"Battle for Paris 1815: The Untold Story of the Fighting" Topic

…After Waterloo.

"On the morning of 3 July 1815, the French General Rémi Joseph Isidore Exelmans, at the head of a brigade of dragoons, fired the last shots in the defense of Paris until the Franco-Prussian War sixty-five years later. Why did he do so? Traditional stories of 1815 end with Waterloo, that fateful day of 18 June, when Napoleon Bonaparte fought and lost his last battle, abdicating his throne on 22 June.So why was Exelmans still fighting for Paris? Surely the fighting had ended on 18 June? Not so. Waterloo was not the end, but the beginning of a new and untold story.Seldom studied in French histories and virtually ignored by English writers, the French Army fought on after Waterloo. At Versailles, Sevres, Rocquencourt and elsewhere, the French fought off the Prussian army. In the Alps and along the Rhine other French armies fought the Allied armies, and General Rapp defeated the Austrians at La Souffel – the last great battle and the last French victory of the Napoleonic Wars.Many other French commanders sought to reverse the defeat of Waterloo. Bonapartist and irascible, General Vandamme, at the head of 3rd and 4th Corps, was, for example, champing at the bit to exact revenge on the Prussians. General Exelmans, ardent Bonapartist and firebrand, likewise wanted one final, defining battle to turn the war in favor of the French.Marshal Grouchy, much maligned, fought his army back to Paris by 29 June, with the Prussians hard on his heels. On 1 July, Vandamme, Exelmans and Marshal Davout began the defense of Paris. Davout took to the field in the north-eastern suburbs of Paris along with regiments of the Imperial Guard and battalions of National Guards.For the first time ever, using the wealth of archive material held in the French Army archives in Paris, along with eyewitness testimonies from those who were there, Paul Dawson brings alive the bitter and desperate fighting in defense of the French capital. The 100 Days Campaign did not end at Waterloo, it ended under the walls of Paris fifteen days later."

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

"For the first time ever…." "The untold story"

"Waterloo; Rout and Retreat" by Andrew W Field
Hussey's recent Vol II
Paul O'Keefe's "Waterloo the Aftermath"…

Just to mention three.

I have no doubt this will be a good book and I will not be able to resist it. I certainly know such claims are the fault of the publishers and publicists.

Whenever I see the phrase "To the best of our knowledge, this is the first etc" (so commonly employed) I always recommend return to authors and present their search strategy in the text. If that confirms their claim, then replace the phrase with "This is the first etc"

Where does he get his ideas from on what is known / unknown? If he means in popular consciousness then OK, but anyone who has an interest in, and reads history of, the period will know this already.

However if he's going to provide detailed accounts of the actions other than those of the Army of the North then I shall be very interested. Has anyone got the book and able to say?

"Wavre, Plancenoit & the race to Paris" by Hofschroer…to mention another one. c

Somebody's Maths is not up to much – Franco-Prusian war 1870, not "sixty five years later " than 1815.

Well we will not see this until December so….

But so good to see this response, just so good that someone is reading this and wants to comment

I'm going for this one….

Amicalement
Armand

Armand

Just wondered if you did obtain a copy and what you thought about it if you have managed to have read it by now? Going by the info offered, it might (or might not) offer more info on the actions after Waterloo than other titles that are said to include sections on what happened after the battle? I was able to find one review, which was a 2 star review that claims it is lacking in maps, which might make it hard to follow the narrative? Just curious to hear opinions from those who may have bought it?

'Untold' to my mind is very similar to 'truth' and 'new' in advertisements for books that are being peddled.

I am always very skeptical about titles or publishers blurbs that use those terms.

I first read about, though not in detail, the fighting that occurred after Waterloo in 1964.

I was hoping someone might be able to throw some light on if the book actually contains more details, descriptions and pages covering the actions, and certainly in terms of offering more than other already available titles that may only contain a small amount of detail and actions reports. I have the Hussey books (and I'm considering the O'Keefe and latest Field titles) but wondered if this book offers more coverage? From the response so far it looks like no one on TMP may have read it yet?