Dispatches
Letters to the Editor
from First Empire Readers
 |
A Great Mag Dear Dave, Just a quick note to say how much I'm enjoying the magazine. I generally get to read it first via MagWeb and wait for the "hardcopy" to slowly wend its way to me. In particular I'd like to echo Phil Lawrence's praise for Howie Muir's article. Howie often posts similar quality information and questions on the Napoleon Series Forum and it was good to see what he can do on a larger canvas. John Cook's articles on skirmishers are another highlight for me. Please keep it coming. On a more sober note, though, there does seem to be a division between authors based upon which side of the pond they come from. Personally, I am confused as to why there seems to be this friction. For whatever reason, people seem to be particularly sensitive to comments made by the "other" side, be it in the pages of this magazine, on the net or just about anywhere. What could have been a funny rejoinder has been seen as a sarcastic snarl. Personal attacks have crept into letters. There's even attacks on the "language" each side uses. It's gone well beyond rivalry. Why? Being a citizen of a nation that has beaten the US in battle (102nd Regt. Foot (New South Wales Corps) in the 1812-14 spat) and the British in any sport you care to name (have I insulted everyone involved, yet?) all I can say is that watching the "runners-up" fight it out is more disturbing than funny for this Aussie spectator. Seriously, these gents have the good fortune to be considered as "The Authorities" on this period and related matters. Points of view will always vary, but it's no need for them to go to war with each other. I don't expect everyone to be friends, but the slanging match is worrying. Personal attacks or attacks on the use of language diminishes the attacker, probably more than the target. Especially when none of them uses dinkum English properly anyways. Lastly, on Peter Hofschröer's book. Regardless of whether he got it right or wrong (and I favour the former opinion), the sheer amount of vindictive attacks that have gone his way via magazines, newspapers and on the net is amazing. You could almost suspect he's struck a very sensitive nerve. Maybe the more excitable of his detractors should take a Valium or 10, calm down and try making a reasoned rebuttal (as per this very magazine), sans spluttering and literary tantrums? Now, I'm just going to grab a tin hat and go lay doggo for a while. Hopefully the fireworks will have died down before the next issue arrives. Dallas Gavan On Ugo Pericoli I am very interested in Ugo Pericoli's military costume design for the 1970 film Waterloo (Dino De Laurentis production) - any idea where I can find more info? Do you know of any web pages? On CD ROMs Dave, On a recent visit to France I visited Fontainebleau. Amongst the various books and items for sale in the gift shop, I noticed a CD rom on Napoleon and the Napoleonic Wars. Having already spent a fortune on various Napoleonic books and bits and pieces at the various other sites that I had visited I decided that I would wait until I returned to the UK to order the CD. Having returned and lost the piece of paper on which I had written the title etc. I've tried unsuccessfully to find the CD rom. Have you come across such a CD before and if so do you know the name and manufacturer? Finally do you know of any other CD rom games with a Napoleonic flavour other than the Talonsoft Battleground series? Sorry to ask so many questions. dmileshussar@easynet.co.uk 88th Foot - Connaught Rangers Dave, In confirmation of our telephone conversation, I am presently conducting research on the Connaught Rangers with a view to creating a re-enactment unit. I would greatly appreciate any information or contacts you may suggest concerning Peninsular uniforms. rja@bvemx.ppco.com A Large Waterloo Exhibition We are proud to present a wonderful exhibition in the castle Sommerschenburg. Between Brunswick and Magdeburg, Germany. I gathered a group of enthusiastic collectors of figures in 1:72 scale (22mm).We organised a diorama exhibition of the Waterloo battle on June 18th 1815. We have two dioramas. Each measures 6 Meter x 3,50 Meter. Our intention was to bring nearly 30.000 painted figures onto the dioramas. A couple of little dioramas always is shown. We use plastic-figures from Airfix to H T. Some compatible tin figures in scale 1:72 always are present on the "battle field". Special figures from little German producers, which are not available as plastics. Napoleon, Wellington, Blücher, marching French in long coats and so on. Why the castle of Sommerschenburg? This castle was a present of the King of Prussia to the count Neidhardt von Gneisenau for his merits in the Napoleonic Wars. In the park of the castle there is a monument and a mausoleum, where Gneisenau found his last rest. The dioramas where fully new creations special for this exhibition. Onto the dioramas you will find the Hougoumont, La Haye Sainte, Papelotte, La Belle Alliance and the town Plancenoit. We show different highlights of the battle, united onto one large scene. The attack of Hougoumont, the large French cavalry charge against the allied squares, the attack of La Haye Sainte. The complete left allied flank, the attack of the corps D'Erlon, the attack of Papelotte, the arrival of Prussian troops at Plancenoit. All important points of the Waterloo terrain are modelled. The Sand pit at La Haye Sainte, the hollow way of Ohain, the hill in the south of Mont Saint Jean, where Wellington placed his troops and so on. The view of the dioramas is fantastic and all collectors which visited the exhibition where very impressed face to face with the masses of troops and the shaping of the dioramas. Maybe it is for interest for your magazine. If yes I will send you photos of the exhibition. The exhibition is opened from august 1998 until march 1999, Saturday 14.00 -18.00, Sunday 10.00 - 17.00 any questions to organiser Jensnaje@aol.com Quest for Historical Exactitude in History/Tactics First of all, I want to thank you for your magazines and the like, I wish we had the same in France and I must give credit to the English people for this passion for history. I'm here trying to plead for unbiased history and it is probably hopeless but nevertheless I thought I should try to give my message. I'm a French man who has a true passion for history and a particular interest for the Napoleonic period. As one would guess, as I started reading about this period of history I naturally purchased books written by French historians and I did read a lot of them until it became obvious I should read books written by foreign historians, not surprisingly versions here differed from French books sometimes greatly. It was not too difficult to understand the underlying bias in the said French books and probably in the others as well, but then it is up to you to make up your own mind and also hope you can find historians worth of interest and trust. I, therefore, went on buying more and more foreign books to the point where my library of books is now much larger in English written books than any other. I here recognise that English and American write a lot about the period and with a lot of new "recent" writings from Chandler, Duffy, Haythornthwaite, Keegan, Nosworthy, Muir, Elting, Nafziger, Bowden . . . and often of high quality which I can not in France other than in having to purchase hard to find, out of print, books from the 30's from talented historians like Colin, Camon, Houssaye, Grouard .... I did come to understand the importance of British troops in the final defeat of Napoleon and value their field and moral qualities as well as the tactical genius of Wellington. However, the redundant trumpeting of many, should 1 say the very large majority, of English writers finally made it somewhat questionable, I have to admit that I got very confused with what appears to me as strong English bias to the point where it's confusing and at times comical, I don't have here the space to go in further detail which I would love to do, but basically, One has to take for granted that English troops were the best and I'm truly all ready to take it as long as 1 can find sound and material evidence of it. Whichever English writer will go on with the repetitive if tiring terms of steady-standing power ... 1 forget "never ever defeated". When one reads about the Peninsula it sounds like a walking party with rolling victories from Talavera to Bussaco, Fuentes de Onoro, Albuera, Salamanca, Vittoria, Toulouse ... Of course it is a whole different story when you read French historians, Fuentos de Onoro and Toulouse become French victories and Talavera and Albuera hard fought draws. Now, one will have to explain how the "small" tie never quite overwhelmed in numbers on the battlefield) professional British army greatly assisted by the devastating effect of guerrilla on French moral, consistent supply (opposed to difficult French foraging), rivalry between French marshals, little artillery for the French compared to the central European fronts have managed, in spite of "incessant victories", to take 6 long years to come to terms with the French troops, not even really since it was in fact because of the final defeat of Napoleon in the North at the hands of troops far inferior to the British , hardly impressive when one considers that it barely took I year for Bonaparte with its depleted amateur army to defeat the all powerful Austrian army. I'm sorry but I truly find it difficult to identify this British performance with a historical feat and the illustration of British superiority, so where is the truth ? English writers have come with very interesting analysis and 1 do admire it but I have a difficult time to find any credibility when it comes to English tactics. Superiority of line over column, better skirmishing tactics, British cavalry defeating the French counterparts breaking plenty of squares and blah blah! .. but statistics did show the minor effect of fire power, volleying and charging.. if it were true why didn't we see crushing defeats or shorter campaigns and the arguments for Wellington misusing its cavalry don't do it either? What do we do of New Orleans in Jan 08, 1 8 15 in America, of the Buenos Aires fiasco on July 05, 1807 , of the hasty retreats after Salamanca or of Moore in 1808 . Napoleon was never on a front which he never judged essential, wrong it proved, but nonetheless he never was there except in 1808 when he pushed the English to the sea, Wellington had no exclusivity in beating French marshals, in 18 13 following Jomini's advice Prussian/Austria and Russian general retreated when faced by Napoleon and only confronted Napoleon's marshals which they systematically beat. do we take it as the evidence that these troops where far superior to the French ? I enjoy reading your magazine as well of others, but it became pretty pathetic when I had to read the critics for S. Bowden book. Austerlitz, It did not come as a surprise with people like P. Griffith whose bias is long well known and laughable if I did not think that he does invest a long time and devotion into his work but I was greatly disappointed by D. Chandler who I genuinely appreciate, somehow his comments made me understand that he was no different, I hope to be wrong and that it was only overreacting . I really wish I could find evidence if it exists about this theoretical British superiority because it would justify all these analysis and conclusions but when trying to take a more general view it just does not work. So where is the truth, probably in part in lack of writing from Napoleonic soldiers of the Peninsula and not enough research from French historians, in lack of humility from British historians. I find it critical when one knows the impact it can have on the reading of history by the general audience with this supposed assumption of French volatility and British steadiness, What of the debacles of British arms in Singapore (whom the Japanese said they could not regard them as soldiers since the did not "fight") or when facing E. Rommel until his supply was so depleted or when retiring at Dunkirk covered by French rearguard, the volatile ones !! I do somehow believe that you are out there for credible history but give me a clue because I can not find the English material credible enough and for god sake it sure looks good and is indeed very good as long as it is limited to the analysis/comparison of French arms and tactics to the non English ones. The lack of non English writers is surely the first that we should be blamed for but since you English writers are so prolific and passionate in this period of history and I believe talented, can I please ask for more objectivity, it will only give more credibility to the ideas you defend when assessing the very qualities of English arms. And please don't take it wrong I do not mean to insult, I'm looking for believable answers. Breuillet, France Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #44 Back to First Empire List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1999 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 |
