"'The last French guns still firing at Waterloo'" Topic

The National Army Museum (Chelsea) assigns to the former regiment of the 11th Light Dragoons (11th Hussars from 1840) the distinction of "capturing the last French guns still firing at Waterloo."

Is anyone aware of this being a recorded event, regardless of who might claim the honour? The combination of regimental tradition and the NAM website is not the most dependable source of information.

The 'Historical Record' of 1843 offers only this -
‘The fourth brigade [Vandeleur] charged two batteries of artillery in the pursuit ; and after receiving their fire at the muzzles, cut down the artillery-men, and captured the guns.' (p. 66)

'Historical record of the Eleventh, or the Prince Albert's Own Regiment of Hussars [etc]'

link

Sleigh's letter to Siborne is presumably the origin of the claim:

link

'…We took the last Battery, and received their last fire, which was given when the Brigade, then under my command, was so close that I saw the Artillerymen fire their Guns ; fortunately the ground was undulating, and we only lost by the fire Lieutenant Phillips [? Phelips] of the 11th Dragoons, and Hay of the 16th Dragoons…'

'The French cannoneers finished in courage and honor: At the end of Waterloo, with the Old Guard's last two squares withdrawing in superb order, a company of Guard artillery fired its last round into the mass of the pursuers, then stoically stood by its guns as if ready to fire again, bluffing with their lives to gain their comrades a few minutes more.'-John Elting, Swords Around a Throne, 264.

Further, Mauduit's and Petit's memoirs can also be consulted.

A British memoir by someone who was there. Clearly not to be trusted.

Thanks Mb

ConnaughtRanger

If we are to blindly accept the British account because 'he was there', then we should also blindly accept the accounts by the French who were there. So we will hear no more complaints about Marbot, eh? LOL

😁 👍

Too many times, I think, British eyewitness accounts are taken at face value; French are not.

I wonder why that is?

There is an exception to that, however. If the British eyewitness accounts gives credit to a French unit, especially at Waterloo, then that account has to be wrong/inaccurate.

A good example is the British eyewitness account of the Grenadiers a Cheval leaving the Waterloo battlefield in excellent order and at the walk.

It would be nice if we could stick to the point.

The OP, mine, before we forget, raised doubts over a British tradition regarding events at the end of 18th June 1815. "Doubts", in case that point wasn't clear

A British eye-witness account was offered that might be the origin of the tradition, or perhaps support it, but which has yet to be discussed let alone 'taken at face value.'

Instead, we are heading off at a tangent via a secondary source, and his apparent references if I understand aright, which neither bear out his assertions nor leave us any the wiser, resulting if we are not careful in the thread descending into an all-too-familiar, tedious whinge about bias.

I reccommend we just stick to the point instead.

"A good example is the British eyewitness account of the Grenadiers a Cheval leaving the Waterloo battlefield in excellent order and at the walk."

You really should read the account in context. It was also one account by one observer (Barton, 12th LD). I have posted information many times concerning this incident and there is no other account that states that Vivian's untested and relatively fresh 6th Cavalry Brigade, whose reserve 1st Hussars KGL advanced through the 12 Light Dragoons, (or any other in fact)'avoided' any enemy to their front, especially a cavalry unit walking and with its back to the enemy and in "dense, close column".

Vivian's Brigade attacked everything in their path, including French Cavalry units, Then moved up to and engaged and dispersed 'some cavalry of the Imperial Guard' who were drawn up in the front of La Belle Alliance' overtook and destroyed a Horse Artillery Battery and secured their guns. They then charged more Cavalry and Artillery sweeping them away. The brigade would go on to push back and disperse an infantry square. Then they came to a Half Battalion of Grenadiers and dispersed them too.

We are supposed to believe that through all this, a unit of Grenadiers a Cheval walked, 'backs to the enemy' from the battlefield with "no one daring to attack them" But then! Barton of the 12th LD only observed the Grenadiers a Cheval up to the point of the 1st Hussars KGL passing through his regiment. He mentions nothing more of those Grenadiers a Cheval so knew nothing of what they did after that point.

As for the Guard, that too has been remarked upon here and seen as of late as almost all French, historical, face-saving rubbish.

@dibble

Indeed this was discussed in all boards Brechtel takes part – and refuted and put in context by you in great detail.

Also I agree to stick to the point.

The unfortunate Lieutenant Philips of the 11th Light Dragoons was reported killed in two locations: once in the afternoon in the second line (head carried of by a cannon ball) and once in the evening as described by @Musketballs, above. Does anyone know if there were two officers with the same name?

At what point wer the 12 LDGNS moved across to the right of the line? My understanding from the 'Historical Record of the Twelfth…[etc] (1842),'is that they advanced through the area of the fighting for Hougoumont.

@Allan F Mountford

Lieut Edward Phillips was the only officer recorded as killed from the 11th. None other of that name listed in the regiment.

The passage from the "Historical Record" of the Eleventh Hussars (1843), quote above, continues:

"The pursuit was continued; and when the British halted, the Prussians, who were comparatively fresh, took their place, and followed the wreck of the French army during the night. The Eleventh Dragoons passed the night in the field: their loss was Lieutenant Philips, one Serjeant, ten rank and file, and seventeen horses killed ; Captain J. A. Schrieber, Lieutenants Frederick Wood, Richard Coles, and Robert Milligan, four Serjeants, thirty rank and file, and thirty-eight horses wounded ; one Serjeant, two trumpeters, twenty rank and file, and eighteen horses missing."

Lieut Joseph Phillips of the 12th was not listed as a casualty. Captain John Phillips Buchanan of the 16th was killed.

The Waterloo Roll-call gives the name as 'Lt Edward Phelips'.

This is also confirmed by the London Gazette:

link

Apparently the 'Phelips' were quite a prominent family in Somerset.

When Vandeleurs Brigade moved to the centre, they were initially placed behind Chasse, who was behind Maitland. When the order to advance came, they had to move right to go around the Guards, and presumably went through the hole left by Adam's advance. This would naturally have them advancing with Hougoumont directly on their right.

Not being partial to the Mills and Boon style of "history", I tend to place a little more faith in those who ended the day as formed units, able to draw breath, count heads and go on. The recollections of those fleeing for their lives from a bunch of Prussians intent on killing everybody in their path might be a little more fanciful?

There was a terrible trend back then to make claims for deeds that others might challenge. Vivian was legendary for this, the capture of the Royals Dragoons of the Eagle is another. Never mind the Guards or was it Adam's Brigade that stopped what was actually a fraction of La Garde crossing the ridge. Ignore the Netherlands' contribution (as universally true), forget the Prussians actually turned up. "British" accounts can only reflect what folk saw at close range through smoke and xenophobia. I think there is much to be said for DoW's initial dispatch. If only he had stuck to that for a few decades to come.

The modesty of the Victorian era is so much more to modern taste. "I could not possibly comment, but if you say I was a hero, well my thanks for that. I was only doing my duty, but a peerage would not hurt"

The recollections of those fleeing for their lives from a bunch of Prussians intent on killing everybody in their path might be a little more fanciful?

Gneisenau playing the dashing cavalry commander instead of fulfilling his actual role as army chief of staff 'conducted' a pursuit that was much less effective than myth and legend tend to manufacture.

His pursuit did not harass or attack any body of French troops that kept together, such as the 1st Grenadiers and the Grenadiers a Cheval. No eagles were taken by Gneisenau's pursuit and the Old Guard battalions in Plancenoit broke out and traveled south, protecting their eagle.

And for all of Siborne's excellent work in gathering letters and accounts, there were none from the French included. Were any accounts from the French veterans even sought by Siborne?

That being the case, only half of the story is being told…

@Musketballs

My error. The Army List has him as 'Edward Phelips,' but as the poor fellow has an ink line through his name with the word 'Killed' inscribed adjacent, that wasn't immediately clear. The 'Historical Record of the Eleventh' [etc]' has him down as 'Philips.'

Maybe the spelling accounts for the duplicate mention in te sources.

The 'Historical Record' of the Twelfth suggests that the 12th having moved to the right wing, advanced separately.

"The regiment remained at its post on the left until towards the close of the action, when the head of a Prussian column had arrived at the field of battle, the Twelfth Light Dragoons were then removed from the left to the right of the allied army ; and, in the general charge, made in the evening of this memorable day, they had the honor of being one of the corps which led the attack of the right wing; they passed over the ground on which the struggle had taken place between the French and English foot-gtiards, which was covered with killed and wounded ; rushed upon the flanks of the enemy's broken columns with distinguished gallantry, and com-pleted their rout and discomfiture. When the French army was overthrown and driven from the field, the regiment halted for the night. "

The fact that their relationship to the brigade isn't mentioned makes me wonder if this wasn't a typical piece or regimental solepcism, and is describing a movement as part of the brigade.

Coronet Henry Bullock of the 11th spells 'Phellips' in his journal, and he too remarks that he was killed by cannon shot as they were advancing. see Waterloo Archive Volume I 'British Sources' page 80.

Barton of the 12th in Siborne (pp 114-17)
link

- makes clear 12th LDgns movement to the right was as part of Vandeleur's.

"On the failure of the Enemy's last attack the Brigade advanced." Having passed Hougoumont, probably to the left(he wasn't certain) he reports:
"The only attempt to make anything like a stand against us or interrupt our pursuit, was made by a weak Regiment of Infantry which halted and fired a few shots at us…"

He then goes onto describe passing the Grenadiers a cheval formed in a dense close column. When subsq. ordered to retire and make camp, they met the KGL hussars coming forward, who briefly mistook them for the enemy. (those damned, Frenchified chacos).

No reference to encountering any battery as described by Sleigh. This must have been a brief episode over to the left.

First post by 42flanker states that the British cavalry charged TWO batteries of artillery and captured the guns. This, apparently, is based on the 'truthful' account of the event mentioned in the Historical record of the 11th (Prince Albert's Own) Hussars, page 66.

Second post by Musketballs states that the British cavalry took the LAST battery. So this account suggests there was only ONE battery? This account is based on the 'truthful' account of the event mentioned in Waterloo Letters, page 108.

So which do we believe of these 'truthful' accounts because 'they were there'? LOL

Siborne, in his History of the Waterloo Campaign, mentions the 11th Hussars captured ONE battery (Page 372)

So if we take that two accounts recall only ONE battery captured and that Siborne's account may be accurate, there is no reason to suspect that his account of the Grenadiers a Cheval 'literally walked from the field in the most orderly manner' (p378) might not be equally truthful and accurate?

Siborne also mentions that the British 12th Dragoons did a 'partial' attack against them, whatever that means, but that they had little effect and were obstructed by the crowds.

All memoirs are great to read, no matter who writes them but everything has to be taken into consideration on deciding what the reader should accept or not. The authors could have exaggerated their side's achievement, if not their own achievements, they only describe what they see and have their own interpretations of what they see, such as troops being ordered to move back being viewed as retreating or running away etc.

Whatever, it looks like The Battle of Waterloo and what went on will forever be debated and discussed and will certainly not be forgotten. Long may it do so.

Perhaps it is somewhat akin to a mathematical proof or procedure-everything is fine until it doesn't work once…😁

🤦‍♂️ 😜

I think people have been keeping to the point because the point is, can the British account mentioned in the first post be considered as accurate? And did the 11th Light Dragoons captured the last French guns firing?

Some seem to think because it is a British account by someone who was there, that it should not be challenged. But claims are made all the times, from both sides, usually to exaggerate their own achievements.

If we accepted everything anyone said 'because they were there' then we should accept what Private John Marshall of the 10th Hussars wrote when he described charging the French cavalry '…although they rode in armour, and carried lances ten feet long…' (p166: The Hundred days by Anthony Brett-James)

Also, the last guns firing might be also challenged because in the same book Captain Thomas Taylor describes '…on finding that our job was over, tho' even then a shell was thrown & burst near us, by the retiring guns. It was then moonlight…' (p168) So it could suggest that some French guns or at least one, was still firing in the moonlight?

Memoirs, letters and such are great reading. Great accuracy is another matter. But they should not be just dismissed or accepted because some people might like what is written or it favours one side or another. But they do help to build up, fill out and create what may have happened to a certain degree.

Just for jollies:

Cannon's Historical Record of the 16th only mentions a battery (singular) firing on the Brigade, before being turned and captured.

And his Historical Record of the 12th doesn't mention artillery at all.

But Vivan's brigade remarks on two artillery batteries that they encountered one a Horse battery whose guns they secured, and another that they routed. So there were French artillery units still active in one way or another right up to the overthrow and rout of the French army.

"….overthrow and rout…"?
Surely you mean "orderly withdrawal, facing the enemy"?

there were French artillery units still active in one way or another right up to the overthrow and rout of the French army.

Indeed, but we were investigating the claim made for the 11th L.Dgns that they captured the 'last guns firing.'

The 'Historical Record'(1843) was clear in its reference to taking two batteries but did not place those events in a wider context. The reference in Siborne (1891) by Sleigh of the 11th to 'the last battery ' is ambiguous but it might have inspired the claim made by the successor regiment. However, in both cases the reference is to the brigade as a whole without specifying a regiment.

It's possible that the responsibility lies with Siborne's summary at the beginning of the Fourth Cavalry Brigade section where he states that ""The 11th Light Dragoons captured the last Battery which kept up its fire in the French left wing." (p.102) having apparently overlooked that Sleigh of the 11th was referring the brigade rather than his regiment

The action on Vivian's front would appear to have involved the Garde square where Mauduit was placed:
"La batterie de la garde placées non loin de ce carré, ne put tirer de quelques coups sur cette cavalerie*" {*'hussards anglais'}
Mauduit (1854) Vol II, (p 464)

One of these coups de cannon according to Mauduit provided the shot that shattered Lord Uxbridge's knee, although I am not sure how anyone in the Garde square could have known that. Wellington's dispatch does say the Earl of Uxbridge "…received a wound, by almost the last shot fired." Perhaps Mauduit made assumptions based on that statement.

That episode appears to have taken place on the left of Vivian's Bde:
"Some Guns in their rear were firing-, and there was also some musketry. At this time I conceive Lord Uxbridge was wounded near the left of our Regiment. One of our Officers told me he saw him fall.
(Taylor, Siborne, p174 (Taylor, 10th POW Hussars, Siborne p.174).

The picture is complicated by the fact that Sleigh of the 11th recollected his brigade taking 'the last battery' after he had assumed command, necessitated by Vandeleur taking command of the allied cavalry following Uxbridge's wounding by 'almost the last shot fired.' Some time would have elapsed while Vandeleur was found and notified, handed over to Sleigh and the brigade resumed its advance.

Whether all gunfire did then cease once the Fourth Bde had taken its second and last battery would, I suspect, have been a fact difficult enough to ascertain on the evening of the 18th, let alone today.

Wasn't it the Duke who said, remembering a battle is like remembering a ball or something along those lines. He knew what he was talking about, as the posts and debates tend to support.

I think the Duke said:

"Wargaming's a banquet and most pedantic gamers are starving"

ConnaughtRanger

"….overthrow and rout…"?
Surely you mean "orderly withdrawal, facing the enemy"?

Oh! I am sorry! Yes indeed. The dignity of all those French units 'walking from the field' should not be scoffed at…

If only the French Olympic Equestrian Team had some Imperial Guard Cavalry at hand. Walking a horse backwards in the Dressage always looks really difficult.

Especially in a big furry hat…

reading Mauduit, one wonders how a mere sergent and file closer in one of the Guard battalions could be everywhere on the battle field and listen to a lot of conversation, it is more or less a fairy tale.

One must not challenge British accounts, only the French ones, one must not challenge British accounts, only the French ones, one must not challenge British accounts, only the French ones, one must not challenge British accounts, only the French ones…LOL

Some people never change!

I always thought Wellington's comment about the story of a battle being like the story of a ball a particularly good one, in that he went on to say something about people being able to recall many particular events, but not likely to recall these in the order in which they occurred (rather more significant for a battle than a ball, of course). As might be surmised from Gazzola's post of 5-51 on 28th, some might see the same events more fully, more accurately, than others. And that's without smoke.

It might be useful to have before us the accepted version of the "history of a ball" statement.

"The history of a battle, is not unlike the history of a ball. Some individuals may recollect all the little events of which the great result is the battle won or lost, but no individual can recollect the order in which, or the exact moment at which, they occurred, which makes all the difference as to their value or importance."

From a letter to John Croker (8 August 1815)
-as quoted by Lord Macaulay in 'The History of England from the Accession of James II' (1848)
- or by Herbert Siborne, apparently. in 'The Waterloo Letters' (1891).

At least that's what it says in Wikipedia…

'The history of a Wellington quotation is not unlike the history of a ball. Some individuals may recollect all the little details…'

The full letter in Wellington's dispatches v12:

link

Thanks Mb. Obliged.

Hey, 42flanker; at least I remembered the significant part about "the order in which … they occurred"!

Gazzola

One must not challenge British accounts, only the French ones, one must not challenge British accounts

I take it that you had read my rubbishing of 'Sergeant' Thomas Morris of the 73rd?

@ Robert, no, no, bravo!

It was just that I thought it would be good to mount that train upon some rails.

Always good to have the quotations. Good Luck.

'La bouche du cheval…' etc

dibble

Calm down, it was just a bit of humour.

All I'm trying to say is that I think all accounts, British, French or those from any other nation, should not be instantly dismissed or instantly accepted but like any source, if possible, should be compared and contrasted against other accounts.

I should imagine every account has some level of what actually may have happened within it or at the very least what may have been seen or interpreted by whoever is doing the recollection.

And those taking part may not know why a certain action or event is happening and is why some people describe troops running away when they may well have been ordered to retreat. They only know what they see, nothing more. In the chaos and confusion of battle, not every one sees what others see etc.

"So one man retreating is called 'running away', but a hundred men running away is called 'retreating'?" -- Gunner Milligan, according to one volume of his War Memoirs.

Depends on who is doing the 'running' LOL

Gazzola

Calm down, it was just a bit of humour.

Of course it was…

And! When I post with excitement, I'll be sure to let you know.

dibble

Now now dibble. I suggest you post with a clam clear head. No need to get excited, unless you have info on another new book coming out. Then we can all get excited. LOL.

Gazzola

I suggest you post with a clam clear head. No need to get excited,

…singing cockles and mussels alive, alive oh!

dibble

Why couldn't the clam make new friends? It's not because he was too shellfish, I think he just never opened up!

What did the pirate call his pet clam? Michelle!

I think I'd better stop. Well spotted anyway, dibble. LOL