"Only the eagle was carried?" Topic

link

Whilst considering the aged material (10+ years) and poor translation effects 'to English' of the site, I as surprised by the following paragraph, and its claim to NOT carry drapeaux (to use the correct term they steadfastly avoided in articles):-

The finial of the regimental flag is the same as on the Imperial scepter, representing an eagle with the wings half-spread. The eagle was symbolically so important that the flags themselves were called aigles (eagles). In most cases, the flag remained with the official documents and funds of the regiment, and only the eagle was carried on the battle field.

Any corroboration known where such specific wording exists in French; or is it simply a badly corrupted version of the technical-ese "only ONE Eagle per regiment is to be carried in the field"… etc.

Thoughts?

Did find this reference interesting however:-
link .

cheers d

Hi Dave,

We see numbers of illustrations where just the eagle topped flagpole is being carried, so it is a possibility that in numbers of cases (many or nearly all?) that the cloth portion of the standard was left behind at the regimental HQ/Depot.

Will have to if Regnault or Hollander have anything to say on this… Will post if any update later.

Very interesting piece about "Le drapeau de Quintigny".

Ian

Up until 1808 all battalions and squadrons had an Eagle and carried it in the field. After that year only the first battalion and squadron were supposed to carry theirs and leger units not at all. After 1812 only one Eagle was issued for each regiment. From the start many units did only carry the Eagle without the drapeau so nothing in the quote seems contrary to perceived wisdom. What is surprising is how emphatic the instruction is as with a lot of regulations in Napoleon's army there was a lot of leeway in their obedience.

Yes all conventional doctrine.

>>From the start many units did only carry the Eagle without the drapeau so nothing in the quote seems contrary to perceived wisdom.<<

Kindly prove that – I've never seen a piece of written evidence- certainly 'pictures' don't tell us anything about a rule as such.

I take the absence so rarely seen (often you say?) of the drapeaux, knowing their former importance, and continuing as a 'field element' as nothing more than artistic licence.

Having said that, I have a couple myself, furled and covered, or none at all when I chose not to create them. I'm better now…

cheers d

in case this was an absolute rule, why so many eagles with attached colours were captured??

Also the flags were not called egales, what nonsense, they were called colours – drapeau – at least those attached to the eagle.

The flag itself was of secondary importance. It was the eagle that was the 'standard.'

>>in case this was an absolute rule, why so many eagles with attached colours were captured??

Good call on specifics vW; then there are those who carried 'old' flags as well, as a kind of memorial.. something I'm considering as I made a fine flag for my orignal 26e Legere four decades ago on card and couldn't bring myself to destroy or part with it.
~d

Up until 1808 all battalions and squadrons had an Eagle and carried it in the field. After that year only the first battalion and squadron were supposed to carry theirs and leger units not at all. After 1812 only one Eagle was issued for each regiment. From the start many units did only carry the Eagle without the drapeau so nothing in the quote seems contrary to perceived wisdom. What is surprising is how emphatic the instruction is as with a lot of regulations in Napoleon's army there was a lot of leeway in their obedience.

In 1806 Napoleon ordered all chasseur a cheval and hussar regiments to 'deposit' their eagles at army headquarters. The dragoon regiments were ordered to send all but one eagle per regiment to their regimental depots.

The heavy cavalry regiments could keep three per regiment.

In 1807 the light infantry regiments were ordered to send their eagles back to their regimental depots.

As usual, not all of the regiments so directed obeyed.

Regiments formed after were usually provided with only one eagle, but as an exception, the newly reformed and activated 11th Legere (composed of the Tirailleurs du Po, the Tirailleurs Corse, and the Valaison Battalion as its three battalions) had three.

The new regulation of one eagle for every infantry, cavalry, and artillery regiment was written by Napoleon personally on 24 December 1811. The eagles in the infantry would be carried by each regiments 1st Battalion, the remaining battalions would have colored fanions: white for the 2d battalion, red for the 3d, blue for the 4th, green for the 5th, yellow for the 6th, violet for the 7th, and sky blue for the 8th. Few regiments had a 7th and 8th battalion. The fanion was to be 1 meter square and plain with no decorations. That last idea was quickly ignored and fanions became ornate and decorated, according to the regiment and battalion.

there was a time period when the colours seemingly were quite in tatters and Nabulieone decided to improve this and he issued a new pattern, ready for the Russian campaign of 1812.

So there might have been a time period were only tatters or none colours were attached to the eagle.

I am confused by the cavalier and inconsistent vocabulary.

A colour, is for me a piece of cloth attached to a pole, like in trooping the colours.

What is a flag? A piece of cloth you can run up and down a pole, or is the identical in use for colours, but it is called trooping the colours and not trooping the flags?

A standard, hm, I was under the impressions that term is reserved for cavalry – or do you used also guidon in English, I was however under the impression that a guidon as a cavalry standard with a swallow like tail???

So – how can an egale be a standard, an egale was an emblem attached to the pole und usually either a colour or a standard / guidon was fixed to it as well.

in case this was an absolute rule, why so many eagles with attached colours were captured??

The number of actual eagles that were captured by the allies from 1804-1815 was actually minimal. And sometimes eagles were taken because there was no one left to defend them.

1805: 6 lost.
1806: None.
1807: 7 lost.
1809: 5 lost.
1812: 12 lost.
1813: 9 lost.
1814: 3 lost.
1815: 2 lost.
Spain 1808-1814: 12 lost.
Martinique and Guadeloupe: 5 lost.

Total: 61.

Some were lost because of 'capitulations' such as Baylen (2), Madrid Arsenal (2), Pampelune (1), and Lerida (1).

Compared to the number of eagles and against the number of allied colors, including British, taken, the number of eagles lost in combat was quite small.

See:

-Les Aigles Imperiales 1804-1815 by Jean Regnault, 281-284.

-Drapeaux et Etenards de la Revolution et de l'Empire, 204-227. There are also examples of battalion fanions on page 225 by Rigo.

-Aigles de Napoleon contre drapeaux du Tzar, by Andolenko.

All three of these volumes are excellent source material for any study of the eagles of the Grande Armee.

So – how can an egale be a standard, an egale was an emblem attached to the pole und usually either a colour or a standard / guidon was fixed to it as well.

Quite so.
Apples and oranges, nothing, but nothing, given on why a bare staffed Eagle would be carried 'under orders' when the 'symbol' of les Aigles and Les Drapeaux are so tightly entwined.

They were issued together, and remained together.

I'll answer my own question now- yes, the writer didn't know his subject NOR the specifics of the regulations offered. So the statement made is bunkum!
::bunkum n noun: Refers to person, place, thing, quality, etc. (nonsense) âneries, inepties, idioties, absurdités, foutaises::

cheers d

*There's the point of 'honourable losses' in combat.
Pillaging and outright larceny by Prussians in Paris and other places 1814 AND 1815 post war has no honour attached to their thievery.
- -

Pillaging and outright larceny by Prussians in Paris and other places 1814 AND 1815 post war has no honour attached to their thievery.

Quite so, but Boney did habitually the identical thing, it is a difference to capture a colour / egale / standard on the battle field or take them off when capturing a Zeughaus were old and out of use ones were stored.

Also I would not call it plundering when the Prussians took back what the imbecile Boney stole earlier, like the Quadriga and others.

Quite so true- I must admit to having a mental block as I don't recall reading about it at all. Or perhaps I've selectively forgotten- I understood French claims were of battlefield conquest and capture, not the other,
regArds ~d

The two eagles captured at Salamanca were drawn in London in August 1812, together with the other trophies captured. The eagles are shown without their flags. link

Thanks Garry. however I'm not sure* post-mortem drawings prove the statement made.

*For clarity, I mean convinced.

As to the promo for a book, well the source site

"For over 20 years the Napoleon Series website and forum have functioned as a major hub for the international community of Napoleonic scholars"

has a number of eggregious errors and formatting that has never been fixed.

So as "scholarship" goes, I agree, some of them are ok, but I'd not bother with some…
d

Brechtel:

Compared to the number of eagles and against the number of allied colors, including British, taken, the number of eagles lost in combat was quite small.

Care to list the names of the ten (10) British colours lost on the retreat to Corunna at this battle or any other battle? link

I do believe that the 'ten Colours' claim mentioned above came from one of your slated as "excellent source material for any study of the eagles of the Grande Armee" tomes, one "Les Aigles Imperiales 1804-1815 by Jean Regnault"

Please! Take your time…

Oh! I would recommend Ludovic Letrun's "French Infantry Flags from 1786 to the end of the First Empire."

link

Of the 6 Eagles captured and displayed as depicted in a published drawing of the time shows, only the 8th (Barrosa: which was only ever depicted as the staff and eagle only) eagle without any flag or remains of the flag on it.

So, perhaps the practice was the norm to have the flag with the staff but not unusual to see them without it too.

Thanks,
I'd accept that as a partial description witnessed, not a predetermined condition.
In contrast, I'd say the frantic efforts of the Russian infantry c-Austerlitz campaign 1805 to remove and hide/ destroy (not stated) their colours from capture, and throwing the staffs in the river or swamp, if found subsequently can also be 'corrupted' to just the staffs present and in use (I know sans emblem not likely- but this is military folklore at ts best sometimes..)
regards dave