"The Waterloo Model" Topic

May I suggest that contributors to this forum take the trouble of reading a book on the Battle of Waterloo? I do know there are only a few that do not consist of largely myth and nonsense, so maybe that would explain many of the comments here.

The two allied armies in the Low Countries were too weak to defeat Napoleon alone – they had to combine their forces to do so. Hence Napoleon's strategy of trying to divide them and defeat them individually.

Conversely, the two allied supremos were well aware they would have to link their forces to defeat Napoleon. Wellington would not have stood at Waterloo had he not received assuramces from the Prussians of their support, and the Prussians would not have marched to Waterloo had they not been assured by Wellington that he would make a stand here.

That being the case – and I do apologise for introducing historical fact and logic into a forum like this – then if one assumes Wellington was a competent soldier, surely he would have made every effort to keep himself informed of Prussian movements and intentions. Only a minor matter like his survival depended on it.

The record shows – oh dear, historical facts again – that Wellington first saw Prussian scouts at Waterloo about 10 AM on 18 June 1815 – that is, before the battle started.

The record also shows – my apologies again for mentioning it – that Wellington's staff and the Prussians held a conference around noon at which it was made clear that the Prussians anticpated arriving around 4 PM.

One suspects that Wellington may have had more than a passing interest in that, as only his survival depended on the Prussian intervention.

Boom! Boom! At 4.30 PM, the Prussian artillery opened up, heard by all in Wellington's lines. Now unless Wellington was a complete fool, he could work out for himself what that meant.

A couple of hours later, Zieten's Corps linked up with Wellington's left, allowing him to move troops from there to his battered centre, just in time to fend off the Imperial Guard's final attack. Unless Wellington was an utter moron, he would have noticed that.

So Wellington did not notice the Prussian arrival until after 7.30 PM? A convincing argument that the man was a complete fool. Who was so stupid as to put him in charge of an army?

My apologies again for intorducing historical fact here. I would recoomed that all those with an aversion to historical fact refer to those articles in "First Empire" recommended by Gandalf.

Interesting, but only really relevant if the Waterloo Dispatch actually does claim that the Prussians only arrived on the battlefield at 7.30pm – which it doesn't.

The dispatch only notes that Wellington decided to quit the ridge and launch a full scale attack at that time:

(a)because Bulow's attacks had begun to achieve success

(b) he could see the Prussian artillery firing (a sign that the Prussians were advancing, one presumes) and

(c) that his left had linked up with a corps of the Prussian Army.

PS..any chance of giving Waterloo a rest now until 2015?

Ochoin,
''As much as I trust you, I'd need proof to take this statement as fact.''

You're very generous. I doubt, and the doubt revealed invention. That's enough.

John Cook,
''…if I conclude that the moon is made of cheese you cannot challenge my conclusion very satisfactorily simply by saying it is false, spurious or whatever, because it is what I state to be my belief.''

Thank you. Only a small error: Hofshroer doesn't state his conclusions are simply his 'belief'. He bases them upon his own assersions presented as fact. I think I demonstated this:-)

''The way to challenge my conclusion is through the premises I deploy to demonstrate that the moon is made of cheese, and lead me to that belief.''

Fine if you use premises. Fine if you reveal your beliefs. But Hofshroers books rely on the narritive thread, which is a convenient way to bind in sequence a series of mis-reported actions. Which works even when those reported actions are completely invented. We don't know his beliefs. If he mis-represent his own sourses, then we can only suppose that he knows he has obscured. In any case, it's very cleverly done, and very readable.

I'm surprised no one's actually challenged the individual mis-representations I've pointed out. I have to assume I must have hit the nail on the head.

Trajanous,
Prussian's NOT removed by Wellington! Excellent. I also find it difficult to understand Hofschroers's obsession with insisting the battle represents a single moment in time. Seems to me there are representations of more than one 'time' there.

Now wait a moment Cacadores!
On the Wargames Directory forum, you wrote that people on TMP, especially the Napoleonics board, were opiniated & constantly told you to go & read something to back your opinions.
Yet here you are, offering unsupported opinion. Maybe reading some sources & quoting them to support your argument *is* sage advice.

Oh come come. That is mere assertion how can it be presented as fact like that. Surely you can see that just because someone has an agenda the height of the Eifell Tower it does not preclude them having a point or some validity to their arguement?

You clearly have not addressed his facts that on at least one page of Wellingtons smallest Victory there is an assertion which it is alleged later adds up to some part of a factual supposition – whether he has read anything at all about Waterloo himself is surely beside the point.

Jeff, Caca isn't such a bad fellow but he does have a weakness for arguing….the imossible, the implausible, the unlikely & sometimes the defensible (gotta say something nice about him or I'll hear about it on the Wargames Directory)

By 2015 I meant the year, not quarter past eight…

Oh now I see.
Funnily enough, I was at Runymede last year , not long after lunch & I heard that the Magna Carta had been signed in 1215 so I thought I'd just missed it.

Presumably we'll soon see a book on how Wellington re-wrote the Magna Carta to take the credit for himself, whilst claiming that the Barons only arrived after it was already signed…

Cacadore,

I have cross posted your long post from 25 November at talk.consimworld.com I hope that you do not mind.

Thanks for your work of scholarship. It is highly interesting.

I have a question for you concerning the listed words in quotations. Just to clarify, these are the words that appear in Hofschroer's versions of those same documents that have been interpolated?

In other words, if one compared the original text and Hofschroer's quotation of that same text, one would find that those words you have listed had all been added by Hofschroer?

What would it take to repeat the same exercise? How many different books and other kinds of sources did you need to consult to compile the list?

I think that this information should be more widely known.

In fact you can follow this link to go right to the quote on Consimworld …

link

No answer then? Does anyone have an email for Cacadore? Do you know his name? Please send contact info to me by email. Many thanks.

My email address is kzucker(A)Charm.net Many Thanks

Kevin Zucker
''concerning the listed words in quotations. Just to clarify, these are the words that appear in Hofschroer's versions of those same documents that have been interpolated?''

Hello. Yes. The words I quoted from Hofshroer's book, referring to Wellington appear to have been added by Hofshroer. The actual words are not referenced and I can find no basis for them (but see the other answer below)

''In other words, if one compared the original text and Hofschroer's quotation of that same text, one would find that those words you have listed had all been added by Hofschroer?''

Yes (although I'd welcome anyone who can find any error in what I did). An example is the word 'gloated'. The scene in which this word is placed is referenced: Wellington, it appears, did visit a waxwork of Napoleon. But the description 'gloat' has been made up by Hofshroer alone. Now you could say this is simply Hofshroer's opinion. Fine. But as the book progresses Hofshroer's opinionated additions turn into the apparent 'facts' in the book which I quote.

In many cases there is no text at all to support the apparent 'facts' which Hofshroer inserts. The themes explored in the book; that Wellington had his men work on Sibourne, that Wellington ensured the model was not bought by the USI or that Wellington barred Sibourne's promotion are grand themes supported by many apparent little such 'facts'. All of these 'facts' that I quote, however, as far as I can see, have been invented and inserted.

''How many different books and other kinds of sources did you need to consult to compile the list?''

I tried to limit the review to get a handle on it, so the list was made from 'Wellington's Smallest Victory' only. In the cases where the doubtful word was part of a real scene or event in the book, as far as I could, I consulted other references to the scenes described. Most of them come from letters written by Wellington or his contempories. I could find no reference to the perjoritive 'facts' that appear to have been inserted. I looked mainly at Wellington's letters and various books on Wellington, including books by contemporaries – perhaps 20. Not at all a complete check – but it's not easy to find something that doesn't exist and is not specifically attributed. It is not impossible, I suppose, that someone else at the time described Wellington at the Waxworks as 'gloating' in an obscure letter somewhere, but the rest of the scene is so clearly from a source that does exist (and which does not use the word 'gloat' or anything like it) and the perjoritive word is not seperately referenced, so we have to conclude it was inserted. Otherwise, why not reference it?

In other cases, the whole scene or event is not referenced (and so cannot be checked, yet similar and background information that does exist makes no reference to it), even by Hofshroer, leading one to the conclusion that the whole scene is, again, made up.

In yet other cases (and this appears to be common with Hofshroer), he does quote from a real document, and comes to a seeming logical and perjoritive conclusion which is nevertheless counter-factual. A good example is the Waterloo Dispatch, which Hofshroer has used to come to the (repeated and impressive) conclusion that Wellington passed over, belittled or 'ignored' the Prussion contribution. Yet that same dispatch, in practically the next sentence from the ones quoted by Hofshroer, contains Wellington's pretty fullsome praise for the Prussion contribution. Hofshroer must have seen this praise when he consulted the dispatch – yet he pretends that Wellington's praise doesn't exist. Just this one act is so blatent that words fail me when trying to describe Hofshroer's honesty.

''What would it take to repeat the same exercise?''

To do it beyond doubt, to a publishable standard would pehaps take one afternoon at the British library and a couple of hours at Aspley House.

Where abouts in the Consimworld site is it?

'Apsley'..etc. Apologies for spelling: it's late!

Cacadore-

Follow this link to the page where the discussion begins.

link

Many thanks for following up on this topic. Given the tenor of our times, I guess it is too much to expect that a publisher might offer a retraction.

Kevin Zucker,

Thank you. That's quite amazing (and a very nice site by the way).

Is it really the case that Hofshroer responded to all my carefully ordered (and at least reasonably dry) evidence (23 Nov, 10.27 post)…..

with just this:

''…we are dealing with the demented ranting of the psychotic….personality disorder…a cover to their own mental illness….paranoid obession – hence their demented reaction.''

?

I mean, it's not even about the book. It's, well, childish.

Can you be sure the poster called 'Peter Hofshroer' is really him?

Incidentally, Wellington's mix of personal arrogance, intelligence, faults and charm are part of the same rich texture that make him, Napoleon and Blucher equally facinating. The truth about these amazing commanders is what's interesting surely, warts and all?

Kevin Zucker, by all means lift stuff if you like.

The commencement at objective critism (from Bunger) who's interestingly chosen to focus on a close call:

''251/14 "likely" Supposition. – One can clearly see that the "likely" isn't a wild assertion but a conclusion by the author and a reasonable one furthermore''.

…is proving my point in a way: that qualitative words like ''likely'' (rather than the more accurate, but less certain ''possibly'' or 'probably') are backed up by the thrust of the narrative thread that Hofshroer is shaping, rather than strictly referenced evidence. And there's a poster's personal reaction there (I didn't claim this one was ''wild'' assersion).

Bunger's chosen a very close call to look at. But I included it (and am happy to defend it) because I felt that there was slight, but deliberate exaggeration. And I wondered what a historian was doing exaggerating at all. Shouldn't there be objective sifting of the evidence?

Actually just about all these quotes I listed can be independantly justified by the narrative build up, many of them just about fit into the narrative thread – few of them are 'wild' or out of context (except the final conclusions). All of them are some kind of personal 'conclusion'.

But… but….none of them are 'facts'. They are Hofshroer's personal 'conclusions' and exaggerations. And many of these 'conclusions' and exaggerations are based upon others of Hofshroer's 'conclusions' and exaggerations -they just go around in a circle with no strict facts to pin them down, leaving the historical record far behind. And upon these non-facts, Hofshroer damns Wellington for covering up evidence, blocking promotion, conspiricy and for ruining a man…

Actually, it would be more interesting if the more blatent insersions were dealt with: the insinuations of arm twisting, the conspiracy, the block on promotion, the removal of the Prussians (which apparently are still on Sibourne's table) and of course the selected reading of the Dispatch.

I'm also surprised by the posters' diversions – the personal attacks on me (frustrated gamer, demented ranting) and energy diverted to the sligting of my text ('low quality' – and this after Hofshroer's unfortunate post) rather than dealing with the evidence itself. What do you make of it all? Interesting.

Regards

Amusingly the
"we are dealing with the demented ranting of the psychotic….personality disorder…a cover to their own mental illness….paranoid obession"
comments are followed by this in the last sentence
" Only being a historian by training, and not a psychatrist"
And
Considering there was nothing in your post that surported any of these conclusions on your metal health. Then it could easily be the real Hofshoer. :0)

It was the real Hoffie (as his friends call him). I've read, ad nauseum, his psuedo-psychiatric rants directed against opponents.
It would be, would it not, more genteel for him to have written something like:" Signor Cacadores, I don't believe you've established your case. It is but a tenous theory IMO but should you care to quote some proofs, perhaps we could discuss it further."
regards, d.brow@cloudcuckooland. com

Maxshadow
I thought of that too, but I didn't like to say it!

Actually my latter posts have a big failing: they're too long (yes really!). I think a simpler way of dealing with this would be simply to ask Hofshroer where his evidence was.

For example, for:

p.269/l.28 ''Wellington…removed the Prussians from the field of Waterloo''. and 139/3 "The Duke was simply not giving the Prussians the credit." Evidence of Wellington removing the Prussians: date, time, contemporary sources? References?

264/2 ''Had the Duke given the Prussians full credit for their role in the battle…'' Why has the specific and generous praise in the Dispatch been deliberately ignored? Justify.

241/5 ''Wellington's mistreatment of Sibourne'' Evidence of any specific mistreatment? Book or letter references? In fact any contemporary sources at all?

5/i ''Wellington turned against him'' (Sibourne) Evidence? References?

30/5 "gloat" Evidence? Contemporary quote – where? References?

240/28 ''their relationship'' Any evidence, contemporary or otherwise, that Sibourne and Wellington ever had any 'relationship'?

257/24 "Duke's determination to damage Sibourne's credibility". Evidence? References?

265/26 "Apsley House treated Sibourne most unfairly. He never got the promotion he was promised" (Apsley House is Wellington) Is there any documented evidence whatsoever that Wellington ever tried to block Sibourne's promotion?

Etc, etc for the whole previous list.

Either he has evidence, or he's invented it.

Speaking of identities, is is possible that Cacadore and Kevin Zucker are the same person. If so 'he' appears to be talking to himself, in which case Hofschroer has a point:-)

JC

PS. I have never heard him called lots of things but not 'Hoffie' before by anybody.

John! Running out of ideas already? Surely not?:-) No more beer for you mate.

Back in November, I pointed out what appeared to be false and un-referenced insersions by Hofshroer into the text of one of his latest books. I asserted that deliberately inserting false evidence is dishonourable.

I offered reams of evidence and page references and invited clarification and debate.

Since November, no one (least of all, what appears to be 'Hofshroer' himself) has been able to provide any references for Hofshroers claims!

Unless anything comes up, I have to assume the assersion is proved.

Aah, John,I'm sure Peter has been called lots of things. Why not 'Hoffie'?
cheers, donald

Cacadore,

Tut tut, a bit touchy. It was just a little joke.

Only Hofschroer can satisfactorily answer you questions and I suppose you can assume what you like but it doesn't proove anything.

It might mean he can't be bothered. Perhaps he thinks you have already made your mind up.

JC

Donald,

Possibly. I have a little list, but 'Hoffie' is not on it.

I submit that you are tampering with your sources and deliberately inserting something which does not exist in order to promote your nefarious campaign of disinformation aimed at undermining the reputation of a national hero.

Presenting assertions as fact, is just too dishonourable for words and I demand that you provide the identity of the source document for the term 'Hoffie' together with pages references.

Unless you can do this, I have to assume the assersion is proved. :-) :-) :-)

JC

Hi, John,
OK, I surrender!
I have met the master & now acknowledge it publicly.
best wishes, donald

Cacadore-

You wrote:

"Can you be sure the poster called 'Peter Hofshroer' is really him?"

I believe so. He has been posting on Consimworld on and off for some time. I had another exchange with him a couple of years ago.

And…

"Incidentally, Wellington's mix of personal arrogance, intelligence, faults and charm are part of the same rich texture that make him, Napoleon and Blucher equally facinating. The truth about these amazing commanders is what's interesting surely, warts and all?"

I absolutely agree. Military leaders are human beings with the same limitations as anyone. What is instructive about their experiences is to see these human traits magnified, and the consequences of them as well. I do not understand the black & white views often experssed: Either Napoleon (Wellington, etc.) is a genius who can do no wrong, or else he is the very devil himself. Obviously, we all contain a mix of talents and weaknesses.

Perhaps our games bring out this tendency we have to view things in black & white. As you perhaps noted, the discussion about Wellington on Consimworld began when I was questioned about Wellington's Command ratings (and in particular his Initiative, which is a "5" out of "6.") The questioner cited Hofschroer's opinion of Wellington's ability as a commander and suggested a lower rating would be more accurate.

I had read a small book some years ago about Wellington's headquarters, describing in detail how his HQ functioned. I knew that he had 33 aides-de-camp, most of whom had years of experience in the Peninsula, and his rating was based as much on the quality of his HQ officers as it was on 'him.' The concept "Wellington" in the game represents more than one man.

But if Wellington was slow on acting in the Waterloo campaign the lower rating could be more accurate.

Personal opinion of Peter Hofshroer on Wellington does not negate the rest of his work.

I've read his Waterloo book and apart from his conclussions on Wellington intentions with the Prussian command (which I did not share, nor I do share) the book seems a very good one and it fills an untouched aspect of the battle.

Giving Wellington good credit for the good staff seems correct but in the Waterloo campaign seems he was slow to react (it should also been considered that Napoleon ratings was not at their best).

Or that the supposed Blucher/Gneisenau 'Dream Team' hardly lived up to the hype.

What 'hype' was that?

Kevin Zucker

''I knew that he had 33 aides-de-camp, most of whom had years of experience in the Peninsula, and his rating was based as much on the quality of his HQ officers as it was on 'him.'''

He'd probably have been more aggressive in 1815 if he'd been leading his Peninsula army as opposed to a large mixture of nationalities and loyalties. You can compare what he was doing at Waterloo, with his command style in the Pyrenees: able to co-ordinate divisions separated over large distances by complicated terrain. As it was, with such an army, he needed to be cautious and to cover all possibilities, including withdrawl. Another factor limiting him was the lack of information: neither he nor Blucher could reconnoitre the French too easily

Palafox
''But if Wellington was slow on acting in the Waterloo campaign the lower rating could be more accurate.''

Slow? But what were the risks of being too quick?

The stated Allied object was to 'defeat the army and destroy the power of one individual' by a concentric advance on Paris with the largest number of men at his disposal. Spread out as they were, with many unreliable troops, Wellington had to be careful not to concentrate to early to a mere French 'faint'. And for two reasons: 1) concentration in the wrong place could let Napoleon through to Brussels 2) it would put at risk not only his own lines of communications with the coast, but (and this is something Hofshroer plays down) the Prussian's own lines to the east. 3) Removing a division from its cantonments too early presented issues of supply which would hobble a commander in a long campaign and 4) the deployment had to cover other possible French attacks to Tournai, Bavay and Mons or through Charleroi

As to the correct moment to concentrate, the debate ought to be an interesting one – the Allied and French dispositions were numerous, the possibilities endless and the facts of what everyone knew and when: ambiguous. Instead of which we're hobbled by Hofshroer's charge of duplicity, which colours his stance towards critics.

However John Hussey dealt with Hofshroer's thesis in his article ‘At what time on 15 June 1815 did Wellington learn of Napoleon's attack on the Prussians' in War in History magazine, 1999 issue number 6. Hussey Vivian, Madeleine De Lancey, Fitzroy Somerset and an officer in Picton's division point to news of the attack on the Prussains arriving mid-afternoon, and even then Wellington, being unsure of the full strength or direction of the attack

As to what you believe: probably the best would be to compare Hussey and Hofshroer and to decide yourself based upon the balance of probablities.

Dealava,
Wellington himself acknowleged he was too slow. He was desperate to hold Qatre Bras after failing to concentrate.
If he was decieved by Napoleon's advance from Charleroi, then he was out-generalled at that point.
I'd agree that his slowness turned out well for the Allies ultimately but this was serendipity.
Hoffie may be harsh on the Duke's performance but equally you seem an apologist.
cheers, donald

"Slow? But what were the risks of being too quick?"

Caçadore, I'm not discussing Wellington motives for being quick or slow, you just confirm what I was saying that Wellington was slow on acting (with all the risks of being slow) so a lower game rating could be more accurate.

"If he was decieved by Napoleon's advance from Charleroi, then he was out-generalled at that point"

I agree.

Are we missing the core issue here – Hofshroer has refused to answer any of the points put to him. In fact not only has he done so, he has attempted to undermine the credibility of the person who made the points by suggesting some kind of psychiatric disorder.

Looks to me like a pretty clear case of being caught by the short and curlies.

"Hofshroer has refused to answer any of the points put to him. In fact not only has he done so, he has attempted to undermine the credibility of the person who made the points by suggesting some kind of psychiatric disorder."

Yes, that has been very wrong and stupid on Hofshroer part.

Yes – he should have just ignored everything except compliments like the vast majority of authors.

But there seems to be a soft point in his armour when someone keeps picking away demanding endless answers, particularly when he suspects they are part of a long queue of people who have been doing so ever since he dared suggest Wellington was not utterly spotless.

Frankly anyone expecting the book on Sibornes model to be coldly unbiased rather than a rock at those adversaries was being foolish.

Yeah, I gather Hoffie was harried by members of the Establishment over his dissin' the Duke.
A court case was the result, I believe.
Part of me sympathises but ultimately, I believe he weakens his standing by his indiscriminate labelling of opponents as nutters. Some possibly are but many are serious searchers of the truth.
cheers, donald (this was written from the padded cell in the Shady Nooks Home for the Militarily Unbalanced)

Cornflake,

"Are we missing the core issue here – Hofshroer has refused to answer any of the points put to him."

He did answer a number of points raised in various periodicals, First Empire for example, as I remember, and on the Napoleon Series too, I think, when his Waterloo books first came out eight years ago now. I remember a particularly heated exchange with a Wellie supporter in Australia.

It is true that he hasn't bothered recently, not in the context of his Siborne book, and not here as far as I know. I guess he can't be bothered after all the water that has gone under the bridge.

His remarks about the sanity of people does not endear him certainly, but some of them do appear are a bit odd sometimes. Particularly when they quote Hamilton-Williams as a source to gainsay Hofschroer.

Hofscroer has been called worse, including in a xenophobic diatribe by a so-called critic in a national newspaper, who thought he was German!

He is actually a Brit. Born and bred in the UK.

But let's be clear about all this, not much of this is generated by a search for the truth, rather indignation by Wellington admirers who don't accept his interpretation.

Well, fine, don't accept it but the eight year 'campaign' has been going on far too long now.

It is just as well he didn't write about Napoleon as that man's admirers are even more numerous and more vociferous judging by the stuff the Osprey on Marengo, which dared to question received wisdom, generated a few years ago:-)

I think that the 'defenders' of their particular faiths really do take themselves rather too seriously.

JC

"I think that the 'defenders' of their particular faiths really do take themselves rather too seriously."

No argument there.

However, that is a strawman.

The question is only, whether Hofschroer misrepresents the contents of historical documents in his books. If so, it is important to make the actual facts known.

"The question is only, whether Hofschroer misrepresents the contents of historical documents in his books. If so, it is important to make the actual facts known."

There's no argument there either. If there are historical documents misrepresented on his books they must be pointed, do not assume that pointing a couple of them invalidate all his work.

"But let's be clear about all this, not much of this is generated by a search for the truth, rather indignation by Wellington admirers who don't accept his interpretation."

I think you're right. All the criticism on Hofschoer I've found is centered on his opinion on Wellington.

Aah! Palafox! Now that's an interesting question; worthy of its own thread.
How many errors before any work is invalid?
This begs the question as to the type of error, its scope & the intention of the author.
I'm going away to ponder on this one. cheers, donald

>No argument there.

However, that is a strawman.<

Not really. A strawman fallacy would be if I had misrepresented your argument in order to refute it, usually as an appeal to a third party.

I merely expressed my opinion. This is not a strawman fallacy.

But you actually agreed with it!

JC

Let's all tell Bill how easy it would be to program…

Let the bottom ones drop off as they are overcome!

No! Don't let postings "drop off" after a time!! Let this List remain until 2015 at least!!! Have been fascinated by these heated exchanges and fusillades of scholarship for the last half-hour; and the contribution re. how modern historians seek a "new angle", the more controversial the better with regard to securing film rights etc, is really interesting. So, what about it: "The Siborne Code";

Doesn't matter to me if it was printed 8 or 30yrs ago.
While some people are both quoting it as established fact and others are claiming it contains created and misleading quotes to surport its claims.
Neihart gave the entire board a lecture ealier on how we were debating with no knowledge of the battle of waterloo. This was based completly on the Hoffie claim that Wellington put 7.30 as the time of Bluchers arival on the field in his report.
Then we had this posting…
"Interesting, but only really relevant if the Waterloo Dispatch actually does claim that the Prussians only arrived on the battlefield at 7.30pm – which it doesn't.

The dispatch only notes that Wellington decided to quit the ridge and launch a full scale attack at that time:

(a)because Bulow's attacks had begun to achieve success

(b) he could see the Prussian artillery firing (a sign that the Prussians were advancing, one presumes) and

(c) that his left had linked up with a corps of the Prussian Army"
I am no "Wellington surporter" What is important to me is wether this author has diliberatly manufactured facts to sell books. If so, then I will need to avoid spending money on any of their published material and of course ignore any references to them used by other authors.