Letters on: More Site Reports; Reply to Markham; Offending Letters; the Time Zones; Where is the Research?; More Site Reports Please Dear Dave Once again FE 35eme was a damn fine read. I think that it is the variety of contributors that ensure something for everyone. The two eyewitness accounts of Napoleonic battle sites were most enjoyable. It is these vivid descriptions of important sites that help us to imagine what it must have been like to fight there during the period. Obviously narratives of the battle in question provide the grounding, but these personal accounts give a real sense of the location. I urge any reader to provide an account of their visit to a Napoleonic site in the same manner as Bernhard Voykowitsch. As for what else to include in FE Dave, the only thing that I can think of is book reviews. Given the amount of Napoleonic literature available, reviews are very helpful in deciding what to buy. Well that is all for now, Keep up the good work. All the best Phil Nicholls, Gorleston, Norfolk Back to top of Dispatches In Reply to Markham Dear Dave David Markham in Issue 35 responded to John Salmon's challenge that Napoleon's failure as a statesman is more than offset by his remarkable domestic achievements as an innovative head of state. He supports it with many facts, proving incontrovertibly the magnificent memorial that exists to Napoleon in the modern French state. I should like to add a few more points: A large part of the world is indebted to Napoleon for initiating the metric system. Curiously our American cousins have not seen fit to adopt it but still use a version of the Imperial (!) system. For this reason my country's adoption of it is sadly only partial. Napoleon, like the East Germans in DDR days was quite prepared to take certain things from the old regime and adapt them to the new. For example, instead of "Lettres de Cachet" he introduced a similar system but called it "Administrative arrest." He was quick to see the advantage of "la nouvelle aristocratie" as a reward for good behaviour and loyal service. The system was carefully graded from the Prince of Essling (Massena) and the Duc de Raguse (Marmont) to the hapless Governor Barrié of Ciudad Rodrigo - a lowly Baron. The most powerful example of this innovation was of course the upgrading of the Monarch to Emperor. As in the "ancien régime" urban workers were required to carry passbooks. (Shades of the Apartheid regime.) Theatrical and press censorship was rife. Sixty newspapers were closed down in the imperial era. Dissent was not tolerated. Disobedient offspring could be imprisoned for one month if under 16 years and for six months if between 16 and 21. An interesting concept seen in terms of 20th century social problems world-wide. Under the Code Napoléon, married women lost the right to make contracts or to litigate. They could only sue for divorce if the husband's mistress was brought into the matrimonial home. If a woman committed adultery she could be sued by her husband and imprisoned for up to two years. Would David see this as a satisfactory way of "solving domestic problems" I wonder? An element of social control was exercised over religious bodies in that salaries of priests of whatever denomination were paid by the state. The Legislative Corps and the Senate were merely consultative chambers, staffed with carefully chosen members. Again, no possibility for dissent. On 16th February 1800 the local government function was reduced to that of a rubber stamp. Mayors and their deputies of towns with more than 5,000 people were to be directly appointed by the 1st Consul (Napoleon) while officials of smaller entities were to be named by the local prefect, who had presumably been appointed by the 1st Consul. David said that Napoleon turned round the national finances. This may well have been so on the home front. But the great man's wars were often self-financing, and paid for by plundering the conquered territories with the money/treasures being sent back to France. King Ferdinand's pictures, intercepted by the English, was one example. Another one, having captured Ciudad Rodrigo, Marshal Ney levied a hefty fine on its hapless citizens. Seen in the light of history, David's quotation from Napoleon that "Success as a general is worthless if you cannot put those successes to good use as a statesman," is a curious one. No country has ever had such a magnificent legacy from a head of state as has France from Napoleon, although he lost the war with Europe. David's remark about the "anciens régimes" of Europe being corrupt etc., is an unconvincing justification for the appalling loss of life resulting from Napoleon's military adventures. (The Craufurd family lost its most famous member at Ciudad Rodrigo, and a young Guards Captain at Waterloo.) I prefer my country's gradualist evolutionary approach to democracy, achieved over a long period of years. I hate to say it but the great man's desire to dominate Europe has unhappy echoes in the 20th century - Hitler, Galtieri, and Saddam Hussein. What would the American- inspired United Nations have had to say about Napoleon's interference in the internal affairs of countries other than his own! In any case, was Napoleon really democratic? The nearest 20th century French equivalent of any stature was General de Gaulle. He put proposed constitutional reforms to the French people in a referendum. The answer was "Non", so the great man retired from public life. Would Napoleon have done likewise? I fancy not. Sadly it needed the Battle of Waterloo (narrowly won by the Allies) with even more loss of life to end his vast contribution to French public life. Who knows what other interesting domestic developments there might have been had Napoleon confined his activities to within national boundaries. Yours sincerely Mrs Jane Craufurd Hoyle Reply Letter FE#37 Back to top of Dispatches The Offending Letters Dear Editor, Just a few comments on FE 34. 1) The "offending" letter. For the record, I should point out that the "offending" letter on which John Cook and Robert Swan have commented recently was never written in the form it was published. Rather, the editor combined two e-mails I sent him, one of which was intended for publication, and one of which was not. Granted I did not make this clear to the editor (which I have remedied in subsequent communications). Combining the two diluted the effect and gave the wrong impression. The editor and myself often exchange humorous e-mails in which we endeavour to pull each others' leg. Invariably, the editor loses the exchange. One of the e-mails that formed part of the "offending" letter was intended to be part of one of these exchanges. 2) Hollins' Waterloo comment. Sorry, I disagree with the comment "What, aside from the Prussian input I suppose, remains to be said about Waterloo?" A century and a half ago, the elder Siborne made a determined effort to use as much primary source material as possible in his classic narrative of the campaign. His work distinguished itself from the popular literature of the period, and set a precedence that has yet to be superseded by any English-language works. Netherlands and German general staff historians wrote their official histories at the turn of the century, using archive material that had become available subsequently to Siborne's researches. There never was and never has been a British equivalent. Instead, most British works on the campaign subsequent to Siborne's consist in part of the regurgitation of certain myths based on the drug inspired hallucinations of an unwell Napier and misleading off-the-record statements made by the Duke of Wellington that he never intended to be published, let alone form the basis of "historical" accounts. Of course, not included in this general assessment of British Waterloo literature are the recently-published fantasies of another unwell person. While the Dutch archives were destroyed by Allied bombing in the Second World War, and the Prussian archives are considered to have suffered a similar fate, it is rather ironic that, thanks to computer technology, lists of all known papers in Britain - both in public and private possession - can be obtained via the internet. There is a substantial body of unused and unpublished British material on the Waterloo campaign to which Siborne never had access, and there is a good opportunity for a good deal more to be said from the point of view of British participants. In view of the "Waterloo industry" that exists in Britain, it is surprising that writers on the subject continue to prefer to repeat their pet myths (easy to copy somebody else) rather than base their accounts on previously unused archive material (sounds like hard work). 3) Jaeger and Rifles. I sympathise with John Cook's comments on light infantry armaments made in his review of Lynn's Bayonets of the Republic. Rifles were pretty expensive technology, so smoothbores were often used by parts of "rifle" units. However, John is wrong to compare a German Jaeger (hunting) rifle with the British Baker. The German hunting rifle was an individually made weapon, often double-triggered, that recruited gamekeepers brought with them when doing their military service. The German Schuetzengewehr, a mass-produced rifled carbine, was the equivalent of the Baker. Hope my comments were of interest. Yours sincerely, Peter Hofschröer Rietberg, Germany Back to top of Dispatches Napoleonic Time Zones Dear Sirs, In a letter published some time ago, Peter Hofschröer criticised my source "How Napoleonic wars were won" by Townsend Warner as obscure, so I thought I would furnish him with some biographical details. George Townsend Warner M.A. was a fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge and the master of the Modern side in Harrow school. The book was published in 1915 to educate schoolboys to become officers - arguably with more success than their German counterparts! Parts of the work were originally published in the 'Blackwoodmagazine'. Unfortunately Townsend Warner does not list his sources, but he does give thanks to Colonel F.N. Maude CB (Late RE) P.S.C., (a source recommended by Peter Hofschröer), for his assistance, particularly with the chapter on 1806 I hope this will close this particular line of debate. A more interesting topic was raised by a conversation I had with Peter at the Napoleonic Fair this year about time keeping in the Napoleonic wars. Does any reader have further information on this subject? How did they do it? What time zones then existed and were they used? I do know that Paris during the Napoleonic wars had five different time zones. We all know that the Russian and Austrian armies used different calendars in the 1800s with major effect on their campaigns. So, for example, what time zone did Bluecher and Wellington work to? Did they attempt to synchronise it between them? Could this be the cause of some of the confusion between the two commands? When we read today that the Imperial Guard attacked at 19.30, or that French Infantry began their day's march at 4.30 in the morning, is it something equivalent to European Standard Time or Greenwich Mean Time or something else? So please, can someone out there give us some more information on this fascinating topic. Peter C. Gibbs Broseley, Shropshire More Time Zones in FE#37 Back to top of Dispatches Where is the Research? Dear Sir, I noted with interest the reference in Jeff Lewis's first letter in FE35 to 'some newer research . . . that the two deep line was a matter of . . . when understrength and / or deploying skirmishers.' Would it be possible to provide details as to where this research is published? Thanks in anticipation. Yours, Keith Webb, Market Harborough, Leics. Back to top of Dispatches Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #36 Back to First Empire List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © 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