"Waterloo cuirass" Topic

link

I would be interested to hear if anyone else knows of "morale and cohesion" problems specific to the carabiner regiments at Waterloo; that's a new one by me.

I thought the wearer's name was Favreau, not Fauveau.

Maybe the "morale" issue was the one famous desertion of a carabinier officer?

See : TMP link

Ouch.

Interesting- thanks, Michman

Their morale was fairly sound.
If I recall correctly, Kellermann tried in vain to save the Carabinier brigade in his corps, from being committed into the French cavalry charges when called upon by Marshal Ney.

On that point, most of the French cavalry regiments committed into the charges, lost most of their cohesion upon surging over the Mont St.Jean plateau.

Typically, it seemed all the attacking regiments broke down into squadron sized entities. The morale was fairly high among the French heavies. They ground down the several Allied light cavalry and heavy brigades that continuously counter-attacked.

The mentioned carabinier officer deserter seemed to have wished to make a break for the Allied lines with several of his comrades, but none followed him when he had decided to go alone in the end.

"morale problem"
Not immediately charging due to Kellermann's order to hold could be another source of talk among Bonapartists of bad morale. For comparison, the guards cavalry may have joined in charges without any orders at all. The carabiniers had been a favored regiment under the ancien régime and the 1ere restauration, but don't seemed to have fielded more officers of the old nobility for the Cent Jours than other cavalry units …. quite a few of such officers finding good excuses for not staying with their regiments after Napoléon's return.

"Favreau, not Fauveau"
Could be a problem in reading manuscript records. In cursive hand-writing these would look the same unless done very carefully. Both are French names, with Favreau more common. Fauveau[x] means "tawney-[haired]", and is mostly found in Normandy and Picardy. Favreau is one of the many French names derived from "[black] smith".

Sometimes the carabinier is identified as "François-Antoine Fauveau, né à Le Heaulme [then and now a small old village of some 200 souls about 30 English miles north-west of Paris] le 18 janvier 1792", based on the military record book found in the pocket of his breastplate. However, there was a family legend that this was a younger brother, about to be married, for whom an older brother had reported for service.

Antoine-François, actually born 25 December 1791, second son of a butter manufacturer and landowner, did marry Marie-Madeleine-Adélaïde Gogibus, a shoe-maker's daughter, on 6 January 1816. Sadly, she died in childbirth in July 1817, and her baby boy in August. François-Antoine soon re-married to Rosalie-Virginie Petit, and went on to a successfull career as a property owner, egg producer and wholesaler, and later commissaire, living until 1841. He left a son and two daughters.
The son was named Étienne, as was the first son of one of his sisters. They had had an older brother named Étienne born 23 December 1787, who may have been the real unfortunate carabinier.

The part about 7 days riding training is not too likely, especially for the carabiniers – who acted as the army's equitation demonstrtion unit in peacetime. Riders with only a week's training would be more trouble to the other troopers than any enemy. Most French accounts of the military record book (now lost) say the unfortunate carabinier "re-joined" the service.

When the carabiniers needed conscripts, they were supposed to be selected men : 2 from each department per year of superior strength, large size as per cuirassiers (over 70 English inches) in 1806, and already able to ride.

A conscript born in December 1791 could have been called to service from April 1811. One born in December 1787 could have been called to service from April 1807. There was no new conscription in 1815 before Waterloo.

Most likely, Antoine-François and/or Étienne had served before, but granted "congé" (leave to depart a unit), perhaps during the re-organization and downsizing during the 1st restoration. If not formally and definitively separated, these men could be called back – exactly what Napoléon did upon his return, gaining 80,000 veterans.

Sources :
link

link

link

link

link

link

Michman, thank you. Altogether more convincing.

The Musée de l'Armée: Les Invalides favours 'Fauveau'

"Cuirasse du carabinier Fauveau"

link

Someone reckons it may be a fake. I am not sure about the claims around the size of the hole but the provenance sounds a bit iffy:

link

That article is the first analysis I have ever seen of the provenance of this famous artefact. Unfortunately it offers no alternative story, other than it was somehow faked.

I find it hard to reject the reality of the exit wound half as big again as the entry hole. OK, purely soft tissue and ribs sent flying and a ball that does not fragment, I do accept. But a full metal jacket leaves a huge hole in your back (unless you are running away).

But this is worth reading, even if you reject the ballistics (and I know he seems to be an expert….maybe not on 9pdr solid shot though)

I suspect this exhibit has nothing to do with the claimed wearer.

I don't think it is correct, as the writer maintains, that a 4" calibre 9-pounder ball would make a 4" hole in and out. The metal is going to buckle on impact, but the impact area is abutted by riveted strips, hinges etc which seem likely to affect what a round blunt lump of iron would do. Also, the frontal impact is on a convex surface and the exit impact against a concave one. Either factor could make a difference, and result in a different shape hole on opposite sides, perhaps.

With that said, there are other ways you could make a hole like that and it would be interesting to know if there are, for example, any tool marks around the edges – where perhaps someone had used pliers to bend it into that shape. If it's a late 19th century fake, well, the effect of conical bullets was known by then and I wonder if someone faking such a thing might fake damage incorrectly similar to what a bullet would cause?

He is on more solid ground in challenging the provenance. The supposed wearer wasn't killed according to other documents, and the first person to present it in public claimed to have dug it up, decades after the battle. There is thus no unbroken history that locates it in Belgium in June 1815.

The writer also assumes the victim was hit by solid shot. No mention that the round may have been a spherical case, which may be more prone to partial fragmentation upon contact.

Well ….

"9lb cannons fired solid metal cannonballs of four inches or 10cm in diameter – too small to have made a 12cm entry hole in the breastplate of the cuirass." I drew in the 10 cm diameter and it did not seem inconsistent with "entry" damage, perhaps widened a bit by the pressure wave caused by the impact. What makes the hole appear over-sized is non-circular damage at the bottom of the hole and toward the arm. This could have been metal failure propagating from the impact, or damage done subsequent to the impact.

I think the size of the damage to the backplate should not be considered "exit" damage. The round would have crushed, mangled and likely twisted the body of the wearer with the backplate. Someone may well have done some cutting and bending on the metal to get the body (parts) out. Then the museum may have done some more cutting and bending when preparing the piece for display.

As to lack of corrosion, the major part of the cuirass was copper/brass (i.e. bronze) plated. This would resist corrosion as well as a copper penny and could be re-polishd for the display of the piece. Note that the un-plated steel at the edges is darkened and pitted. I can't see any remains of the clothe lining and the leather belt is clearly new-made.

I posted about François-Antoine's survival, including a link to his marriage record, on 7 January. I wonder if Mr. Videcette is a member of TMP ?

"Colonel Lichtenstein. The colonel, a descendant of an officer of the First French Empire"
--- His father was Emile-Philippe de Lichtenstein (1791-1855) – lieutenant au 5e régiment de hussards en 1815.
--- One of his father's half-sisters, Gabrielle-Louise Roques (1793-1822), married in 1818 lieutenant-général baron François-Alexandre Hurel (1774-1847) – colonel major du 3e régiment de voltigeurs de la garde en 1815.
--- The other half-sister of his father, Céline Chagot de Fays (1797-1881), married in 1818 Antoine Amelot de Chaillou (1784-1846) – lieutenant au 2e régiment d'infanterie de ligne en 1815, blessé à la main droite à Fleurus.
--- His grand-uncle was Feldmarschall Prinz Johann Ier von und zu Liechtenstein (1760-1836), confirmed by Napoléon as sovereign of Liechtenstein in 1806 (nonetheless, he commanded Austrian troops in 1809).

"There is thus no unbroken history that locates it in Belgium in June 1815."
Agreed.

@Allan
The diamter of the case shot round for the 5-1/2 inch howitzers was, I believe, 13.33 cm – so perhaps too big for the "entry" hole ?

Thanks Michman, interesting. It seems there was a Fauveau / Favreau at Waterloo though not necessarily the one whose name was on the paybook. Are you sure about the corrosion point? I was under the impression that the carabinier cuirass was steel with a sheet of applique brass. If I am right (and not remembering some other nation's cuirassiers), I'd have thought you'd get electrolytic metal-to-metal corrosion wherever these metals touched. In fact now I think of it I wonder why we don't hear about this happening. Either it took too long to become a problem, or brass is not as badly affected as other metals, or they had some sort of gasket between the metal layers preventing such contact.

Incidentally, "Videcette" is an anagram of "detective" which was this chap's former job. I think his reasoning is quite interesting here, and indeed as DH notes above, this is the first time I've ever heard anyone question the authenticity of this piece.

"some sort of gasket"

I am going to the edge of my knowlegde here, but if I understand correctly ….

The plating on the cuirass was brazed on using a (for us) low-temperature "solder" of silver dissolved in mercury (much to the detriment of the craftsman's health, I am sure). Silver will oxidize to a relatively stable state in the presence of water. The silver or silver oxide does not react with the copper or the steel.
See : link

Using modern electro-plating, you might plate steel or aluminium with nickel, or silver-nickel, before over-plating with copper, or gold.

I am sorry. There was a beautiful petite blonde in my chemistry class, my "lab partner". She actually understood this stuff, so I just spent my time admiring her. She was from somewhere near Paris, and thought me a sort of maritime country-bumpkin, unable to pronounce words correctly and fit only to be lost at sea some day. Ah …. youth !

"Videcette is an anagram of detective"
I wondered. It is not a French surname, although it appears as such. But I have enough trouble with real English names/words and would never have recognized a scrambled anagram.

:-)

Of course this may be what was called a proof shot. Many a breastplate from the ECW, displayed in the great houses of the UK, contains a dent from a ball impact. It was done, before he donned it, to convince the future wearer that the armour to be purchased was up to standard.

This may have been an attempt to show that the plate was able to resist a 9pdr. Back to the drawing board, then but it would be nice to think it was unoccupied at impact.

Seriously though, while I accept that the wearer is likely to reman unknown, I will bet this is a battlefield relic, maybe even from 1815. What has always struck me as odd is that anyone preserved this. Remember it was largely looters, not forensic historians, who retrieved such things. Would this have an obvious commercial value to a simple peasant yokel?

Massena was a prolific "forensic historian" was he not?

As I recall, that is, I read, (possibly above) the deceased's documents were found inside the cuirass, within some sort of interior pocket intended for that purpose.

Assuming a fixture of that sort was indeed part of the equipment, given the claim that the artefact was unearthed years after the battle, what is the likelihood of the documents surviving under those circumstances, even if wrapped in oilcloth or similar?

Presumably, Musée de l'armée could answer some of those questions.

doublure en toile écrue portant une poche sur le devant / lining in unbleached canvas having a pocket on the front

this piece shows well the brutality of warfare – rip poor trooper.

From Wagram ….
link
link

The cuirassier officers killed at Wagram :
--- lieutenant Louis Gasne du 2e cuirassiers, membre de la Légion d'honneur
--- lieutenant François Lebel du 8e cuirassiers, membre de la Légion d'honneur
--- lieutenant Legros du 3e cuirassiers, membre de la Légion d'honneur
--- lieutenant de Saint-Georges du 2e cuirassiers, membre de la Légion d'honneur
--- sous-lieutenant Crave du 12e cuirassiers
--- sous-lieutenant Froidefond du 12e cuirassiers
--- sous-lieutenant Desèque du 8e cuirassiers
--- sous-lieutenant Desportes du 2e cuirassiers
--- sous-lieutenant Lemaire du 2e cuirassiers

@Michman
The hole in your photo, above, scales to approximately 105mm.
You are right about the diameter of a spherical case. I focussed on it since it may have partially fragmented upon impact (or even prematurely before impact).
Regards
Allan

@Michman. Thanks. Most interesting. Were these pockets assigned a specific function, I wonder?

Presumably, most soldiers would have kept their papers closer to their person.

Michman, thanks for the photos. I don't recall seeing the lining of a cuirass before, or how the red edging was attached to it, interesting to see.

The French had a "livret militaire" or "livret du soldat" carried by each soldier. It had his matricule information (personal details, induction, transfers, promotions, decorations), his pay record, and the records of issuance of clothing and equipment and dire warnings about having to pay for loss, damage or early wear-out. It was about 24 pages.
The outer cover "page" may have been a bit heavier, depending on the supplier, or just regular paper. The soldiers did wrap them in oil clothe – for obvious good reasons.

The cuirass pockets would appear to be a bit wide to carry a livret – but it could be put there. Although this seems rather inconvenient compared to a pocket in the habit. And one did not always wear the cuirass and one did always need to have the livret available on demand.

Had no one mentioned document carrying, I might have imagined that the pockets in the cuirass were there to allow a little extra padding for a thin trooper, to take up space. The cuirasses came in 2-3 sizes, I think, for different heights, But they did not vary for the "breadth" of the wearer.