"Waterloo's Controversial Historian" Topic

"Siborne's gravestone in Brompton Cemetery, London, bears the inscription, ‘The deceased was Secretary of the Royal Military Asylum Chelsea, Author of the History of the War in France & Belgium in 1815 and Constructor of the Waterloo Models'. His entry in the ‘Dictionary of National Biography' gives his occupation as the ‘Historian of the Waterloo Campaign'. His Large Waterloo Model is on display at the National Army Museum in London; his New Waterloo Model at the Royal Armouries in Leeds. His History, first published in 1844, is still in print today.

Siborne has certainly left his mark, but he has always attracted considerable controversy. The first Duke of Wellington once described the Large Model as, ‘farce, fudge,' and criticised Siborne for having lain ‘ … aside and unnoticed the authentick [sic] reports by the General Commanding-in-Chief, and by the Generals and others employed at his Headquarters, made to their respective Sovereigns; the letters written by the General on the morning of that day, and all the well-known circumstances of the Battle, known to all the Officers about the Headquarters, and to all particularly whose duty placed them near the Commander-in-Chief on that day'.

Wellington was not Siborne's only detractor. In 1847, Captain Willem Jan Knoop (right) of the Netherlands Royal Military Academy stated in his ‘Remarques Critiques sur l'Ouvrage du Capitaine Siborne', ‘A historian needs to combine the necessary knowledge with respect for the truth, in a word to show conscientious and impartial writing and to be master of his subject. This author has proved that he does not possess any of these qualities: His book is nothing other than a miserable speculation on the vanity of his compatriots.'…"
Main page
link

Armand

Not that the author of this page is controversial at all …

William Siborne's History of the Waterloo Campaign is an excellent volume and is a reliable reference.

I would qualify Brechtel's statement by adding at the end "in the main" due to the treatment of Bylandt's brigade. Dutch sources have refuted Siborne's telling & corrected the picture. Apparently Siborne had not seen the official report of General de Perponcher of 11 July 1815 and the historical account by the Chief of Staff, Colonel van Zuylen van Nyevelt, of the 2nd Division, on 25 October 1815.

Siborne has his faults, but his was a remarkable work of history. His methodology of corresponding with as many participants as possible, finding out their views and then spending time at the battlefield undertaking a painstaking topographical survey was never attempted before and to my knowledge has never been done since. It's really quite amazing that he managed to find so many British officers, and all in the age before wireless telegraphy.

I'm prepared to forgive his inability to track down enough French, Prussian, Dutch, Belgian or Hanoverian participants – it's hard enough travelling in 2021 with a pandemic, than in the age of sail and rough roads.

My diorama is an attempt to add to what we know of Siborne and create a new diorama that delivers a more complete picture. The more I develop my project, the more I admire him.

Siborne was excellent at collecting personal recollections. He also did a pretty good stab at the battle itself, but he has included errors in occurrences, timings, and misinterpretations. The books on the subject post-2000 have enlightened us much much more than the countless tomes up to that point.

There were two Siborne's-William Siborne wrote the history of the campaign and HT Siborne collected the letters. The latter was William's son.

Thanks!.

Armand

The original article Tango links is from Hofschröer, a British historican that is not without critics himself.

That said, Sibornes work is indeed still in print, which speaks for its quality, even when it has some weak spots like his bias vs. Dutch units – most certainly just reflecting the subjective views he got as input from British officers and the fact that he did not interview Dutch or Belgian participants in person, for a variety of understandable reasons.

In any case, Without Siborne a lot would have been lost on Waterloo.

Agree.

Armand

Brechtel:

"There were two Siborne's-William Siborne wrote the history of the campaign and HT Siborne collected the letters. The latter was William's son."

Yes there was! I apologise for the error (people on this site know of my many posts about Siborne and his Brother) but my overall critique still stands.

Pulser:

"In any case, Without Siborne a lot would have been lost on Waterloo."

Indeed! But without the likes of Gareth Glover, John Franklin, Erwin Muilwijk, Paul Dawson, and even the visual descriptive by Mark Adkin, we know a lot, lot more…:)

Good point!

Armand

My last should read 'with' not 'without'. Again, my apologies.

indeed research moved on – and the new publications shouldn't be ignored.

Agree that new publications should not be ignored. But they should be carefully looked at for inaccuracies, just as the older ones should.

New publications shouldn't be ignored unless they grossly misrepresent the source material, in which case they are not new material but are simply whatever is the opposite of research.

'New' does not necessarily mean better.

@4thCuirassier "whatever is the opposite of research."

'counter intelligence'

I would say that the opposite of research would be 'ignorance.'

To me, "the opposite of research" is trawling the archives in order to misrepresent them and to represent the deceit as revelatory insight.

My preferred term for this practice is "hofstory", but others may have better terms. A possibility I have been mulling is the verb "to tirlemont", meaning "to claim that something happened that patently did not".

The origin of this term is the claim that the Prussians discussed fighting at Ligny at a meeting with Wellington at Tirlemont in May. The actual notes taken agree completely that nothing of the kind was discussed, and that the focus was in fact supply. You'd never know this unless you looked at the notes.

It is often suggested that it was Wellington's ego that was the problem, but I think not. Rather, Wellington (and he was certainly not alone in this), recognised the threat posed by a newly expansionist Prussia. That was why he sought to play down the Prussian role at Waterloo.

Siborne didn't realise that he had fallen foul of high politics. His devotion to accuracy had become 'politically inconvenient'.

Wellington did not seek "to play down the Prussian role at Waterloo".

I see that Hoffies rubbish still blows across Mont St Jean?

A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on.