Help support TMP


"Wellington's Guns: The Untold Story of Wellington..." Topic


45 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Napoleonic Media Message Board



Areas of Interest

Napoleonic

878 hits since 21 Dec 2018
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP In the TMP Dawghouse21 Dec 2018 9:34 p.m. PST

…. and his Artillery in the Peninsula and at Waterloo

"Dismissive, conservative and aloof, Wellington treated his artillery with disdain during the Napoleonic Wars – despite their growing influence on the field of battle. Wellington's Guns exposes, for the very first time, the often stormy relationship between Wellington and his artillery, how the reluctance to modernize the British artillery corps threatened to derail the British push for victory and how Wellington's views on the command and appointment structure within the artillery opened up damaging rifts between him and his men. At a time when artillery was undergoing revolutionary changes – from the use of mountain guns during the Pyrenees campaign in the Peninsular, the innovative execution of 'danger-close' missions to clear the woods of Hougomont at Waterloo, to the introduction of creeping barrages and Congreve's rockets – Wellington seemed to remain distrustful of a force that played a significant role in shaping tactics and changing the course of the war. Using extensive research and first-hand accounts, Colonel Nick Lipscombe reveals that despite Wellington's brilliance as a field commander, his abrupt and uncompromising leadership style, particularly towards his artillery commanders, shaped the Napoleonic Wars, and how despite this, the ever-evolving technology and tactics ensured that the extensive use of artillery became one of the hallmarks of a modern army."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP22 Dec 2018 5:05 a.m. PST

This is an excellent book and if anyone has an interest in the Peninsular War they should get it and read it.

Artilleryman22 Dec 2018 9:00 a.m. PST

An excellent book indeed. But be aware it is more about the Gunners than the Guns. There is not a great deal on tactics or technology. Highly recommended though.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP In the TMP Dawghouse22 Dec 2018 12:11 p.m. PST

Thanks!.


Amicalement
Armand

42flanker Supporting Member of TMP27 Dec 2018 4:07 a.m. PST

What influence or authority did Wellington have over the organization of his artillery and the guns (and other hardware) with which they were equipped?

Personal logo deadhead Supporting Member of TMP27 Dec 2018 12:08 p.m. PST

It is a strange book, with each chapter concentrating on one episode and usually one individual officer of artillery. It is more about Wellington falling out with his gunners than tactics and weaponry. 42flanker's question is very much addressed in the book and it did frustrate the DoW intensely (or so the oft repeated story goes anyway).


I decided a quarter of the way through this book that I was disappointed. I stuck with it though and it is "different" and maybe that is no harm. It proved better than I thought……but less than I had hoped, from the title.

MaggieC70 Supporting Member of TMP27 Dec 2018 12:22 p.m. PST

I don't believe there is a single legitimate "untold" story out there about either Wellington or Napoleon.

Gazzola28 Dec 2018 4:52 a.m. PST

It is a very interesting book, seeing actions, events and things from the gunner's point of view. Also includes conversation pieces and debatable topics, such as Dickson's suggestion that Beresford thought the battle of Albuera lost at one point. Well worth a read.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP In the TMP Dawghouse28 Dec 2018 12:57 p.m. PST

Thanks my good friend!. (smile)


Amicalement
Armand

von Winterfeldt29 Dec 2018 5:34 a.m. PST

a nice read, however I don't understand the critics against Lord Wellington – he made the very best out of the difficult situation he was placed in – he had to use what he did get – he wasn't like Boney was, a tyrannical dictator who could act as an absolute ruler and raise armies as he wished.
Wellington did use the artillery as it had to be used according to the circumstances he was confronted with.
Despite all those obstacles – the British artillery progressed, while the French artillery – despite the intentions of the reformers under the leadership of Marmont – took a most conservative road which led to enormous gun losses in 1812 and 1813, which Wellington could never have afforded.

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP29 Dec 2018 10:33 a.m. PST

The old 'tyrannical dictator' nonsense again? Perhaps you could read the primary and secondary sources that prove otherwise? Such as Fain, Marchand, Lentz, Holtman and others.

Artillery losses in 1812 and 1813 had nothing to do with the design of the gun carriages or ancillar vehicles. And Marmont's Systeme AN XI was never fully implemented and the gun carriages proved to be less sturdy on campaign than the older, better Gribeauval gun carriages.

As late as 1800 Ralph Willett Adye praised the Gribeauval System and lamented that the British did not have something similar, ie a unified artillery system.

The new British block trail gun carriage, along with the new limber and caisson, were introduced in the 1790s and were initially only issued to the RHA.

Wellington was an infantryman and probably had little knowledge of artillery employment and the technical aspects of the arm. He did have two excellent senior artillery officers who worked for him-Dickson and Fraser.

However, the British artillery arm in the Peninsula, and in Belgium in 1815, was necessarily small and the British realized that it had to be augmented in order to stay in the field. The KGL artillery helped, but the Portuguese artillery arm, newly reorganized and trained by the British, was a godsend. In Belgium the excellent British artillery arm was augmented by that of the Dutch-Belgians and the British had the presence of mind to up-gun RHA troops with 9-pounders.

That being said, the French artillery arm was still the best in Europe, even after heavy losses in 1812. Good artillery officers use what they are issued no matter what defects, real or imagined, they have to deal with. And it should be noted that the much-maligned Gribeauval 8-pounder was an excellent field piece, was not too heavy as falsely claimed by some, and was the favorite of the French horse artillery arm-which the RHA considered the best in Europe.

dibble29 Dec 2018 5:52 p.m. PST

"That being said, the French artillery arm was still the best in Europe, even after heavy losses in 1812. Good artillery officers use what they are issued no matter what defects, real or imagined, they have to deal with. And it should be noted that the much-maligned Gribeauval 8-pounder was an excellent field piece, was not too heavy as falsely claimed by some, and was the favorite of the French horse artillery arm-which the RHA considered the best in Europe."

Yep! But The Royal Artillery and Royal Horse Artillery weren't 'European' so 'the best in Europe' should be quantified with the other armies of mainland Europe. And the British Block trail system would go on to replace the other systems.

Much of the excellence of the French artillery was the fact that they had lots of it in a given campaign

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP29 Dec 2018 6:26 p.m. PST

The excellence of the French artillery arm was in their organization, education system, training, command and control, and overall excellent performance.

After the 1814 campaign in the Niagara Peninsula in Canada, the British were surprised that the excellent US artillery was commanded by American artillery officers and not French. Their comment was 'We thought you were French.'

The French artillery system of the period which encompassed the above in the first paragraph was the best in Europe and that included the British artillery arm. Adye's comment ca 1800 certainly outlined that fact.

The French admired the block trail construction of the British gun carriages that they encountered in Spain, Portugal, and Belgium. When the new French Valee artillery system was introduced ca 1827 and replaced the Gribeauval System, it was a block trail system based on the British model. The US artillery arm would adopt it also.

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP30 Dec 2018 4:43 a.m. PST

But The Royal Artillery and Royal Horse Artillery weren't 'European'…

So the British Isles are not part of Europe? To what continent do they belong?

Seems to me that the British Isles, which include England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and the nations of Great Britain (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and Ireland most certainly are 'European.'

link

https://www.britannica.com/place/Europe

And if Great Britain is or was not a part of Europe, then why get involved in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars?

von Winterfeldt30 Dec 2018 6:21 a.m. PST

Shrapnell, a British invention
Horse artillery – a Russian one
Block trail – intoduced by the British

The French failed to use a mobile limber system, the obsolete 8 pdr. was replaced naturally by Boney with the more versatile 6 pdr.

The French artillery officer on the spot and very well reflect and saw the deficiency, as expressed by Allix.

Without any doubt the French artillery did fight well, as all the other nation's artillery did too.

Gazzola30 Dec 2018 9:24 a.m. PST

For minute there I thought this debate was going to transform into a Brexit fight!

Gazzola30 Dec 2018 9:45 a.m. PST

Surely we must be European unless we accept Britain was an outsider sticking her nose into 'European' affairs that were nothing to do with Britain, if they weren't European. LOL

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP30 Dec 2018 9:45 a.m. PST

Without any doubt the French artillery did fight well, as all the other nation's artillery did too.

Fighting well is not the issue. How the different artillery arms fought and how they were employed is.

dibble30 Dec 2018 1:16 p.m. PST

So the British Isles are not part of Europe? To what continent do they belong?

It's not what anyone thinks today, It's what people thought then when talking of Europe. You 'who reckons he is savvi on the era' should know that.

Seems to me that the British Isles, which include England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and the nations of Great Britain (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and Ireland most certainly are 'European.'

link

link

See my last.

And if Great Britain is or was not a part of Europe, then why get involved in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars?

Because of the intentions for the Republic and later, a tyrant to invade. But then Spain, France and Germany have all had desires of 'England' but got their collective arses kicked. Britain has only been seen as 'European by its population since 1975 when we joined the Common Market. and even today, Europe means to most people in the UK as 'them over the channel. As I said above. If you know so much about the period, you should know that the British did not see themselves as Europeans.

"After the 1814 campaign in the Niagara Peninsula in Canada, the British were surprised that the excellent US artillery was commanded by American artillery officers and not French. Their comment was 'We thought you were French.'"

Really? and how many French divisions were fighting in the US at that time? Sources please, not hearsay.

And anyway…

That being said, the French artillery arm was still the best in Europe, even after heavy losses in 1812. Good artillery officers use what they are issued no matter what defects, real or imagined, they have to deal with. And it should be noted that the much-maligned Gribeauval 8-pounder was an excellent field piece, was not too heavy as falsely claimed by some, and was the favorite of the French horse artillery arm-which the RHA considered the best in Europe.

…is an assessment by Who?

Your claim! Please make the Argument.

ConnaughtRanger30 Dec 2018 2:58 p.m. PST

As usual with any post involving Brechtel198 and Gazzola, we've gone completely off the point. Whereas, as usual, deadhead is spot on. Lipscombe's book is huge disappointment – could have been great but it's one long drip about how nasty that awful Wellington was to his poor, misunderstood gunners. It could have done with a much better editor because it's overlong and the style is repetitive. Read Thompson's book on Wellington's Engineers if you want a decent history about one of the support arms.

Gazzola31 Dec 2018 4:13 a.m. PST

ConnaughtRanger

So Lipscombe's book is a great disappointment because it dared to include something negative about Wellington. So had the author included only positive things about Wellington it would have been a good book. That is hilarious! Talk about blinkered viewpoint!

Gazzola31 Dec 2018 4:21 a.m. PST

In terms of Britain being thought of as European during the Napoleonic period and even now, I suppose that could be true if we ignored the fact that many Brits then and now are probably descended from 'Europeans' such as the Romans, Normans and Vikings, you know, the Europeans that came, conquered and lived here. Plus of course, the fact our Royal Family were Germans.
Yep, Britain was not and is not European! LOL

dibble31 Dec 2018 3:57 p.m. PST

The British saw 'them over there' as European. Infact, a good more modern example of how Britain saw Europe as such was Winston Churchill when talking about the 'mainland'.

I challenge you or anyone to show people of the time in Britain acknowledging as being part of Europe at the time. Yes they were part of Europe as we in the UK see it today, but back then and until fairly recently, Britons saw themselves as not.

So I would like you friend to post the source of his claim that the best artillery was French. By the way, I'm not claiming any nations artillery was 'the best'. but the most advanced in terms of equipment and ammunition was the British.

Quotes like this….

After the 1814 campaign in the Niagara Peninsula in Canada, the British were surprised that the excellent US artillery was commanded by American artillery officers and not French. Their comment was 'We thought you were French.

….are put up on these boards and other places with no evidence of their authenticity.

And:

The French artillery system of the period which encompassed the above in the first paragraph was the best in Europe and that included the British artillery arm. Adye's comment ca 1800 certainly outlined that fact.

Is used with the quote he (Brechtel)is alluding to conveniently either not posted for critical analysis or he is repeating what someone has told him or has read in a book.

You can 'LOL' all you like but you too should show where Britons saw themselves as Europeans before, during or after the Revolutionary and Napoleonic War, and even today, you will definitely not get common consensus of Britons being Europeans.

****************************************

I personally see myself as English with (Jewish blood from my Grandma on my Dads side), British and then European for the sole reason of the continental shelf. But I do not see myself as European in culture or loyalty. I think you will find that the Majority of British people think this way too even if you don't.

MaggieC70 Supporting Member of TMP31 Dec 2018 4:53 p.m. PST

I wholeheartedly agree with Dibble regarding any British--or more especially English--attitude in the 17th and 18th centuries that they are somehow European.

One has only to look at the treaties and fistfights during this period to see the disdainful stance toward Europe in general and European countries in particular. The War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years' War come to mind in this regard.

There is something to be said, after all, for being an island nation.

dibble31 Dec 2018 5:42 p.m. PST

Thanks Maggie, much appreciated coming from you. And a happy New Year as-well and to all the posters on this site and those hard workers running it.

Paul :)

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP21 Jan 2019 10:58 a.m. PST

Really? and how many French divisions were fighting in the US at that time? Sources please, not hearsay.

You can find it here, ‘For Want of this Precaution so Many Men Lose Their Arms: Official, Semi-Official, and Unofficial American Artillery Texts, 13, by Donald Graves.
‘…[Hindman's artillery battalion] had achieved a magnificent combat record and so impressed their main opponent during that long and bloody summer [of 1814], Captain James Maclachlane's compay of Royal Artillery, that the British paid them the supreme compliment: ‘We thought you were French.'

Your reference to ‘French divisions…fighting in the US' during the War of 1812 is nothing but a red herring.

Anyone who has paid attention to the War of 1812 knows that the French were not allies of the US during that war and there were no French troops serving in North America at the time. Perhaps you are confusing French support for the US during the War of the Revolution (Rochambeau's Expeditionary Corps)? I have seen in a couple of books written by British authors that they have inaccurate portrayed the French as active allies of the United States.

Perhaps you are unconsciously referring to those.

For more information on the War of 1812, all of which cover the Niagara Campaign of 1814, the following references are excellent:

-Redcoats and Green Jackets by Don Graves.
-Where Right and Glory Lead by Don Graves.
-And All Their Glory Past by Don Graves.
-Amateurs to Arms! by John Elting.
-The US Army in the War of 1812 by Robert Quimby.

And the monographs on the War of 1812 by the Old Fort Niagara Association which are very credible, contain significant primary source material and are currently available. The following are the ones that I have:

-Green Coats and Glory: The United States Regiment of Riflemen 1808-1821 by John C. Frederickson.

-The United States Army in the War of 1812 by John C. Frederickson.

-Captain George Howard United States Army: The Chronicles of a Connecticut Yankee on the Northern Frontier in the War of 1812 by Gregory V. Kloten.

-For My Son…The Life and Remembrances of Captain Mordecai Myers, 13th United States Infantry 1812-1815 by Neil B. Yetwin.

-Long Range Guns, Close Quarter Combat: The Third United States Artillery Regiment in the War of 1812 by Richard V. Barbuto.

-First Campaign of an ADC: The War of 1812 Memoir of Lieutenant William Jenkins Worth, United States Army by Donald E. Graves.

-Sailors of 1812: Memoirs and Letters of Naval Officers on Lake Ontario, edited by Robert Malcomson.

-Soldiers of 1814: American Enlisted Men's Memoirs of the Niagara Campaign, edited by Donald E. Graves.

The US artillery that was complimented by the British artillery officers after the Niagara campaign was the artillery battalion commanded by Jacob Hindman. All of its officers were either killed or wounded in the Niagara campaign with the exception of Hindman and one of the company commanders, Nathan Towson.

The battalion served excellently at Chippawa, Lundy's Lane and Fort Erie and demonstrated technical and tactical excellence throughout.

I have been looking unsuccessfully, unfortunately, in various references for the quotation or reference as to the superiority of the French horse artillery arm mentioned by the British. I had found it years ago and cannot remember the reference, unfortunately. If I do find it I'll post it later.

However, the French horse artillery arm had at least two distinct advantages over the RHA.

First, the French artillery train troops were superior in discipline and efficiency to the British artillery train troops.

Second, not having all of the British gunners individually mounted, usually having a mix of those riding on the gun limbers and caissons as well as being individually mounted was a definite deficiency in displacing and occupying a gun position as it took longer.

For the problems with the British train troops, that is mentioned by Alexander Dickson in his manuscripts from time to time, especially regarding the inefficiency of their officers.

The French artillery arm's efficiency is maintained by no other than Ralph Willett Adye, the author of the Bombardier and Pocket Gunner ca 1800:

‘The French system of artillery was established as far back as the year 1765, and has been rigidly adhered to through a convulsion in the country which overturned everything like order, and which even the government itself has not been able to withstand. We should, therefore, conclude that it has merit, and, though in an enemy, ought to avail ourselves of its advantages. At the formation of their system, they saw the necessity of the most exact correspondence in the most minute particulars, and so rigidly have they adhered to this principle that, though they have several arsenals, where carriages and other military machines are constructed, the different parts of a carriage may be collected from these several arsenals, in the opposite extremes of the extremities of the country, and will as well unite and form a carriage as if they were all made and fitted in the same workshop. As long as every man who fancies he has made an improvement is permitted to introduce it into our service, this cannot be the case with us.'

The combat record of the French artillery arm is second to none during the period and the compliment given to the US artillery in the Niagara campaign by the British is not only a compliment to the US artillery battalion in that campaign, but also alludes to the respect the British gave to the French artillery arm.

Is used with the quote he (Brechtel)is alluding to conveniently either not posted for critical analysis or he is repeating what someone has told him or has read in a book.

To make a valid analysis you would have to be able to read French material, such as their artillery manuals, the development of the Gribeauval System, etc. As you have made the remark in the past that you cannot read French, then recommending original French material to you would be an act of futility.

Regarding research, the use of primary source material and credible secondary source material is the usual way in the process of historical inquiry. Where else would you find it?

…I would like you…to post the source of his claim that the best artillery was French. By the way, I'm not claiming any nations artillery was 'the best'. but the most advanced in terms of equipment and ammunition was the British.

The Royal Artillery had to play ‘catch up' during the wars as they were still using civilian drivers after the French had militarized their artillery train, and their artillery train troops when organized and employed displayed definite problems which were not solved until the wars were over. The block trail gun carriage, the new limber as well as the new caisson were developed in the 1790s and only the Royal Horse artillery was issued them initially. The foot artillery brigades were still using the bracket trail gun carriage at least until 1808-1809 as well as in North America during the War of 1812. The block trail gun carriage was better than the bracket trail gun carriage still employed by the French and was later developed and adopted by them ca 1827.

For information on the Royal Artillery's gun carriages and ancillar vehicles, their dates of adoption and employment on active service, see CE Franklin's British Napoleonic Field Artillery.

That being said, the Gribeauval artillery system was indeed a unified system of artillery whereas the Royal artillery was not. And an artillery system is much more that guns and ancillar vehicles. It also encompasses education, training, command and control, tactics, etc. That is where the French system was the best in Europe (including the Royal Artillery). In point of fact, Woolwich was patterned after the excellent French artillery schools. The French had the most advanced technical training in Europe and their methods were copied in other European artillery arms, including that of Great Britain.

See The Development of Technical Education in France by Frederick Artz.

‘The French, in the three and a half centuries between about 1500 and 1850, developed all, or nearly all, the basic forms of modern technical education. And in the course of time, from Russia across western Europe and the United States to Japan, all countries modeled their technical schools on those of France.'-vii.

Great Britain is obviously included in western Europe here and Woolwich was founded in 1741, at least fifty years after the first French artillery school at Douai.
It should also be noted that many French technical manuals, especially engineer text and staff manuals were translated from the French and used by the British.

See Wellington's Engineers by Mark Thompson and the English Translation of General Paul Thiebault's staff manual of 1800, Manuel des Adjudans Generaux et des Adjoints employes dans les Etats-Majors Divisionaires des Armees.

From page v of the English translation of Thiebault's staff manual: ‘The great advantages which must manifestly result from a well-conducted Etat-major, or staff, are acknowledged in every military country. France, however, seems alone to have entered fully into the system, and to have added the experiment of practice to the suggestions of theory.'
‘In offering the following translation to the British Army, the Publisher has bee principally actuated by a wish to furnish individuals with such outlines of conduct, as suit all countries and are applicable to all services.'

Finally, regarding the ‘question' as to whether Great Britain is a European nation, whether or not one agrees with the comment, the Royal Artillery is usually, if not always, counted as a European artillery system and during the period concerned undoubtedly took many ideas and principles from the French artillery arm and system, most importantly in their establishment of the artillery and engineer school at Woolwich.

ConnaughtRanger21 Jan 2019 1:37 p.m. PST

And there was me thinking this thread was about a book about Wellington's Artillery in the Peninsula War and the Waterloo Campaign?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP In the TMP Dawghouse21 Jan 2019 3:06 p.m. PST

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

dibble22 Jan 2019 11:30 a.m. PST

Well, for all of Mr Kiley's diatribe, he still has no source for 'we thought you were French' other than what a third party said was uttered by captain James Maclachlan who was wounded in the right arm on the 25th July 1814 and mentioned in General Drummond's despatches. If it was uttered, in what context was it said? But anyway, without any first-hand source, it's hearsay.

If such a thing was uttered by a British officer, why would he ask if they were French when he had no reason to think so seeing as there were no French units within 4,000 miles of where he was?

Smacks of an 1812 equivalent of the 'forked tailed devil' and 'whistling death' supposedly uttered by Germans and Japanese in WWII.

We are discussing Wellington's guns and the part played in that era by the Royal Artillery/Horse Artillery, which at that time was as good as any other, had the block trail for its light 6pdr, 6pdrs and 9pdrs, and most Foot Artillery guns were double bracket and some block trails before 1812 but changed over to all block carriage guns thereafter. Howitzers and garrison guns were different and mainly of bracket trail type though there were block trail carriages to some five and a half inch howitzers. After 1810 new siege guns were mounted on the block type.

A fine list of books Mr Kiley .

I have not and never have questioned the French expertise in artillery. What I am questioning is that it was better in the field compared to the British (1804-1815) or even at Waterloo where the French fielded 100 guns more but didn't make that advantage count.

As for the references, I have many of them so I need no pointers.

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP22 Jan 2019 12:35 p.m. PST

If such a thing was uttered by a British officer, why would he ask if they were French when he had no reason to think so seeing as there were no French units within 4,000 miles of where he was?

Don Graves is an authority on the Niagara campaign of 1814. That being the case, and the reference was given to you (and Graves is a secondary source, and Maclachlan is a primary source. And if you read the material carefully, the American artillerymen weren't asked if they were French, the comment was 'we thought you were French' and that was based on the technical and tactical expertise of the US artillery battalion.

Further, if you don't agree then do some actual research on the subject and find out for yourself or post information that contradicts it. I have found Don Graves' work to be both authoritative and accurate. His work on the War of 1812 is outstanding.

So, if you don't 'believe' it, then find something that negates it.

The same thing goes for a comparison of the French and British artillery arms. I haven't seen anything along those lines from you and for my part I have done extensive research and work on the artillery arms of the warring powers, large and small, between 1765-1815. And, again, since you admitted that you cannot read French, that would seriously hamper any attempted research on them, especially regarding artillery manuals.

So, what's stopping you?

We are discussing Wellington's guns and the part played in that era by the Royal Artillery/Horse Artillery, which at that time was as good as any other, had the block trail for its light 6pdr, 6pdrs and 9pdrs, and most Foot Artillery guns were double bracket and some block trails before 1812 but changed over to all block carriage guns thereafter. Howitzers and garrison guns were different and mainly of bracket trail type though there were block trail carriages to some five and a half inch howitzers. After 1810 new siege guns were mounted on the block type.


And your point is…what?

dibble24 Jan 2019 5:26 p.m. PST

Graves may well quote something that someone said was said to someone. That is not a first-hand account, it's hearsay and there's lots of it in historical prose. Your take on the 'we thought you were French' is that it's somehow an endorsement when in fact, even if the statement was said, it would have to be seen in the context of the person that said it which can be many. But anyway, there is no first- hand evidence that it was said The same can be said of the other utterance "Those are regulars, by God!" which has no first-hand evidence either.

So, if you don't 'believe' it, then find something that negates it.

You use the quote in your book and on websites, so you make the claim you submit the evidence that it was said. I even challenge Mr Graves to submit the evidence. "It's not me who's stating the moon is made of cheese with no evidence to back it up"

And your point is…what?

My point is that I have posted what people expect to see pertaining Wellingtons Guns, which is more information. Unlike someone who give wrong information some time back that there were no Royal Horse Artillery units in the Peninsula until 1810.

Paul :)

von Winterfeldt24 Jan 2019 11:58 p.m. PST

I find the if you don't believe it, then find something that negates it – a joke, so the Old Guard had pink underwear – must be true because you cannot negate it.

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP28 Jan 2019 10:47 a.m. PST

I find the if you don't believe it, then find something that negates it – a joke, so the Old Guard had pink underwear – must be true because you cannot negate it.


Then perhaps you can explain how historical inquiry is conducted. If a historian or a researcher finds material in one source that he might disagree with, how would he support that disagreement? By finding material that negates it or proves it wrong.

Your answer is unsatisfactory verging on disingenuous. Whatever it is, it isn't correct or logical.

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP29 Jan 2019 12:29 p.m. PST

Graves may well quote something that someone said was said to someone. That is not a first-hand account, it's hearsay and there's lots of it in historical prose. Your take on the 'we thought you were French' is that it's somehow an endorsement when in fact, even if the statement was said, it would have to be seen in the context of the person that said it which can be many. But anyway, there is no first- hand evidence that it was said The same can be said of the other utterance "Those are regulars, by God!" which has no first-hand evidence either.

I do not agree with your 'assessment.'


Don Graves' comments are indeed secondary in nature as he is describing what someone said in 1814. The comment quoted, however, is primary material, and there usually is primary source material in secondary sources.

If you are having trouble figuring out what primary, secondary, and tertiary source materials are, the following might be helpful:

link

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP29 Jan 2019 12:42 p.m. PST

My point is that I have posted what people expect to see pertaining Wellingtons Guns, which is more information. Unlike someone who give wrong information some time back that there were no Royal Horse Artillery units in the Peninsula until 1810.

What you are referring to is a thread from 2013 where a poster mentioned that there were three RHA troops at Talavera in 1813. After accepting that, and then later looking it up I found that there were no RHA troops at Talavera and corrected the poster, who acknowledged the error.

I made an error about RHA troops in the Peninsula, but prior to and including Talavera, there were no RHA troops with Wellington's field army, which is correct. Ross's A Troop, RHA, joined Wellington after Talavera from Lisbon.

All authors make errors, unfortunately, especially when putting together material from various sources. It is very regrettable, but it happens.

dibble29 Jan 2019 5:42 p.m. PST

What you are referring to is a thread from 2013 where a poster mentioned that there were three RHA troops at Talavera in 1813. After accepting that, and then later looking it up I found that there were no RHA troops at Talavera and corrected the poster, who acknowledged the error.

I'd better assume that you also meant 'Talavera in 1809' rather than "Talavera in 1813".

but you stated that there were no RHA in the Peninsula in 1809. Deleted by Moderator

I do not agree with your 'assessment.'

I'm shocked!

Don Graves' comments are indeed secondary in nature as he is describing what someone said in 1814. The comment quoted, however, is primary material, and there usually is primary source material in secondary sources.

But it is not first-hand it's hearsay, so not primary material at all.

Post the primary source Deleted by Moderator

Deleted by Moderator

dibble29 Jan 2019 6:07 p.m. PST

This is my 8th August 2013 post:


Brechtel198:

There were no RHA troops at Talavera in July 1809. Wellington had three RA brigades (batteries/companies), which were foot artillery, and two KGL artillery brigades (batteries/companies). See Oman, A History of the Peninsular War, Volume II, page 646.

"The English had only 30 guns, very badly horsed and of small calibre, to oppose to 80 guns, admirably served by the enemy. Fortunately, the few guns of the Spanish Artillery were brought into action, were gallantly fought; and of those of the Royal and Kings German, Artillery both the officers present and all military historians speak in the highest terms. At the defeat of the 4th French by Campbell's division, the British Artillery, as Napier wrote, played vehemently upon their masses:-at the critical moment, later in the day when the English centre was almost broken on account of the injudicious advance of the Guards, and of the confusion which seized the King's German Legion, the marvellous effect which followed the arrival of the 48th Regiment, moving amid all the confusion, with the steadiness of a parade, was greatly heightened by the conduct of the Artillery, which as the same historian says, "battered the enemy's flank without intermission.". Sir Arthur Wellesley, in addition to an impression of his satisfaction with the Corps in the general order after the battle, made use of the following expressions in his despatch to Lord Castlereagh: " The Artillery under Brigadier-General Howarth, was also throughout the days, of the greatest service"

Compared with the losses of the other arms, that of the Artillery was but small. on the 27th, two men were wounded; on the 28th the losses were as follows:-

Royal Artillery.-1 Officer and 7 men killed; 8 Officers and 21 men wounded.

Kings German Artillery.-1Sergeant and 2 men killed; 3 Sergeants and 27 men wounded."

So no Royal Horse Artillery at the battle.

But there was Royal Horse Artillery on its way! but alas, the battle had ended. and shows that there WAS Horse Artillery in the Peninsula well before 1810

Brechtel;
The first RHA units reached Wellington's army only in 1810 When two were assigned to the army-one to the cavalry and one to the Light Division.

On the 29th, Wellesley's army was strengthened by the arrival of Crawfords brigade, consisting of the 43rd, 52nd, and 95th Regiments With Captain Ross's The 'Chestnut' Troop of the Royal Horse Artillery

The Chestnut Troop consisted of 1 Captain. 1 Second Captain. 3 Lieutenants. 1 Assistant Surgeon. 13 N.C.O's. 1. Trumpeter. 7 Artificers. 81 Gunners. 54 Drivers. 3 Women. 14 Officers Horses. 148 Troop Horses. 5 6-Pounders. 1 5-1/2 in. Howitzer. 6 Ammunition waggons. 3 Baggage Waggons. 1 Wheel Carriage. 1 Forge Cart. 1 Baggage Cart.

And of course, there's Captain Robert Bull's 'I' Troop that was in the Peninsula by August 1809.

Paul :)"

From this thread:
TMP link

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP31 Jan 2019 4:29 a.m. PST

I'd better assume that you also meant 'Talavera in 1809' rather than "Talavera in 1813".

Perhaps you could explain what 'Talavera in 1813' was?

And since you referenced the 2013 TMP thread, I would think that you read it and saw that the main subject talked about was 'Talavera in 1809'?

ConnaughtRanger31 Jan 2019 6:22 a.m. PST

I have a pinhead spare if any of you guys feel like dancing?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP In the TMP Dawghouse31 Jan 2019 9:01 p.m. PST

Ha-Ha-Ha….!!!

Amicalement
Armand

dibble04 Feb 2019 9:09 p.m. PST

Brechtel

Perhaps you could explain what 'Talavera in 1813' was?

I Refer you to your post of '29 Jan 2019 11:42 a.m.' Read it and you will see in it the words of:
"What you are referring to is a thread from 2013 where a poster mentioned that there were three RHA troops at Talavera in 1813"

Paul :)

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP04 Feb 2019 11:27 p.m. PST

My error-nothing but a typo. My apologies.

Once again, the subject thread was about Talavera in 1809.

dibble05 Feb 2019 10:50 p.m. PST

Of course it was!

Once again, the subject thread was about Talavera in 1809.

But then so was my post of '29 Jan 2019 5:07 p.m' which is a direct quote from the thread August 4th/17th 2013 "Mobility of artillery in different armies" Topic. and in it you seemed rather sure that:

The first RHA units reached Wellington's army only in 1810 When two were assigned to the army-one to the cavalry and one to the Light Division.

Which you posted on 05 Aug 2013 10:17 a.m.

Unlike the '1813' typo, I'm sure that quote of yours wasn't

All the best Kevin…Oh! by the way! What is your favourite Napoleonic unit? If you let me know, I'll see if I can post some good pictures over on the "Your favorite Napoleonic uniform?" thread :)

Paul :)

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP06 Feb 2019 4:28 a.m. PST

And your point is what? That people make mistakes? I also already acknowledged that fact if you read the postings carefully.

Playing 'gotcha' is somewhat petty, don't you think?

And it is interesting that you don't mention the error that stated that there were three RHA troops at Talavera which began the exchange, which was overall quite civil as well as educational.

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP06 Feb 2019 4:30 a.m. PST

And all the best to you, too, Paul.

Thanks for the kind offer, but I have plenty of Napoleonic pictures, prints, etc., in my collection. Be careful on copyrights, by the way. Your one excellent contribution to the Napoleonic period on the forums is your posting of pictures.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.