More Napoleonic Fiction...
Dear Sir,
I write to you to say how much I enjoy reading First Empire and the standard of the articles. In particular I rather enjoy the very lively letters page which seems to have grown. I have been following with interest the correspondence about Napoleonic fiction other than the Sharpe series. Since I enjoy reading Napoleonic fiction it has revealed several titles for me to try to obtain. However, a particularly good novel which has not been mentioned is:
Winter of the Eagle by K. M. Campbell Published by Allen and Unwin in 1980 ISBN 0048231665. This is the story of a voltigeur company in the French 46th Line Regiment of Ney's Third Corps just as the Imperial army abandons Moscow. A moving tale of the ngors and eventual disintegration of the company and the fight for survival on the retreat. Also:
The History of a Conscript of 1813/Waterloo by MM Erckmann-Chatrian (translated by R. D. Gillman). No ISBN. My copy was published in 1916. This is the tale of Joseph Bertha who is conscripted into the French Army in 1813 and thrown into the horror of the campaign in Germany, eventually ending up at Leipzig and the retreat back to France. Bertha rejoins the Imperial Army in 1815 to serve in the Waterloo Campaign. A difficult book to obtain, but well worth the read.
Yours Sincerely,
Russell Tomlinson
Why attack Hamilton Williams?
Hello There,
Yet another year! My god how time flies. I enclose my cheque for another years subs and hope you can maintain the current standard. I noted your comments about the ongoing Hamilton-Williams correspondence and have to say I have found the whole thing rather peculiar. Whilst H-W may be a total prat for all I know I am amazed at the overall reaction to his book. I have now been fortunate to read a good many English Language sources over a wide period of Napoleonic Warfare plus some translations of French Works. I would not claim to have any sort of academic approach to the subject, just pure interest. During the many years I have been indulging in my hobby I have seen and read reviews of many books but have never seen the sort of violent reaction as has occurred in relation to "New Perspectives".
There seems to be a belief that everything that is present in HW's book is going to accepted by the general public as "gospel" and that in some way this will set back the "progress" of Napoleonic "truth" as imagined by his critics. Whatever happened to an allowance for the critical faculty of the readers of the book? If there is to be an Academic rebuttal of a book then all well and good. But so far all the criticism seems to be of the wholly destructive variety. Are these critics really saying that there is nothing of worth in this book? I have certainly had my interest piqued at some of his comments and if nothing else it has provided a field day for some commentators to have their views published. As an example there have been publications of two recent books which have not received the sort of mauling that HW has had and I think that we could be accused of double standards if the matter is not looked at objectively.
The first book I refer to is Blonds (I am writing this at work in my lunch break so bear with me as to spellings) 'La Grand Armee'. This is the first time the book has been readily available in English and has been held up as a wonderful example of the "French" view of the Napoleonic Wars. It is certainly an interesting read but the number of errors that even I have spotted is amazing. (i.e., The 5000 (!) British Cavalry present at the Cavalry action during the British retreat to Corruna. This figure is lifted directly from the Bulletin wntten by/for Napoleon regarding the action and is totally false. The British never had 5000 men available in the whole campaign.) Now this is an error of magnitude that, by the level of criticism applied to HW, should have had the book reviewed with a "health warning". This did not happen.
The second book is that by Uffendel. I have great admiration for anyone who has taken the time to research and then sit down and write a book. I have no personal knowledge of Mr. Uffendel and imagine that he's a decent chap. His book was interesting but also disappointing. Some of the phrases used should have been excised by his editor. The actual detail of the battle is contained in a small portion of the book with, to my mind, unnecessary comments about the overall campaign which shed no new light on the Battle of Ligny. There was also a persistent theme which seemed to compare Napoleon with Romme]. I honestly felt that this was completely out of place. Then there were his absolute statements such as, "The Cuirassiers were the best Cavalry in Europe". Were they indeed? I would have thought this was a purely subjective view. At this point you could quite rightly accuse me of nit-picking but I refer to my earlier comment.
If we are going to put one author through the mill then let us be as critical of other works as they present themselves or we are at fault overall. Perhaps one of your contributors could define precisely why H-W's book should be subjected to the precise examination it has received when others are not?
D. A. Rogan
Birkdale, Southport
Editor: Please see below
Suffering from Fire Shock
Dear Dave,
First Empire #25 arrived in the mail yesterday. Congratulations on a healthy reponse to your request for E-mail (including my own note!) Apparently, not all readers (nor you yourself, as it turns out) were as bored with the Hamilton-Williams case as I. I can certainly agree with Mr. Phil Lawrence that continued discussion was necessary "until a satisfactory opinion is reached as to whether or not Hamilton-Williams' claims can be substantiated." However, I thought that that criterion had been met already.
I for one was satisfied by your assessment in issue 23. If there is any lingering doubt concerning Mr. H-W's academic credibility, Mr. Hofschroer's (sorry, my mail com- poser doesn't do umlauts--hope that doesn't demolish my credibility!) detailed critique of "W:NP"'s citations from the Hanoverian archives should not only lay it to rest but also fill the coffin lid with nails. I certainly accept Mr. Hofschroer's superior credentials and expertise in this area; but then he had already convinced me with his earlier submissions. I just cringe at the thought that such an academic cannister blast was deemed necessary at this point in the discussion directed against such an unworthy target.
The continued attacks on Mr. H-W and his clearly inferior work seem to be motivated to a large degree by personal outrage and frustration. Mr. Lawrence wants the case to stay open because Mr. H-W's "claims are so damning and his theory so radical," so that "it is imperative the mater (sic) be resolved...within your pages."
Well in that case, if it is your mandate to address every radical theory published, you'd better open up a discussion of the Afrocentrist view of the development of Western civilization particularly the African roots of Napoleonic military art! Or perhaps Napoleon's genius was due to his not being a Corsican, but an extraterrestrial; better discuss that one for a while! And how about the connection between the Merovingian bees on Nappy's coronation robe, the Knights Templar, the royal bloodline of Israel, the Holy Grail, the SS, and present-day international conspiracies? Surely you need to devote most of the pages of the next five or six issues to the intense discussion of these pressing issues!
Mr. Hofschroer's article in #25 is clearly the response of an affronted historian. He is undoubtedly in the right, but again, his response has the feel of overkill. And you, dear editor, having once laid the matter to rest, have raised it again because you are "just a little brassed off'? Is it the dubious claims to nobility that got you going this month? Or some unfulfilled need for resolution? You're not going to achieve closure until you impose it yourself--again.
Mr. Hamilton-Williams has, in my opinion, been thoroughly discredited. There need be no fear that I will run out buy his book and mistake it for a proper historical work. Certainly no regular reader of First Empire will now accept it, as you fear, "as being gospel." So what, anyway? Even the Gospels are acknowledged to be written well after the events they describe, inconsistent both internally and among themseives, and written to support specific agendas within the early church rather than to relate histoncal truth.
You cannot assume the responsibility to "protect" readers who choose to give uncritical belief to any book. The Gospels are given uncritical belief because of their divine inspiration, somewhat similar to the credence commonly placed in any work of military history written by a successful wartime general or a head of department at Santhurst (zing!). In other words: please stop now. Point made. Enough is enough. Lighten up. The juxtaposition of academic vitriol (which would not be tolerated in an academic journal) with items on fellows who like to get up in fancy dress and pretend to be soldiers, together with items about playing with toy soldiers, is becoming a bit bizarre. On a cheerier note: great bunch of articles this issue, especially David Commerford's and John Cook's. Thanks for the immediate gratification of my request for photos of the new Minifigs lines. Excellent and very helpful review by David Commerford, I had not acquired this rules set yet, but was curious about it. Eagerly awaiting issue #26, as long as it doesn't include the threatened last shot against Mr. Hamilton-Williams.
Sincerely (but with occasional tongue in cheek),
Allen Curtis Barstow, CA
AECurtis@aol.com
From the Editor: I take the point about the "juxtaposition", however, First Empire must be all things to all men. It is a magazine, as described on the Front cover "for the Enthusiast, Historian and Gamer". That is why it survives. To be just another wargaming mag, or an overblown research paper would bore the pants off equal numbers of readers. For the final point on HW please see the Last Thing, thereafter as they say in the trade "correspondence is closed on this matter." --DW
Napoleonic magazines
Dear Sir,
Just a note to say how much I enjoy reading First Empire. I am impressed with the generally high level of literacy and education among both your contrbutors and your readership. Their scholarship was especially evident in the responses to the Hamilton Williams book. One can only wish for better Napoleonic scholarship in the USA.
I know a little French and I would be interested in knowing about French magazines on the period. Could you review them and give subscription information? I'd like to get the view from the other side. Perhaps even First Empire in future could reach out to continental authors and run some translations of continental scholarship on the period?
Anyway, keep up the good work.
CandJSweet@aol.com
From the Editor: I think the above illustrates my last point somewhat! Plus if anyone is interested in translated French works into English please contact the Editor as soon as possible, and any contributions from French Readers on French Magazines would be welcome. Just a point about Email. Please keep sending it in but please include your real name at the bottom. I've I only just worked out that this address is for C. and J. Sweet. I know, I know but it been a very long week!--DW
Letter to Editor in #39 Regarding Foreign Sources
Gamers Wanted
Dear Dave,
I am looking for a couple of people interested in face to face ACW or Napoleonic Gaming on a reasonably regular basis. Really anywhere, but ideally South Wales, Avon, Gloucestershire or Wiltshire. The style of rules that I enjoy are 'Cliff Knight/Peter Dennis', Legacy of Glory, House Rules Napoleonic II and Fire and Fury. Interested parties can contact me by phone on 01291 628537 or 0117 9666 566 evenings or weekends or can write to the address below.
Thanks and best regards
Nigel Ashcroft, 5 Grasmere Way, Chepstow, Gwent. NP5 5SS
Antipodean Search for Suvarov
Dear David
I threw my re-subscription in the mail quickly and now I've got some time I'd like to just congratulate you on an excellent magazine.
I am a wargamer who enjoys the 1796-1800 period and I can't believe my luck with articles on Holland and Arcola etc.! I love having the orders of battle and maps (except for the Holland Invasion maps that I found impossible to translate to the tabletop!).
Keep up the good work, I'm enjoying the magazine immensely.
By the way, although my man interest is the French armies of pre-1800, I'm also building their opponents. I'd love to hear from anyone with information oil Suvarov's 1798-99 Austro-Russian armies (or who makes figures besides Battle Honours) or anyone else who games using Napoleon's Battles.
My mailing address is as follows: P.O. Box 256, Prahran, Victoria 3181. Australia. Compuserve: 100354,3144
Regards,
Richard Stubbs
Victoria, Australia
Ship Ahoy!
Dear Sir,
Please may I through your magazine, which I enjoy thoughly, issue the following statement concerning "The Bellerophon" reenactment group. The crew of "The Bellerophon" having transferred to the frigate, Emerald, are looking for experienced reenactors to join its After guard division, which is the ship's small arms team, employed on the quarterdeck. All nationalities are welcome to join, providing they can attend on a regular basis. Our subscribtion fee is 5.00 pounds on joining, and 20 first class stamps per year thereafter. Please address all 'Afterguard' enqunes to; Mr Mark Bradford, 8 Squire Avenue, Canterbury, Kent CT2 8PP and address all 'Ship' enquries to: Mr Bill Bertram, 173, Marlborough House, Devonport, Plynouth, PL1 4HQ.
Yours thankfully
Mr M.J. Bradford
Canterbury, Kent
In Support of Empire!
Dear Dave,
I read with interest David Commerford's article in Issue 25. I am one of small group in the Trowbridge area of Wiltshire who use the Empire rules mentioned in the article.
Having only Wargamed for about 10 years I may not have the expenence of some, nor have I any great knowledge of other Napoleonic rules, having only played a few games using "In the Grand Manner' and John Tuckey's amended Grand Manner. However, as I am happy with what Empire tries to achieve, a "simulation" of a large scale Napoleonic battles, I will persevere.
THE PLUG.
Empire IS complicated, but once you have sat down and read and re-read the entire set of rules you will come to see what the authors are about.
Due to the number of nations, troop types, weapons, tactics, and characters, involved in 25-30 years of European mayhem, the rules, to be accurate, have to be complicated to work correctly. To be honest, if you just want to set up a few regiments of infantry, cavalry, and artillery and "kick hell out of each other" or play a one-off evening battle, however serious, Empire will not fit your bill.
So Empire is for the dedicated Napoleonic Wargamer. Use tactics and troop formations from different periods and you'll regret it. Indeed for Empire to work correct tactics and formations MUST be used, although this is not stated enough in the rules themselves.
Yes the rules are expensive, but the quality of the produce is high. Please bear in mind the authors have produced five editions throughout a period as long as the wars themselves! Each endeavouring more than the last to truly simulate history.
SUGGESTION.
The club or group of wargamers buy I set, all interested parties quietly read them, and then use the rules as an excuse to hold the next few meetings in the *local" where over a "few" you can all have your queries answered, Then and only then play the rules, I wish my little group had adopted this tactic.
THE PROBLEMS PAGE.
There are of course problems with using Empire:
a) To play a reasonably large battle well, you need a lot of people, to do justice to Waterloo about 18, playing the Army and Wing (I) commanders, Corps and Cavalry Commanders (the latter combined).
b) Complexity, yes not a set of rules you buy and play the same day (see above).
c) Big Battles need lots of cannon fodder! However, as the figure scale is 1:60, which makes battalions average out at 12 figures, it's not as bad as it could be. An "In the Grand Manner" battalion would just about make a regiment (re-based).
d) The allied "Feel bad" factor. Yes the authors, do think Napoleon was a God and the French Grande Armee the best thing since...!
However, if you adhere to the simulation doctrine and say refight Borodino and being Russian force the use of the French Imperial Guard, inflict more casualties, and/or lose fewer yourself, then YOU win the re enactment and not the French player(s).
THE SOLUTION.
IF the players just can't take the rules as they stand, you can always amend them to your liking. We in Trowbridge have several times! Hopefully this winter we will play-test the last lot!. The Fire tables, restriction on Movement, Formation change rules, have all been amended, so that less time is spent "in the Office " so to speak doing calculations.
Remember Empire is designed for Big battles, although we find ways of fighting Divisional battles quite well on a 8x4 table!
If anyone (including the Editor) is interested in printing or play testing our amendments please write in (if OK Editor)? As David wrote we need a rules forum somewhere hopefully in First Empire!
Finally, I note that David seems maybe to have contact with Scotty Bowden, if so, could he please find out whether it's true there may be an Empire Light on the horizon? If so it may encourage the use of Empire type rules, and solve the problem points raised above.
Richard Alley
Trowbridge, Wiltshire
From the Editor: Please feel free to submit any rule amendments for popular rules systems.--DW
Search for Ghastly de Ghaisnes
Dear Sir
I would appreciate your assistance in identifying sources of information as to the social and professional background of Marechal Louis August Victor Bourmont, Comte de Ghaisnes (1773- 1846), probably most often remembered as the General of Division who betrayed Napoleon on the eve of Waterloo by deserting with his staff.
Apparently de Ghaisnes was unswervingly loyal to the Monarchy even when employed by the Emperor Napoleon. One secondary source states that de Ghaisnes refused to swear an oath of per- sonal allegiance to Napoleon in 1815. In 1814 de Ghaisnes was promoted to General of Division by Napoleon for merit and apparently de Ghaisnes was twice seriously wounded prior to that. So I assume la comte had some measure of integrity, although he did not share the politics. Comte de Ghaisnes attained the rank of Marechal under the Restoration as a reward for his service in the conquest of Algeria. Does any member of de Ghaisnes' family survive today who might be able to assist with information? Thank you for your assistance.
Yours Truly,
Doran R. Henderson
Kingston, Ontario Canada
From the Editor: An excellent starting point would be Tony Linck's recently published Napoleon's Generals (of the Waterloo Campaign) which devotes some 5 pages to the dastardly Bourmont! Can anyone else assist?--DW
Overly complex rules?
Dear David,
I read with interest the eminently sensible article on wargaming by David Commerford. With all due respect to the Editor, I still feel that computers are dealing with the symptoms not the disease. The same could be said for umpires, whose purpose like the computer seems to be the smooth running of the battle. People will have gathered that I have little time for the concept of "Umpire" as a euphemism for a third player - who should be called such and have done with it. No the problem I would suggest, is overly complex ruies. And before I am damned for putting back the hobby thirty years, there is a tendency to equate complexity with accuracy. I am not sure that this equation stands up to particularly close examination. Perhaps the grail-like quest should seek rules that are both realistic and simple be they paper or computer based.
Permit me to clarify a few points. As the 'argument' was about the supposed inability of English-speaking historians to understand anything of her than English, I and others not unreasonably took exception to this. Thus the relevance of American Civil War material to the question in hand as it is largely in English (now, if the combatants diaries had been in German, Swedish Magyar, etc.... ) - seems questionable. The use of abstracts is by no means unknown in academic circles. In fact, it seems an eminently sensible approach to the problem of foreign languages. Guy C. Dempsey argues convincingly, in my opinion that the "Otto Manuscript'is a primary source. One trembles to think how John Cook comes to the conclusion that it is a secondary source. I must apologise to the readers for this repetition. I was under the impression that I had explained it clearly the first time I was evidently mistaken.
Finally, let us turn to the matter of Boney's scratcher, sorry, I mean the Emperor's Camp Bed. What about the one in the Musee de L'Armee in Paris (France)?
Toujours grognant
Magnus Guild, Edinburgh, Scoftand
Kirklees Wargames Club
Dear Sir,
I have recently been appointed Hon. Secretary of the Kirklees Wargames Club. At our recent AGM it was decided that we needed a recruitment drive to swell the coffers and, more importantly, prevent the club becoming stale. We are not a 'Napoleonic' club as such, we play most periods and scales, but there are members who do Wargame the period in 25mm and 15mm and who would like to expand this aspect of the club. We meet every Wednesday from 7p.m. onwards at Birstall Cricket Club just off the A643 Leeds Road near junction 27 of the M62, with an additional all-day meeting at the same venue on the last Sunday of each month. Further details avalable from Bill Astin on 01484 533438
Bill Astin
Bradley Huddersfield
Of Waterloo . . .
Dear Sirs,
I have been reading First Empire for some time now as a relatively new Napoleonic enthusiast and find it a very useful source of information. As a comparative beginner I can only marvel at the knowledge of some of your contributors and find that the more you learn, the more unanswered questions you finish up with.
The gems in my small but growing Napoleonic library are undoubtedly Siborne's 'History of the Waterloo Campaign' and David Chandler's 'The Campaigns of Napoleon.' The first is the most detailed and well wrtten volume I have yet come across and the second is probably the best introduction to the full scope of the major campaigns that I'll ever read.
Having read Siborne's book and several other lesser works and articles on Waterloo I am left with one or two probably extremely naive observations that others of your readership might like to comment on.
I understand that for sheer numbers the French and Allied armies at Waterloo were more or less fairly well matched, the French having a slight superiority in cavalry and a rather greater advantage in artillery, largely negated by Wellington's reverse slope deployment and the soft ground. The Allied forces were clearly a hotchpotch of nations, though the French included many inexperienced conscripts.
The overall impression one gets of the battle is that the Allied forces were constantly under extreme pressure and seemingly greatly outnumbered at various points throughout the day. How can this be?
My limited understanding of one or two of the major phases of the battle include the struggle for Hougoumont, where no more than a few battalions of Allied troops tied down the best part of an entire French corps for the whole day. On the left of the Allied position, the initial attack by the bulk of D'Erlon's corps was repulsed and pretty much cut up and damaged as an effective fighting force by 2,500 odd British heavy cavalry, who got wasted in the process, with a little help from the Allied infantry on that side of the field.
Much of the rest of the battle seems to be taken up with repeated attacks by wave after wave of French cavalry against the Allied infantry squares. During this contest it seems to me that the French cavalry probably sustained far worse damage and casualties than the Allied infantry ever did.
During these attacks the Allies appear to have been able to muster only pockets of friendly cavalry to try to counter and drive off the French horsemen in between each assault. Apart from the British heavy cavalry there were apparently five other brigades of British and King's Gemman Legion cavalry on the field, numbering perhaps 6,000 troopers and a further 4-4,500 admittedly less reliable Allied cavalry. Where were these during the actions involving the greater part of the French cavalry on the field that day? As far as I can tell only the Cumberland Hussars, numbering approx. 497 actually deserted during the battle.
I have read that Bylandt's Brigade of Dutch Belgians, numbering perhaps 3,200 infantry gave way under concentrated artillery fire, and who can blame them, taking no further active part in the battle. There are references to a number of other Allied units considered to be suspect but I don't recall reading of any other large bodies of troops completely giving way or leaving the field. In fact a number of Allied units, such as the Nassau troops, distinguished themselves.
Also, the Allies occupied a strong defensive position, necessitating a fairly stiff uphill trek for the attacking French columns and on reaching the Allied troops, invariably found themselves at the disadvantage of facing infantry in line ready to fire against their packed, vulnerable columns.
Then we have Plancenoit, where the whole of Lobau's small corps of perhaps 7,000 men plus some 4,000 Imperial Guards i.e. 1/5th of Napoleon's effective infantry, were taken away from the main battlefront to halt the advancing Prussians.
It strikes me that because of the dispositions of the French troops and their battle strategy, there ought to have been significant areas of the main battlefront where the Allies actually enjoyed a superiority of numbers at various stages of the battle and that there ought to have been more than adequate reserves to be able to plug any gaps that might occur.
How is it then that we get this image of the thin red line of British infantry, barely supported by a few insignificant units of cavalry, resisting hordes of French infantry and cavalry? At one point the only thing standing between Brussels and the whole French army appears to have been a few decimated battalions of Picton's division. Surely the Allies must have been able to occupy as large a battlefront as the French in view of the approximately equal numbers of troops, so why were these the only units on this part of the field, even taking into account Bylandt's retreat?
Finally, is anyone able to tell me precisely how many squadrons each of the British and Allied cavalry regiments were actually made up of?
Yours faithfully,
Stephen P Brennan,
Watford Herts
More on Larrey
Dear Sirs,
The letter of David O'Connor printed in FE 24 regarding medical services caused me to revisit some old favourites from my library. I recommend that Mr. O'Connor obtain a copy of Colonel Elting's Swords Around A Throne: Napoleon's Grande Ammee (Macmillan, New York. 1988). Chapter XIV "Wherever a Comrade May Need My Help" deals with the French medical service.
Mr. O'Connor asked what uniform "if any" Baron Larrey wore during the Waterloo campaign and how he received his wound. Colonel Elting writes: There was a definite international aspect to the military medicine of this period. Physicians and surgeons of all nationalities worked together, whether as allies or enemies. French doctors much admired the Prussian Surgeon General Johannes Goercke, Percy persuading Napoleon to provide funds for a medical school Goercke was conducting in 1805.
And in 1815, lingering to care for the wounded after Waterloo, Larrey was cut down beaten, robbed, and stripped by Prussian uhlans who dragged him -- almost naked and with his hands bound - before a Prussian general. The general ordered him shot, and the firing squad was forming up when a passing Prussian surgeon recognised Larrey and threw himself in front of the poised muskets.
In a footnote to this passage Colonel Elting speculates "Possibly it was a case of mistaken identity; Larrey somewhat resembled Napoleon and was wearing a gray overcoat."
An illustration of the uniforms of French surgeons appears in Osprey's Men-At-Arms Series #199: Napoleon's Specialist Troops as plate "H". Because of his unique rank, Baron Larrey had a uniform uniquely his own. Bryan Fosten's illustration shows a uniform somewhat similar to that of a General of Brigade. I expect that the Baron would remove his jacket before conducting surgery!
R.G. Richardson wrote a biography entitled Farmcarts To Fords: A History of The Military
Ambulance 1790-1925 (Southern Illinois University Press. 1992) by John S. Haller, Jr. only has four pages dealing with our period. But I suggest that you borrow a copy if your interest in military medicine extends through these periods.
It appears that the administrative staff had a reputation for dishonesty and the orderlies had a reputation for lack of motivation despite Napoleon's very real concern to provide medical
services. Colonel Elting gives some examples of interest.
Philip Haythomthwaite's well presented
Napoleonic Source Book (Facts On File, New York, 1990) only has three pages under the handing "Medical Services" but includes a brief bibliography with reference to sources near contemporary to Napoleon's time.
I hope that this brief survey may be of some assistance to Mr.O'Connor and other readers.
Yours Truly
Doran R. Henderson, Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire 26 This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Kingston, Ontario Canada
© Copyright 1996 by First Empire.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com