Infantry officer. Warlord have it right (for once)!

Warlord have it right (for once)!

Except they have them attacking La Haye Sainte, instead of Hougoumont.

Le Breton has shown (a couple of posts above) that Vieux was more probably involved in the attack on La Haye Saint than Hougoumont.

Weep……….Exactly my point.

They got it right.

Let's say it again, both Hgmt and LHS have tales of chaps with axes tackling enormous gates. (The original gates at Hgmt I would guess bigger than those now reconstructed there, to judge by the earliest photos of the remaining wall height and the pre battle image)

All the above discussion was about who chopped into the north gate at Hgmt. I first confused things by mentioning a similar attack on the dovecot gate at LHS……

Vieux was an engineer at LHS. Le Gros, Legros, Bonnet, Boucher etc may have chopped into the north gate at Hgmt (unless it was already left open). But maybe someone also chopped into the Gardener's House gate too and severed the Nassau officer's hand…..

I did say it was confusing and clearly still is……

The regimental history of the 1er léger, written in the 1890's, has the following officer in the état nominatif of 16 May 1815:
Legros – sous-lieutenant de la 1er compagnie de chasseurs du 3e bataillon

The regimental history gives the credit to Legros, gives the location of the event as the south [sic?] gate, and gives as sources for this passage:
Jean-Baptiste Charras – Histoire de la campagne de 1815 (1857)
Adolphe Thiers Histoire du Consulat et de l'Empire, Volume 20 (1862)
Victor Hugo – Les Miserables (1862)
Zéphyr-Jose Piérart – Le Drame de Waterloo (1868)

See : link

Martinien shows that a sous-lieutenant Legros was killed at Warterloo.

A contibutor on the Napoleon Series identified his personnel dossier in the archives. Sous-lieutenant Pierre-François Legros was born at Reugney (Doubs) on 22 September 1781.
link

The earliest that I found the story of Legros taking an axe to a gate at Hougoumont is in Mauduit. He does not specify which gate, only that the gate gave onto a courtyard,
Hippolyte Mauduit – Les derniers jours de la Grande Armée, Volume 2 (1848)
link

The story is given in full form – his background as a sergenat de sapeurs du génie, his nickname, his prior meeting with the colonel Despans de Cubières, his retirement in 1814, his return as an officer in 1815, etc. – including verbatim quaotations attributed to Legros and Despans de Cubières.

In the early and mid 1840's both de Mauduit and Despans de Cubières (by then retired from the army and made a peer of France) were in Paris and were both associated with Adolph Thiers and his conservative/Bonapartist politics.
link

While I have found no sure information linking Legros to the story of the axe at Hougoumont, I think it can be said with some surety that a 33 year old sous-lieutenant of chasseurs named Pierre-François Legros was killed in action with the 1er léger at Waterloo and that the former colonel of the regiment was the source for the story as it appeared in de Mauduit's work of 1848.

Thank you, le Breton, good work. It will be interesting to see what are Dawson's grounds for dismissing Legros and his axe as a myth, if I ever get round to reading his book.

The attempt to gain entry by Legro, as described by de Mauduit (1848) seems to some extent early in the attack, spontaneous, and involving only Legros and a few "braves". I think (personal opinion) that this corresponds more to the events at the south gate. This would then be the French axe-weilder who took off the hand of lieutenant of grenadiers Diederich von Wilder of the 1/2 Nassauers, who was saved by his sergenat Buchsieb and the gate re-barricaded.

The other, and earliest, description of a French axe-weilder at Hougoumont that i have found is the relation given by Pétiet.
Auguste-Louis Pétiet – Souvenirs militaires (1844)
link
Pétiet, like de Mauduit, was at Waterloo but unlikely to have been a witness to events at Hougoumont. Pétiet was a général de brigade attached to the staff of the major-général de l'armée.
link

Pétiet relates that a sous-lieutenant "Boucher" of the 1er léger (who had gained his commission by being the first in the breach at the siege of Tarragona) was ordered to take a party and "va à tourner le bâtiment de la ferme, briser la porte charretière et s'introduire dans la cour". To me (personal opinion) this sounds more like moving around the farm and entering through the north gate into the larger courtyard there.

Now, before looking for our sous-lieutnenat Boucher, we might pause and think that "le boucher" (the butcher) was actually the real nickname of Legros, and that de Mauduit made up a new nickname, a little more unique and less grizzly, while Pétiet mistook the nickname for the name.

But, going on the assumption that we have two axe-weilders at two different gates (north and south), when need another sous-lieutenant. And it does not help that somehow "Boucher" migrated to "Bonnet" in 1996 (!).

Looking in the regimental history, the rather detailed memoires of Suchet and the "Journaux des sièges faits ou soutenus par les Français dans la péninsule de 1807 à 1814." by Belmas, I could find no mention of a similarly named sergeant gaining promotion for distinction at Tarragona. There was such a sergeant mentioned, by the name of L'abbé. This in no way precludes that no other sergeant was similarly rewarded for outstanding service. Indeed there was more than one fortification breached at Tarragona by the 1er léger.

According to the regimental history, per the état nominative of the 1er léger, 16 May 1815 we have no "Boucher" nor "Bonnet", but we do have these three somewhat similarly named officers :
--- sous-lieutenant Frédéric Boutour, voltiguers du 2e bataillon
--- lieutenant Bouché, 3e chasseurs du 3e bataillon
--- lieutenant Boutour, voltiguers du 3e bataillon *
(recall that sous-lieutenant Legros was from the 1er chasseurs du 3e bataillon)

* From his Légion d'honneur dossier, confirmed in the Martinien, we note that lieutenant Guillaume-Armand Boutour de Flagny (1791-1817) was wounded at Waterloo by a bullet in the right arm. However, although he served in Spain, he was not at Tarragona and earned his commission at Bautzen in 1813, then a sergeant-major in the 3e voltiguers de la jeune garde.
link

Checking Martinien, i find only a iieutenant "Bonnet" of the 108e de ligne (5e division de Bachelu, IIe corps) who was mortally wounded at Waterloo, dying on 30 Juin.
No Boucher/Bouché is listed as killed or mortally wounded.

There is a lieutenant en 2e de sapeurs Buquet, of the 1er régiment de sapeurs-mineurs shown as wounded at Waterloo by Martinien. The 1er battalion of his regiment was attached ot the IIe corps, the 2e battalion was with the Ier corps. I do not know to which battalion the lieutenant Buquet was assigned for the Cent Jours. He does appear to have been promoted from the ranks sometime in 1813 or early 1814. He seems to have left the army before the re-organization of 1817, as he does not show among either the demi-soldes or the actively employed. As with lieutenant Guillaume Boutour, it is possible that his wound was eventually fatal.

I find no other candidates for "Boucher"/"Bonnet" as told by Pétiet.
So, no "answer" but maybe some clues that can be combined with what other colleagues have found.

Field and similar just re-hash Mauduit and Pétiet, conveniently in English, but it is just re-hasing (as you would exepct from a modern secondary or tertiary source).
One has to get a little closer to the origins of the stories to really evaluate them.

By the way, I had a look on the list on the officers of the 2nd Nassau infantry regiment, whose 1st battalion was sent to take part in the defense of Hougoumont. It is dated "June 1815" (Wacker, Das herzoglich-nassauische Militär, p. 674).

None of the officers in the whole regiment is named Wilder, or Diederich, or anything similar. This name also doesn't figure amongst the 11 officers of both Nassau regiments killed during the campaign (p. 545).

What is the original source for this Diederich von Wilder's sad fate ?

why should they smash gates at LHS?
One remained wide open because – in case I remember correctly – it was used as material for a camp fire on the night before the battle.
also I ask myself how could you smash a gate with an axe? How many strokes and time would it need, assuming the defenders would not conter act?

The "open" barn gate was well barricaded with farm debris and even piles of French bodies we are assured! Lindau's account seems to suggest it was not the main ultimate entrance route for the French, however often attempted.

They could scale the walls and the lower roofs easily enough, once defenders' ammo low and then fire into the courtyard, plus there were the large loopholes, which seem to have been quite a size.

But von W's comment is well made. Unless the gate was truly rotten……..look at the size of the modern gates at LHS or the South and North gates at Hgmt (I still suspect the last even taller than the new reconstructions)……….that would be some challenge to an axe! The Special Forces thing of course is go for the hinges not the door centres…..but even then……

But now we do have photographic evidence surprisingly

TMP link

Article with sources (!) on Nassauers at Hougoumont : no "von Wilder" mentioned.
link

We may have another "addition" by Victor Hugo here :
"Il convient de rapporter un dernier épisode qui nous est encore raconté par Victor Hugo. Quand la cour de la ferme est envahie par les soldats du 1er Léger, les défenseurs s'égaillent et tentent de se réfudier dans les divers bâtiments et parmi eux, un officier allemand poursuivi par un sapeur français : "… au moment où le lieutenant hanovrien Wilda saisissait cette poignée, pour se réfugier dans la ferme, un sapeur lui abattit la main d'un coup de hache…". L'anecdote est séduisante et sans doute authentique [sic ?], mais par contre, il n'y a jamais eu d'officier du nom de Wilda dans le contingent hanovrien."
archive.is/MtXVe

I should have looked to my Hugo (and Balzac and Dumas) more closely – these guys' fictional books seem to be taken as "history" by writers in the later 1800's and of course, this stuff then gets re-hashed by modern English-language secondary and tertiary sources without any fact-checking.

The topic is discussed in this edition of "Gloire & Empire", but I do not have the work :
link

And, by the way, if we look at the 1996 version of Pétiet, where we have a supposed sous-officier "Bonnet" of the 1er léger first in the breach at Lérida and so winning his commission:
--- the 1er léger was not present at Lérida
--- I could find no such "Bonnet" mentioned in the regimental history, the "Journaux des sièges …." for Lérida, or Suchet's memoirs.

I am getting the feeling that we have at most only one heroically dead axe-man : Legros …. and it is de Mauduit writing 30 years after the fact that puts the axe in his hand.

I think Pétiet (also writing about 30 years after the event), is confusing either a more agrressive nickname for Legros ("Le Boucher") or the lieutenant Bouché of the same batallion as Legros, who did not die at Waterloo (but may have been the leader of an assault group at one of the gates).

As a side comment : would it not have been easier to blow the gates with a petard? Did not French sapeurs (du génie, if not d'infanterie) use this technique? It was a standard requirement for Russian artillery and pioneer NCO's to be able to make them (and grenades and similar).

I went to the library and had a look in Isenbart's Geschichte des Herzoglich Nassauischen 2. Regiments. (1891). Also there no Wilder/Wildau/Diederich etc. amongst the officers in the regiment in 1815.

There was an NCO named Carl Wild, who was promoted Unter-Lieutenant in 1816. But a one-handed man would hardly have remained in active service.

link

"Diederich von Wilder" appears in two books which were published in 2014. I don't know who was first.

Gareth Glover. Waterloo: Myth and Reality:

link

Robert Kershaw. 24 Hours at Waterloo: 18 June 1815:

link

Here:

archive.is/MtXVe

an article in "Gloire et Empire N°20" is given as the source for Diederich von Wilder:

Il convient de rapporter un dernier épisode qui nous est encore raconté par Victor Hugo. Quand la cour de la ferme est envahie par les soldats du 1er Léger, les défenseurs s'égaillent et tentent de se réfudier dans les divers bâtiments et parmi eux, un officier allemand poursuivi par un sapeur français : "… au moment où le lieutenant hanovrien Wilda saisissait cette poignée, pour se réfugier dans la ferme, un sapeur lui abattit la main d'un coup de hache…". L'anecdote est séduisante et sans doute authentique, mais par contre, il n'y a jamais eu d'officier du nom de Wilda dans le contingent hanovrien. Il y a bien eu dans le bataillon de Lünebourg, un Lieutenant Völger qui a été blessé grièvement le 18 juin à Waterloo. Peut être Hugo, qui avait une certaine propensio à estropier les noms propres, a t'il transformé le nom du Lieutenant Völger en Wilda. Concernant cette annecdote, une autre source cite le Lieutenant Diederich von Wilder de la Compagnie de Grenadiers du 2e Régiment de Nassau (Gloire et Empire N°20).

I found "Diederich von Wilder" mentioned (without any sources given) in Mark Adkin's Waterloo Companion, published in 2001, p. 330.

And the Hanoverian Lieutenant Völger or Volger, of the Feld-Bataillon Lüneburg was already severely wounded on 16th June:

link

His battalion wasn't at Hougoumont, so even less probable that Völger could have made it there to have his hand chopped off.

Le Breton has shown (a couple of posts above) that Vieux was more probably involved in the attack on La Haye Saint than Hougoumont.

Apologies to all concerned. I thought I had read all the posts prior to Deadhead's and missed the LHS reference from Le Breton.

"Waterloo: Myth and Reality" – a little ironic, that.

Field and similar just re-hash Mauduit and Pétiet, conveniently in English, but it is just re-hasing (as you would exepct from a modern secondary or tertiary source).
One has to get a little closer to the origins of the stories to really evaluate them.

Two questions:

First, have you read Andrew Field's books on Waterloo (there are four of them).

Second, what is your definition of a 'tertiary source'?

would it not have been easier to blow the gates with a petard?

Using a petard in the field could be a little awkward and might not have been applicable here. And I doubt that the 1st Legere had the time to make and deploy one.

Play nice, please, Brechtel. Your penultimate post is clearly designed to score points, not to advance the investigation. Le Breton has contributed some impressive research to this thread and there is no need to introduce what I am tempted to categorise as 'snarkiness' – except that I don't actually know what the word means (does anyone over the age of 12?).

The reason for the tertiary source question is twofold:

First, it is usually used improperly, and

Second, it is also used to denigrate a secondary source one doesn't agree with.

And I would suggest that reading a source before passing judgment on it is important.

And I'm not being 'snarky', I'm merely asking two questions which are valid.

"Waterloo: Myth and Reality" – a little ironic, that.

Yes indeed – better – Waterloo – lies – propaganda and ignored reality.

@
Le Breton and Oliver Schmidt, thanks for all the effort and excellent information – highly appreciated.

Brechtel,

This thread is not about me. It is about the battle of Waterloo.

If you want to open a new thread about what I think is a tertiary source, or what I think of Field's books or what I think of Zenit Saint Petersburg's chances against Spartak Moscow, maybe a new thread (or a even a different forum) would be a preferable place to post your inquiries?

Now, more on-topic ….

We have 30-odd year gaps between the battle and the first mentions of the axe-weilding French junior officer(s) at Hougoumont. Do you know of any earlier versions of this incidents that the de Mauduit and the Pétiet?

De Mauduit and the former colonel of the 1er léger, the marquis de Cubières, were both members of the same conservative/Bonapartiste politicial clique in Paris in the mid-1840's. And the de Mauduit reads rather as if seen from the colonel's perspective. Do you know anything more about the relationship between the marquis and writer? Did de Cubières publish in the "La Sentinelle de l'armée", for instance?

For the Pétiet, I have no notion where he got his "Boucher" in 1844 – who becomes "Bonnet" in 1996 [!]. Do you?

Mauduits memoires are a joke – he was a file closer in one of the grenadier regiments of the Guard, yet he is able to report actions which are even out of his ear and eye site in great detail.

Of course he uses La Sentinelle de l'armee to gain information – asking veterans about their experiences, out of all this he hashes his Memoires

Mauduit, Hippolyte de, Capitaine : Les Dernier Jours de la Grande Armée ou Souvenirs, Documents et Correspondance Inédite de Napoléon en 1814 et 1815, tome 1er Paris 1847, tome 2nd Paris 1848

Both volumes can be downloaded on the internet, for example google books.

Mauduit was in 1815 sergent in the 2nd battalion of the 1st grenadiers and by such must have had a limited experience what went on in the battle. In 1835 he founded the periodical "La Sentinelle de l'Armée" and did consult a lot of published works – including Prussian ones, like that of Wagner to make his write up. It includes without any doubt his own experience but also a lot he learned from personal correspondence, using other sources and hearsay. In my view a very bad book which is seemingly intended to glorify Napoléon and his Guard and blaming the marshals and generals for the loss of the 1815 campaign, so it has to be used very critically.

Regarding the practicality of using an axe to break down the gate, it isn't entirely unheard of is it? There is the reference to the Austrian 17th Infantry at Aspern-Essling being led into battle by their sappers with axes. Admittedly this seems a more concerted effort than one giant hero a la John Henry.

Cheers,
John