Ok I bit.
Always strange, yet another cover, of an elite formation but the illustration is of the lowliest Voltigeurs that could at first glance be taken for line.
Guys- wondering what the reference to 1815 is about, and the "conclusions from the evidence he has presented has sometimes been surprising"- being what conclusions are being made??
OK maybe I see what you mean. I looked at the pics from the book Seb- and did see the royal 'we' being used when summing up Sapeurs and drummers uniforms- why use a French term in context (preferable) and the English word for next? Just the example of 'sub-officers' puts me off.
Whatever unit pp316-17 are referring to, to say that some uniform aspect is undocumented seems bizarre. And the Chasseur officer, whom I also photographed (at Musee de l'Emperi I assume though O thought he was originally at Paris), failing to note that the pantaloons are a display refrabrication. Clearly they are not the expensive moleskin tight fitting breeches his text talks about.
The tables- yes I can see exactly where the data came from. As my handle implies, the Service Historique de 'lArmee de Terre (SHAT was stamped on every document) where I also researched the fateful year of 1805; and the table headings are exact translations of the 'Returns du Regiment x' etc.
I guess the 'exposure' of such material, even where conclusions (god help us when a wargamer starts citing them) is an advance over the 'old days'.
Still I'd love to get back to Paris one day- I'm sure the French have tried to forget the Rainbow Warrior incident by now and would let me back in at Vincennes ;-/ .
Regards, d
goes to sea with the Terrain Mat.
