"8lbers, there or not. (Waterloo question)" Topic

Gents,

The works that I read early on in my wargaming career list Nappy as having 8lbers at Waterloo. Later works ( like Mark Adkins wonderful book) generally list only 6 and 12 lbers, Some list the Guard as having 4 lber horse guns. The Retired Major I game with (who has the worlds greatest Waterloo Board) stated one day at a waterloo game that "of course there where 8lbers at waterloo, I seen them out front at the National museum in Belgium ". They where captured at waterloo.

So anyone have any info on this issue or the official name of the museum in Belbium so I can write (ha E-mail who are am I kidding) them.

Did Napoleon have an Army Artillery Reserve in the army of the North.

Thanks for your information

We are going to play Waterloo again this winter.

Ghee.

NOT

The original report of French pieces captured at Waterloo lists only year XI guns – 6, 12 & howitzers of 24

Hmm, I've always thought that the guns brought up when La Haie Sainte fell were 8s? Not that I'm remotely knowledgable on the period…. :-(

Dom.

Mark,
It is probably doubtful that the 12-pounders at Waterloo were An XI's, as the only two pieces of that system that were produced in any numbers were the 6-pounder and the 5 1/2-inch (24-pounder) howitzer.

Sincerely,
Kevin

The Reserve Artillery of the Armee du Nord was the Guard Artillery.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Lordghee:

Adkin has some good information, but I think it is no secret that he took his French artillery OB straight from that the book that has the best French Order of Battle for Waterloo, that being Scott Bowden's ARMIES AT WATERLOO. Check out his OB that gives the citation of the cartons consulted in the French army archives.

Unfortunately, there are some really inaccurate Waterloo French artillery OBs out there. In short, there were no 4- or 8-pounder guns in Napoleon's Armee du Nord (I always laughed each time I passed by that page in Chandler's CAMPAIGNS OF NAPOLEON where he describes a picture as a "French 8-pounder captured at Waterloo"…I guess Chandler never paid much attention to Wellington's own "Dispatches" that detailed the French ordnance captured at Waterloo.)

CG Charton

CG,

I agree that the French artillery had for some years, been attempting standardisation of the 6pdr and 12pdr and eliminating the 8pdr.

However like so many attempts at standardisation I'm always a little hesitant to accept that they are every fully implemented, especially in times of war.

I fully suspect that "some" 8pdr pieces remained within L'Armee du Nord.

BTW Some artillery pieces at the Brussels museum do look like 8pdrs….but there's no guarantee, of course, that they were actually captured at Waterloo!

DB

Napoleon had lost a lot of guns in the preceding years, especially of his key Yr XI 6pdr. Thus, there are plenty cut and shuts around, which may not have been recognised for what they are. There is a gun in the Musee de l'Armee – alleged to be a Gribeauval, it is in fact an Austrian 12pdr carriage with a pre-G barrel on it (point worth noting – contrary to myth, this barrel has a muzzle sight on it). In Chandler's Campaigns of N, p.351, there are two photos, supposed to show a G 6in howitzer in Lisbon and an 8pdr captured at Waterloo outside Sandhurst. The former is a Yr XI 5.5in – and one of several Yr XI pieces there, which gives the lie to them not beiong used in the Penninsula; the 8pdr is a Yr XI 6pdr on a more recent carriage.

Kevin, maybe so, but with all the others being year XI I would expect they would have tried to round up as many 12s as possible, they didn't need many for Nord.

Dave, what info lets you identify the carriage & barrel of the gun in the musee de l'armee, pre G is quite old, I think i've asked this b4 but I can't remember the answer.

Aloha, Mr Brown:

Please let go of your idea that some 8-pounders were somehow in Napoleon's Armee du Nord in 1815. The returns of the French army show only 6- and 12-pounder cannon, plus the howitzers, and Wellington's Dispatches, detailing the ordnance captured at Waterloo, confirm that fact.

The idea that French had 8-pounders (and/or 4-pounders) at Waterloo is a tired, inaccurate statement, or belief, that seemingly won't die, despite the all evidence. And I think that's the problem, as some people do not consider the evidence.

Mr Charton, I'm with you on the Chandler 8-pounder caption issue; gross mistakes like his only fuel debates like this.

Me ke aloha,

MJ

Mark – The barrel has the old style handles and the carriage is definitely Lichtenstein as it is straight sided on the trail and has the screw elevating system.

It is indeed a good point that N was looking for the Yr XI 6pdr in particular – there were plenty of 8pdrs in the depots. I wonder why? Maybe the G guns are not all that myth makers would have us believe. Of course, N being an artilleryman would know nothing!

Mr. Hollins,
What is a 'pre-G' gun tube? For the French, that means generally a Valliere System gun tube, unless you are referring to pre-1732 models of ordnance, and there is quite a difference between those systems' ordnance and that of the Gribeauval System. I have some pictures of, and have seen first hand, the Gribeauval ordnance at the Musee de l'Armee. Could you point out which piece this is to which you are referring? Or, are you merely going by memory?

Sincerely,
Kevin

Okay not to stoke any fires but what of the capture atry returns of the prussian army, and did the brunswick ducth and Belgian captures list with Wellington.

just throwing gas on the fire, play nice while burning.

Lord Ghee

I am looking at the photos right now – they show what is clearly an L 12pdr carriage with a barrel that looks to be no more than 6pdr calibre, but is thicker than even the over-thick G barrels. The dolphins/handles are shaped like winged mythical beasts. It appears to be in a small side room, probbaly part of the depot and not on display. The person, who sent me the photos says it is labelled as a G gun. The barrel is clearly before then, but sitting on an L 12pdr carriage suggests it was thrown in servoice later.

If you have seen these collections, why are there no photos in your book – or indeed, no illustration of the Yr XI 6pdr? Chandler shows at least one taken at Waterloo.

Mr. Hollins,

Why don't you scan it for us?

I was under the impression that you had seen it yourself and not just by a photograph taken by someone else?

So, again, as you would put it, 'tertiary' information.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dave,

The piece you are talking about is Prussian. It has the Prussian eagle as lifting handles. If anyone needs a picture, just let me know.

Steve

The barrel is – but have the Prussians copied the carriage as it looks very much like an L version? However, Frederick did copy the L 12 pdr after all. It is apparently labelled up as a G gun however.

Steve – I had a bounce back on your email, so thanks for the pic. Yes, it is the gun concerned. That carriage looks very L, so maybe it is indeeed simply FtG copying it directly as Duffy says in Army of MT. Of course, this would still demonstrate that G did not devise the front sight – either!!

I don't know when this gun dates from, but it is interesting that it and the illustrations in Peter's Prussian Specialist Troops all show guns, which copy hte L carriage shape as the Yr XI did. The Prussians at least seem to have recognised that the L design was better than their old shorter design, which G used – although it is interesting that he only mentions French and Austrian guns in his 1762 report!

Mr. Hollins,
Neither the Prussian nor the Austrian gun carriages looked like the Gribeauval carriages. The Gribeauval design was new and the reasons for this can be found in Ken Alder's Engineering the Revolution, along with the tolerances allowed for the Gribeauval system, which was quite rigid. You might want to take a look at that and a few other volumes, as the greater majority of the 'information' you are providing for the Gribeauval and the AN XI Systems is incorrect.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Mark,
The problem was the Systeme AN XI 12-pounders weren't mass manufactured as were the other two calibers. The Gribeauval 12-pounder was used throughout the period.

Sincerely,
Kevin

kevin – I think you will find that reading people like Adler is like readinbg Graves. I am sure they get their designs, dimensions correct, but quite clearly they do not understand the origin of these guns – hence the inaccuarte claims about originality (eg: the bricole!) or Gribeauval himself (he was a siege engineer/gunner and never tested Austrian guns) and the resort to some strange claims to cover the Ruling Theory – this "new maetallurgy", which made the Yr XI guns equate to L dimensions. So, I would suggest you start with recorded fact rather than your own claism, when asessing accuracy – we might of course note the complete absence of any Prussian and Year XI gun from it, which rather suggests you did not check them.

It was interesting that I had not thought too much about putting older Austrian illustrations IN NV72, but they seem to shown up the inadequacies of many authors, who in palce of doing simple checks have copied received wisdom. The 1757 plates clearly show the bricole in Austrian use and now, if you look at the Austrian 1747 3pdr gun on p.6, there you will see the previous design, which is based in Sswedish and Prussian guns as I understand it.

Now, we have the famous FtG 1762 Prussian 12pdr, not a cut and shut as I thought. Howver, we can clearly see (and Duffy notes this too) the L design copied by FtG (although of course the screw quoin was originally Prussian from 1748.

Mr. Hollins,
Have you read Alder's book?

In the same vein, have you read Janis Langins' Conserving the Enlightenment: French Military Engineering from Vauban to the Revolution?

If you had, you would understand the differences of the Gribeauval System with those that came before it and the difference, in the French service at least, between an artilleryman and an engineer.

Sincerely,
Kevin

All very interesting Kevin – but ask yourself this, (and no doubt you can check it), did these gentlemen seek to write about the development of French artillery, where they are often right in saying the G system had x or y feature, whichw as new to France, or did they actually check the other national sources to see where these featuires come from in the general development of artilelry.

If Alder or Langris is saying that G invented the bricole and that the YrXI was produced by some new metallurgy, could you enlighten us as to the source of their information and a)when G invented the bricole and b) what the nature of this metallurgical change was.

I suspect with both, they may not actually say what you think they say, but it is interesting to note that both are written in English.

We just need a date, a sentence on technology and hte primary ref to back them. If you have these books, do enlighten us.

Mr. Hollins,

Quite simple, what have you read on the material that you so often comment on?

From what you have said it appears to be in the 'not much' category, yet you pontificate on artillery, tactics, the Grande Armee, general staff organization and functioning. How can you do that when you haven't read background material in any depth at all?

Sincerely,
Kevin

Blah, blah Kevin. Quite simple questions – as you are so confident of your claims, please give us the simple date/method and a citation for each.

Aloha, all:

How is it that a thread about the myth of the French 8-pounders at Waterloo gets hijacked by the Hollins-Kiley feud?

What's really sad is that this is not the only thread hijacked by the never ending Hollins-Kiley vitriol.

I have an idea. Why don't you two guys start a thread and just call it: "Dave Hates Kevin and Kevin Hates Dave." Confine your feud to that thread. Those wanting to see what daily exchange of barbs have been traded can tune in there, and that way neither of you spill your never-ending exchange of the same repetitous stuff over to the unrelated threads, of which this is certainly one.

MJ

I second Maui Jim! And while they're at it, why don't they try answering each other's questions instead of hurling barbs at each other, as in: Mr. Hollins have you or have you not read the sources you criticize? and Gandalf, please cite the sources as he asks.

RE: Hollins v. Gandalf
One of my former professors always said that academic disagreements are so bitter because the stakes are so small.

I completely agree with M. Maui Jim for getting Hollins and Kiley to move their petty exchange to a separate thread and leave ones like this alone.

I agree with M. Lowry about neither of them answering each others questions.

And I agree with M. Neojacobin about the stakes being so small. Reallly, guys, shouldn't you spend your time better, like in pursuit of some meaningful scholarship, or with a woman?

AG

I think you will find that Mark and I were discussing the nature of guns used in the Waterloo campaign and confusions about identification. Often there are very real problems with guns given similarities in design or straight copying – what I thought was an L 12pdr carriage actually turns out to be a Prussian carriage copied from it and the barrel upon it was obviously "not Gribeauval" – it turns out to be Prussian with the interesting point that it has an aiming sight at the muzzle end (allegedly a G invention). Gun identification was also a problem in Campaigns of N and the problems over Waterloo gun documentation seem to make matters worse.

However, if you would rather live ina w orld of fanmtasy certainties inw argames rules and third hand sources, that is fine, do please get on it. Howveer, i do answer the questions – Kevin asked why I thought the barrel was pre-Gribeauval. I told him, I cannot do any more than that.

Don – I think I have been clear about what I have and have not read. Those, which I have made points about, but have npot read, are dealt with on the basis that enough is known about the author to assess what they are saying. I do not need to read Graves' work to know that he does not know anything about Germanic gun development since he does not read German, any more than I need to read Tousard since large chunks of it are copied into Kevin's book. Given the basic errors – balls flying flat and Austrian gunners riding on ammo wagons for example – I can see the evidence in front of me in Kevin's book! Alder's book is called "Engineering the French Revolution" and is a book about engineering in the period. Yes, a very sueful book on its subject no doubt – but that does not mean that claims within it are fact – it was not within the bloke's ambit to research Austrian gun development. Quote him on how French guns were cast by all means, but he is not attempting to address Austrian gun founding. You would not quote Chandler on Austria any more than you would quote a book about Wellington on Austria, would you? Many books are undoubtedly authoratative on theoir subjects, but they often include one-liners that the author has used to colour the picture, but it is then quoted as well-researched fact. Listing several books and saying "you have not read them" is not very productive – as we actually want to know what is in them and of course, we should also be aware of which books have been "left out" as inconvenient (Hennebert for a start). I am simply asking for the key citation to back a claim, just as MJ has made points about written sources in relation to guns in W's Despatches.

You may think that it is not the correct procedure, but it is siomply all that is possiblke sicne my time must be devoted to rading important works on the Austrian artillery – and it seems the 1762 report – since these are primary docuemnts, whereas Tousard is not – or I must listen to what other people tell me. See above for example -Steve put me right on a mistake in identifying a gun in the Musee de l'Armee (which has itself identified the gun as Gribeauval).

I know it is fashionable to present this as some feud – but ity is not that. It is simply the tackling of Ruling Theory with all the flak that Elting warned me and others to expect. They try to make it look like a feud – it saves answering the key questions that udnermine their central beliefges.

Getting O/T but it is relevant, Alain has criticised Bob Goetz on Amazon for making myriad alleged errors in relation to the French camp of Boulogne – now given that it accords with Bowden's research, I wonder if he might outline what they are. Such a question is as relevant of course as the development of artillery.

Gentlemen (Don, Alain, MJ, et al),

You are correct on many of your points, and I do apologize on my part for prolonging the petty arguments.

I have attempted from time to time to ignore Mr. Hollins, and at one point actually offered to 'bury the hatchet' so to speak, but that was refused. I don't hate Mr. Hollins, and have to axe to grind, but the arguments do get tiresome and somewhat frustrating. I have answered the questions, Don, either here or on other forums. I can't force Mr. Hollins to accept the answers. I would submit that if we were talking about the weather and I remarked that the sky was blue on a sunny, cloudless day, Mr. Hollins would take issue with it merely because it was I who said it.

Be that as it may, I again offer Mr. Hollins the opportunity to stop this silliness. It would be better for all of us, I think, and perhaps if we worked together, instead of at odds, the forum and all present would benefit. Disagreement is good-constant bickering and pettiness is not. For my part, I won't engage in it here any longer with Mr. Hollins. If he chooses to continue, then that is his business.

I do hope that is a satisfactory solution and thanks very much for bringing it up.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Please Gents on topic,

has anyone Read the prussians capture returns?

I'm afraid Kevin that you are simply not telling the truth – and I don't make that point lightly. I have raised these questions – you have never answered them. If you wish to disprove me, then simply answer the three points:

a) when did G invent the bricole
b) what is the metallurgical improvement
c) why does a ball fly flat when those who were there tell us that French guns are less accurate at shorter range and the shot flies over them.

Please include your evidence by way of citation.

You only "offered to bury the hatchet" in a bid to stop questioning of your work after a frankly bizarre campaign against mine, which has lasted 5 years. These are important questions as you have made these claims and no doubt, people will have read them and think they are true. I am asking you to justify them – if anyone thinks this is all too tedious, then maybe they might like to ask themselves how they expect their own questions to be answered, unless someone goes digging in books and backs their comments with citations.

That Kevin fails to answer the 3 questions above and calls it "silliness" speaks amply for his attitude not just to the material, but to you, the book buying public. Now, of course, having been so keen to make inaccurate claims about my work on Amazon and even resort to cowardly rants in his book directed at me, knowing that I cannot respond directly, he now runs away. I hope that next time he pronounces on anything, you might bear this in mind. So, there we are – the "expert on artillery" and "military historian" (As he describes himself on Amazon) cannot even answer simple questions about his own work.

On the main issue, the returns do indeed ned checking and that should include a check on French lists of guns (these are always bit problematic with any army). However Lordghee, this all illustrates my point – we began with your comments about what various works which differ as to the French line-up at Waterloo. I have also seen various suggestions of all kinds of guns being drawn into French service. Dom thought there were some 8pdrs – Mark was certain they were all Yr XI, although there is certainly a problem with the 12pdrs. I wonder how many might actually be captured guns – the Yr XI and L 6pdr are virtually identical; that Prussian gun is called G 12pdr by the Musee. Charton has pointed out more problems with gun identification and indeed, poor secondary works. If you just accepted one secondary source, you could be in real trouble!

Yep, its a feud.

Well, I'm glad we got that all straightened out!

No, as I said, don't glorify it or muddy the issues with that. In one corner, I am doing new work and putting up my sources – I have been on the end of a bizarre campaign. In the other corner is someone, whose attitude has been one of purusing the received wisdom and engaging in said bizarre camapign. I don't go off writing lists on Amazon.

I happen to be on similar ground as Kevin on artillery – I am disputing what he says and asking him what the basis for his claims is. He does not answer, so I keep asking in the hope that we can perhaps get an answer. By calling it a feud, you suggest we are equal in some way – well, I read the 1762 report and did new work in the KA, as well as working with others doing new work. Kevin, I'm afraid is trying to palm off old claims and secondary works as something of standing. That is what it is all about – I hope it is also an illustratioon of how poor some books on the period are. However, it is up to you how you see it – it is only your time and money after all.

Looking over by Copy of L'Armee Francaise by Edouard Detaille translated 1885 ed bouught used on Amazon 11 dollars, and the toe that he has of the army of the north macthes with Mard Adkins list 116 guns for Gd but not what they are.

Hmm how to find out who the French expert is and how to email him????

In a survey on the strength of the Armée du Nord at Waterloo, published by Horst Schneidereit in 1981, there are some reproductions on the French artillery material of I, II VI army corps, taken from

De Saint-Charmant: Napoléon, ses dernières armées, 1890.

They only list the followng types of "bouches de feu":

da 6
de 12
d'obusiers de 6 pouces
d'obusiers de 24 pouces

I don't know whether the other corps are included in de Saint-Charmand's work as well, and what are the sources he used. Mightbe it is worth for someone else to try to get a copy and check.

I haven't found any Prussian records on how many guns were taken in 1815. The few references I found in Prussian regimental histories just mention that "guns" were taken, but not their caliber.

Scott Bowden lists the artillery of Nord in his Armies of Waterloo.

Guard
12-pounders: 24
6-pounders: 52
6-inch howitzers: 8
5 1/2-inch howitzers: 20

I Corps

12-pounders: 6
6-inch howitzers: 2
6-pounders: 30
5 1/2-inch howitzers: 10

II Corps

12-pounders: 6
6-inch howitzers: 2
6-pounders: 24
5 1/2-inch howitzers: 8

VI Corps

12-pounders: 6
6-pounders: 24
5 1/2-inch howitzers: 10
6-inch howitzers: 2

Cavalry Corps

6-pounders: 16
5 1/2-inch howitzers: 8

Totals:
12-pounders: 42
6-pounders: 146
6-inch howitzers: 14
5 1/2-inch howitzers: 56

For a total of 258 pieces of ordnance.

French artillery losses at Waterloo are listed as follows:

12-pounders: 35
6-pounders: 57
6-inch howitzers: 13
5 1/2-inch howitzers (24-pounders): 17

For a total of 122 pieces of ordnance.

I hope I tallied this correctly. However, the main point is that there were no 8-pounders listed. The 6-pounders and 5-1/2-inch howitzers belonged to the Systeme AN XI; the 12-pounders and 6-inch howitzers to the Gribeauval System.

Sincerely,
Kevin

De Saint-Charmant gives obusiers de 24 pouces (no typo) in place of the 5,5-inch howitzers mentioned in Scott-Bowden's list.

24 pouces (=inches) will be two pieds (feet), which is about 65 cm. Does this mean, de Saint-Charmant writes utter nonsense, or is there any other reasonable explanation for these alleged 65cm-howitzers ? Could it refer to the length of the barrel ?

Oliver,

The 5 1/5-inch howitzer was sometimes referred to as the 24-pounder. They were the same field piece.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Great, thanks, that is a reasonable explanation for the birth of the "obusiers de 24 pouces".

Cheers,

Oliver

Are you sure. . . . . :)
heheheheh

Oliver,

You're welcome.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Regarding 12 lbers at Waterloo:

It can not be said that all 12 lbers at Waterloo were an XI pieces. As others suggested, at least one Gribeauval tube was at Waterloo.

From vol. two, page 19, of the 1963 edition of the catalog of the "Museum of Artillery", The Rotunda, Woolwich:

Class II no. "109A Waterloo. On the chase, "Voltaire." On the reinforce the date, "L'an 3 de la repub/que
Francaise. (1795). On the base ring, "A Douai Bouquero 29 Brumaire."

The tangent scale is broken off. There are plain dofins. Length, 6ft. 11 in.; calibre, 4.875 in.; weight, 17 cwt. 37 lbs. (Tower of London)"

So, this piece was cast on 19.xi.1794; weighed 790 kg.; length 211 cm.; bore diameter 12.4 cm.

Regarding the casting of an XI 12 lbers:

The first an XI 12 lbers, in my database, were cast in Turin. From my records:

The earliest are dated in 1804. One was, ten years ago, in the Borodino Museum collection. It does not have the Napoleonic crest, as, obviously, he was crowned later. It appears the Consulate did not have an emblem engraved on their artillery tubes. This ‘fact' may provide an answer for the tubes I have found that are without national marking. From visual inspection, this 1804 tube is clearly an ‘an XI' piece. I can provide a photograph if needed.

Next comes two 12 lbers cast in Turin on 17.ii.1804 [SHS: It appears that tubes were cast in lots of 6 [or more].]

Then:

(1) 2.vi.1804 and (1) 29.vi.1804; (1) 10.vi.1805; (1) 1807; (2) 1808 – all cast in Turin.

(1) 1809 [SHS: This may be an 8 lber! If so, this is the latest I have found for a French Gribeauval piece] cast at Douay;

(1) 1809; (4) 8.xii.1810 and finally, (11) cast in 1811. All of these were cast in Strasbourg.

I am in the process of obtaining some of the foundry records. Hopefully, I can then answer this question regarding an XI 12 lber production.

I do not have the Wellington Dispatches, etc of the 1815-16 period. I would be much obliged if someone could provide the mentioned records regarding captured guns during this period.

I can be contacted directly at write2 at wgn dot com.

Steve

Sorry, my e-mail address is write2 at wgn dot net [not dot com as I posted].

Steve

Hey I had a thought, could the Dutch, Belgian or Brunswickers have used French 8 lbers as thier artillery.

Lord Ghee.

Not seen as a Trophy but as a momument.

…
That's worth looking into, but colour me skeptical, They were all pretty new forces (with new guns, presumably). Though while we're at it, wasn't one of the Prussian horse batteries the old Berg horse Artillery?

at Waterloo all those used 6-pounders.