"L'Enforceur Legros and his little axe" Topic

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

I merely asked two simple questions about comments that you made in this thread.

You can answer or not, entirely up to you.

And the questions were on topic, as you made the initial comments on the subjects in question.

Brechtel, as a matter of interest, with reference to your latest observations, have you yourself ever declined to answer a question- or acknowledge an answer? I merely ask because I have a feeling that the answer would probably be in the affirmative. In which case, might the point of your question be moot?

I most certainly have not answered some questions when there was no point in answering them.

I asked these two questions because I don't believe that the term 'tertiary' is not always understood or it is used to belittle a reference.

Further, sometimes references and sources are criticized without having been read.

Both of those instances are important to my mind because they go right to the source of a major problem.

Answer or not, it's up to the poster. However, some questions need to be asked whether or not an answer is forthcoming.

Further, to amplify, if a question goes unanswered and the discussion moves on, I don't have a problem with that at all.

However, if the question is not but another comment is made instead, especially one that is condescending or pejorative, then I suggest that is a problem that should never have occurred.

For me, this discussion here was much more interesting when we were talking about historical persons and what they did or not, and not about ourselves and what we and other contributors had written a few lines before, and giving explanations on how we want them or us to be seen by others.

Sorry for this most uninteresting contribution. I just hope it could help that everybody else will write more interesting things from now on ;-)

See me as a naive optimist.

Over on Napoleon-series Anthony Gray has posted a link to a fascinating website dedicated to the history of 1er Legere

link

It has a substantial section devoted to the assault on the gate at Hougoumont, with some fun illustrations, which quotes several versions of the story from a variety of 19th-century French sources.

It is amusing to see how the story was embroidered over the years. In Petiet's version, when Cubieres realises the Guards are not shooting at him he is distancing himself from the courtyard as fast as he can, but in a later account "Le colonel seul s'élance pour ressaisir son drapeau qui était presque au pied des Anglais sur le corps inanimé du lieutenant, entouré de sa garde morte aussi. Un général anglais voit l'héroïsme de ce colonel et se précipite au-devant des siens pour faire cesser le feu, afin que le colonel français puisse emporter son drapeau", while in Victor Hugo's fictional account Cubieres "regarde fièrement du côté des Anglais pour recevoir la mort en soldat."

The website's author remarks drily that these versions "semblent bien éloignée de la réalité des faits."

As the Avantgarde-Bataillon was also defending Hougoumont, I had a look at the list of Brunswick officers in 1815:

link

No Wilda or the like, but a Premier-Lieutenant Diederichs (p. 144), who was killed on 18th June. However, Diederichs was an officer in the Brunswick horse battery.

As for how the gate was opened, a Nassau NCO who was present wrote that a makeshift ram was used, not an axe:

chopped down some trees and crashed the gate by force

The original text is probably found in:

Andreas Buchsieb. Denkwürdigkeiten aus dem Spanischen Feldzuge und der Schlacht bei Waterloo : Erlebnisse und Abenteuer des alten Veteranen Andreas Buchsieb während der Jahre 1805 bis 1815. Cöln and Leipzig, 1867.

another very good article – provided by Marc Moermann – author Alasdair White : link for download

PDF link

to sum up – it seems most unlikley that Legros was the smasher but was an officer in 1er Légère killed at Belle Alliance. There as L. Dawson, consulting archives, also found out that this regiment had neither sappeurs nor axes in 1815 – and that most likely 3e de Ligne pentrated the defence, for me – the smasher Legros is another well entrenched myth.

Von W's link on Hougoumont ( I tend to spell with only one U……which is discussed)…….

is absolutely brilliant. I have just read it from beginning to the very end, despite the best of intentions to clean the windows.

Thanks so much for pointing this out to us. Does it not merit a posting of its own as it may well be missed here?

to sum up – it seems most unlikley that Legros was the smasher but was an officer in 1er Légère killed at Belle Alliance. There as L. Dawson, consulting archives, also found out that this regiment had neither sappeurs nor axes in 1815 – and that most likely 3e de Ligne pentrated the defence, for me – the smasher Legros is another well entrenched myth.

This inspection report was a great find, and I can understand that Dawson wanted to make the most of his discovery, but I just cannot see that it is really very conclusive. I don't know how long before Waterloo the inspection was made, but whether it was weeks or months before, I find it difficult to believe that in a world where axes were ubiquitous (and they were – no cooking or heating without firewood) the regiment had not been able to beg, borrow or steal a few by the time it found itself marching down the slope towards Hougoumont.

But, who would bring their camp equipment into battle? Would sapeurs in neighbouring units have willingly surrendered their kit, their raison d'être, particularly since, they might shortly have need of it too?

True that leaves 'steal' and requisition by a superior officer but how informed would the Infanterie Legère have been as to the layout of the enclave before marching down; Were they even meant to get as far as storming the chateau?

Surely, we first need to find confirmation of the assault with axe then find reasons to explain it.

the missing axe – is one of many mosaics – it seems that 3e de ligne was involved in penetrating Hougoumont – also I speak about an axe – such as sappeurs would have used it, massive not like for chopping firewood.
I don' believe that you justcannot simply cut down a (defended) gate so easily with an axe.
Oliver Schmidt put forward another participant who claims that trees were cut down to create a sort of battering ram.

There Boney did assume at the eve of the 17th that Wellington would not make a stand, why would he, the Prussians beaten to pulp and alone his army would be no match for the French, there were no preperations of an assault on a fortified position.

Must reads are the Waterloo archives of those units who took part in the defence of Hougoumont – as well as Dawsons portrayal of the French side.

Mauduit, Thiers and Victor Hugo won't do.

I can imagine that, having cut down a tree to use as a battering ram, some of those with axes kept hold of them, so that some men with axes were seen at the gates, some even giving the timbers a few whacks in an excess of enthusiasm. That is different from one solitary stout individual being responsible for breaking through the gates while the rest watched.

Not that I am entirely convinced by the battering ram story but when one thinks of any number of events recorded on June 18th 1815, to apply a standard of rationality in the chaos and madness of that day is perhaps unrealistic.

Have just began reading Paul Dawsons work on Waterloo I think he corresponded with John Franklin about legros and others mentioned as anyone got is work Waterloo: The Struggle for Hougoumont – In the Words of Those Who Witnessed the Events of June 1815 by John Franklin would be interested in is conclusions.