Words & Music; Marshal's Seniority; Lodi Fortifications...; "Patent nonsense"; Hofschröer & Aide de Camp... absolutely superb!; Granduchy of Frankfurt - Principality
since 1810
; and How Old is Old?
.
Words & Music
Dear Mr Watkins,
I would be most obliged if you could help me. I have been advised by Mr. Richard Rutherford-Moore (aka "Rifleman Moore") that your magazine may be able to help me in my quest ... I am searching for a Peninsular song in old Portuguese, mentioned in one of the original "Sharpe" books:-
"Ahe Marmont, Onde vai Marmont"
I have communicated (without success) with his Grace the Duke of Wellington, upon this irreverent soldiers' song about the follies of the French General Marmont in Spain).
Similarly, I have written to the Portuguese, Spanish and French Embassies, but unfortunately only the Portuguese Embassy answered, to say that they knew nothing about the song.
I believe I heard the song some years ago in a Television comedy-drama about Paris in the 'naughty nineties' (late 19th Century). So the song appears to have been absorbed into the repertoire of travelling players after the Peninsular War.
I have a very faint memory (tickling away at the edges of my consciousness), that this comedy-drama was by Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle, and about two girls in a country orphanage in France ... the more dominant one leaves and becomes a music hall singer in Paris, only to return years later to the orphanage to die of consumption, and she then takes over the other girl's body.
Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle was interested in spiritualism, so I may have remembered the author and plot correctly, or am I thinking of the French author Guy De Maupassant?
I do not know if the song was in the original short story, but I would imagine that the person who dramatised it for TV, added the song as being evocative of the period circa 1870-1890.
So, if you or anyone else with the "First Empire" can locate the words and music to this song. I would be very pleased
Frank John Snelling BA(Hons),
Southampton, Hampshire.
Dear Dave,
I have some questions which I hope other F.E. readers will be able to help with:-
1. I would like to know if somebody can supply a list in seniority of the French Marshals. Were those of the original 1804 appointment considered of higher seniority than later Marshals or were ability, age or honours the main factor? For example, did Grouchy, Napoleon's last appointment, come at the bottom of the scale in the seniority stakes?
2. I am searching for any information on Captain Ramsey of the Artillery, who won great fame at the Battle of Fuentes de Onoro but was killed at Waterloo.
3. Does anybody know if the original soundtrack to the 1970 Dino de Laurentiis epic "Waterloo" is available to buy on CD? My search so far has proved fruitless.
4. Did the Exploring Officers as seen it ITV'S "Sharpe" series really exist? I thought the role of intelligence gathering was left to the Light Cavalry?!
I hope that your more experienced researchers will be able to help out a grateful amateur such as myself.
Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year!
C. Burley,
Dronfield,
Sheffield,
Sir,
with reference to "First Empire" nr. 32 may I propose some answers to some questions in the article "The Battle of Lodi" by John Walsh. There were city walls in Lodi on the western side of the Adda and some buildings on the eastern side of the river inside an old fortification - an unserviceable bridge-head.
I found the following iconographic sources:
1. A painting by Baron Lejeune "Bataille de Lodi" (Musée de Versailles) with a gate of the city walls In the background You can see it in Tranié/Carmigiani "Naploeon Bonaparte - 1ère campagne d'ltalie" page 68/87.
2. A gouche by Bacler d'Albe - the intimate staff member of the Emperor - "Le passage du pont de lodi" (Ministère de la Défense SHAT). There are visible the buildings on the eastern side. (Tranié/Carmigiani op.cit. page 69.
3. But the best source is a magnificent model of The battle of Lodi (1m65 x 1m35) in the Army Museum in Paris. There you can see the city walls, the old bridge-head and the buildings inside very clearly. The model was made by command of Napoleon and finished in 1805(!). You can find a picture of this model in "Les Armées à l'Epoque Révolutionaire 1789-1804" edited by the Collections Historiques du Musée de l'Armée, page 96.
The best source for the OB of Hohenlinden 1800 is Ernest Picard "Hohenlinden", Paris 1909.
With many thanks for your excellent magazine.
Mag. Herbert Zima
Vienna
Austria
Related: Letter to Editor #34
Dear David,
Thanks for publishing my last letter, especially as it turned out a bit long-winded. Re Peter Hofschröer's letter in First Empire 32:
Since Peter Hofschröer did not challenge Peter Gibbs' attribution of the 'idiotic' quote to Napoleon in his letter in FE 30, I somewhat naturally assumed he accepted that it was genuine.
Actually, for the purpose of our discussion, it is perhaps not that important whether or not Napoleon made such a comment because as Peter H. more colourfully put it, Napoleon could have been wrong. But it is strange that he now accuses me of "misunderstanding" for not attaching enough attention to this secondary point which seemingly only came to Peter himself as a belated afterthought.
As for the question whether Peter Gibbs source was accurate in his assessment of the pre 1806 Prussian high command, Peter Hofschröer merely repeats what he said in FE 30 without answering my comments (apart from a couple of purely rhetorical jabs). He still says the anomalous example of Scharnhorst is all that is needed to prove that artillerymen were not kept out of higher command. Oh yes, Scharnhorst, as the Duke of Brunswick's chief of staff, is now supposed to have been "the second in command of the Prussian army" in 1806, a statement for which I'm tempted to use Peter's own phrase, "patent nonsense". It is a sorry second in command if supreme command does not devolve to him when the first in command is incapacitated and who finds himself entirely occupied with a minor task like overseeing the operations of one division as Scharnhorst did at Auerstädt.
Tilman Stieve
Aachen-Orsbach
Germany
P.S. Peter Hofshcröer's article on Ligny was most interesting!
Hofschröer & Aide de Camp... absolutely superb!
Dear David,
Once again I would like to congratulate you on 32ème First Empire. The highlight was the Peter Hofschröer article. It was a joy to read and highly informative. The full bibliography complete with his personal insight was worth reading alone. I did feel, however, that the article needed one or more maps to aid the reader.
Also, the Aide de Camp feature is absolutely superb.
Keep up the good work.
Phil Nicholls
Gorleston
Norfolk.
Granduchy of Frankfurt - Principality since 1810
Dear sir,
Mr.Cook is right when he thinks "that
the Principality of Frankfurt and the Free City of Frankfurt were
separate entities "(FF 31. p.6). At least originally in 1789
when all the turmoil started: then the town Frankfurt was one
of the many Reichsstädte (the cited Free City) of the "Holy
Roman Empire of German Nations" meaning that it was not subject
to any of the German princes. The territory around Aschaffenburg
on the Main which was later to form the nucleus of the "Principality
of Frankfurt" was the right Rhine side part of the archibishopric
/ electorate [1] of Mainz. The other part on the left side of the
Rhine with the capital and important fortress of Mainz and was
lost to France in 1797. After the War of the Second Coalition
this was confirmed by the Treaty of Luneville in 1801. So when
Dalberg (1744 - 1817) stepped into the light of history he was
in fact archibishop of Mainz. (Since 25 July 1802.)
Germany's loss of all its territories
on left side of the Rhine to France by the Luneville treaty served
as a pretext for the Reichs-deputations-hauptschluss in 1803:
there the German Princes agreed how to divide between themselves
Germany' s many clerical states and free cities. Of the hitherto
51 free cities just 6 kept their independence: e.g. Bremen, Hamburg
and Frankfurt. And of the clerical states Dalberg's was the only
one to survive this process. Perhaps in respect to the archibishop
of Mainz's traditional higher position; it was his to crown the
German King/Emperor. His now small territory around, Aschaffenburg/Main
was enlarged by the former bishopric of Regensburg and the county
of Wetzslar. He received the meaningless title of "Kurerzkanzler"
(literally elector- archchancellor).
With the breakdown of the old empire
and the formation of the Rheinbund in 1806 ended this dignity.
Yet he was made "Fürst-Primas" (prime prince/first
prince) of the Rheinbund with the right to preside over the "Bundesversrammlung"
(assembly of the Confederation). At the same instance he was
given the town Frankfurt. In 1807 he moved his residence from
Aschaffenburg to Frankfurt the seat of the Rheinbund. In 1810
he ceded far away Regensburg to Bavaria receiving neighbouring
Hanau and Fulda and the title "Grossherzog" (Grand Duke)
with the obligation to accept Eugene de Beauharnais as successor.
In November 1813 after Leipzig he laid down the dignity of Grand
Duke and retired to the archbishopric of Regensburg. By the Vienna
peace treaty of 1815 the enlarged territory around Aschaffenburg
went to Bavaria and the town of Frankfurt became a Free City again.
Karl Theodeor Anton Maria Freiherr von
Dalberg had been born into an old Franconian noble family on 8
February 1744 at the family castle Hernsheim near Worms. He had
been designated to the clergy. In 1762 he graduated in law at
the university of Heidelberg. Since 1768 he had held positions
in several ecclesiastical administrations. Moving up in the ecclesiastical
hierarchy as well he was made Archbishop of Mainz in 1802. Aged
62 in 1806 he was a man of the 18th century. His many writings
show superficial and unclear thinking. He honestly believed to
be able to rebuild Germany by supporting Napoleon. Yet he wanted
the best and even 19th century nationalistic historiography concedes
that he was a noble character. On 10 February 1817 he died in
Regensburg aged 73.
[1] Rulers of electorates - electors -
as their title conveys were entitled to elect the German King/Emperor.
In 1789 there were 8 electorates: 3 clerical (Trier, Köln,
Mainz) and 5 secular ones (Bohemia, Brandenburg, Saxony, Hannover,
Bavaria).
Vienna,
Austria
Dear Sirs,
I read with interest Tilman Stieve's points in FE 32 on my review of Esdaile's latest. His piece was well written and argued, and I do not wish to confuse such eloquent assertions with documented facts, but perhaps the following comments will be of interest:
1) The Age of Prussian Generals and Staff Officers, 1806 vs.1870.
Tilman's point that "... elderly [Prussian] generals [in 1864-71] were complimented or offset by younger chiefs of staff..." deserves further examination.
The Prussian Main Army in 1806 was commanded by the Duke of Brunswick (aged 70). His chief was Scharnhorst (aged 51). The I Army in 1870 was commanded by Steinmetz (aged 74), whose chief was Sperling (aged 56).
The Elder Molkte, architect of the Prussian victories in the Wars of Unification (1864-1871) was, in 1870, chief-of-staff to the King of Prussia, aged 73. Moltke was 70 years old at the time of his greatest accomplishments.
If I follow Tilman's argument correctly, then Brunswick, aged 70, and with a chief aged 51, was too old for the task in hand. His counterparts in 1870 did better because a 73 year old supreme commander had a younger staff officer, one aged 70. Thus a 70 year old man in 1870 was apparently more able than a 51 year old man in 1806 only because he was younger than his commander, when a 51 year old man in 1806 was apparently not younger than his 70 year old commander. Please forgive me if I do not follow the logic of that argument. I apologise again for having confused Tilman's assertion with facts.
The divisional chiefs in Brunswick's army in 1806 held the rank of lieutenant or captain and were aged between 29 and 39.
Both the corps chiefs in Steinmetz's army held the rank of colonel, and Witzendorf was aged 46; I have not been able to ascertain Anger's age. The divisional chiefs, whose ages I have not been able to ascertain, held the rank of captain or major and were unlikely to be as youthful as the chiefs in 1806. Perhaps Tilman would care to investigate the matter further.
Brunswick's divisional commanders were aged between 34 and 68. Steinmetz's divisional commanders were aged between 55 and 61 (I have not been able to ascertain Zastrow's age). The average age of Brunswick's divisional commanders was 57; that of Steinmetz's was also 57.
Brunswick's chiefs certainly appeared to have been much younger than Steinmetz's, so, if anything, the facts would seem to indicate that the Prussian senior command in 1806 was more youthful than that in 1870. What is then, the basis in fact of Tilman's assertion?
I think Tilman needs to look into this point in more detail before making such sweeping generalisations which can be so easily disputed. The differences between the Prussian senior command of 1806 and that of 1870 would appear to be that there were not as many young generals and young staff officers in 1870 as there were in 1806. It is strange how so many historians argue that the Prussian senior command in 1806 was too old, yet the victorious and older general staff of 1870 was apparently not too old.
2) The Youngest Senior Commanders in 1806 were in the Prussian Army.
Tilman suggests that by comparing the ages of Prussian generals in 1806 and 1870, I avoid "... the more obvious comparison with the French general officers' ages", but then himself fails to point out that the youngest senior commander in the campaign was the Prussian Prince Louis Ferdinand, aged 33, that the Prince of Orange, aged 34, a divisional commander in the Prussian army, was the second youngest, and that Scharnhorst, Brunswick's chief-of-staff, aged 51, was younger than Berthier, Napoleon's chief, who was aged 53.
Despite the unusual relative youth of the Napoleonic marshalate in 1806, the youngest senior commanders were in the Prussian army. Again, I am sorry that the facts conflict with Tilman's argument.
3) The Senior Command in 1870 contained officers that were too old.
Tilman's claim that: "... officers [in 1870] who had outlived their usefulness were systematically weeded out ..." is also questionable. May I suggest he read something about Steinmetz's activities at the beginning of hostilities in 1870.
4) More than two Prussian generals of 1806 held senior command in later campaigns.
Tilman's comment that: "Peter Hofschroer's reference to the fact that 'certain Prussian generals of 1806 vintage again held field command in the campaigns of 1813-15' in all honesty only applies to Blucher and Tauentzien" is, of course, incorrect. Duke Charles August of Saxe-Weimar, a Prussian general since 1802, who commanded Brunswick's vanguard in 1806, went on to command the III German Army Corps in 1814. Not to be forgotten are Grawert, a divisional commander in 1806, who commanded the Prussian Auxilary Corps in Russia in 1812, and L'Estocq who commanded the Prussians at Eylau in 1807.
A lack of time due to professional commitments prevents me from commenting further on Tilman's remarks. I would, however, suggest he read the following:
Jany: Geschichte der Preusischen Armee, Dritter Band, reprinted Osnabruck 1967.
Fiedler: Napoleon gegen Preusen, Munich 1978.
Priesdorff: Soldatisches Fuhrertum.
I hope my comments have been of interest.
Yours faithfully,
Peter Hofschroer, Rietberg, Germany.
Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #33
© Copyright 1997 by First Empire.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com