Dispatches
Letters to the Editor
by the readers
 |
Gen. de Division Girard (m.w. at Ligny), a Duke?Occasionally over the years, I have read that General de Division Jean-Baptiste Girard, commander of 7 Division of II Corps (Reille's), was created Duke of Ligny by Napoleon I for his services at Ligny. If so, it was certainly deserved, but I have never been able to determine whether this is accurate -- he doesn't appear in most lists of Dukedoms awarded by Napoleon I. Anybody have any information on this.
Dutch-Belgian Artillery 1815Hi, Can anyone provide details of the guns used by the Dutch-Belgians in 1815. Were they of British or French design and what colour were they painted? Thanks
How Many Prisoners?Dear Editor, Can anyone tell me how many French and French Allied troops were held as prisoners with the shores of Great Britain during the Napoleon Wars?
A Bon Mot!“To his dog, every man is Napoleon; hence the constant popularity of dogs.” Aldous Huxley (1894 - 1963)
“The Légion d'Hofschröer”In late summer 2002 I wrote an article and a letter, both inspired by FE65. The article was an exercise – originally for my own entertainment - contrasting, in general and on two specific points, Siborne Sr.’s “History” (and Siborne Jr.’s “Letters“) with Mr. Hofschröer’s “1815” books (“Wellington, his German Allies and the Battles of Ligny and Quatre Bras” and “The German Victory”), all of which are published by Greenhill Books (who incidentally did not respond to my 3 courtesy requests for permission to quote from them…). The letter was about my experiences and views of research and publishing. As they were to an extent complementary, both were to have been published in FE67, but space constraints meant that only the article “A Belle Alliance” was published in FE67; “Despatches”, and hence the letter, was dropped. In the following I have used the substance of the original letter (and have not indulged in inventive hindsight in the light of what has subsequently happened), to introduce my response to Mr. Hofschröer’s blunt response to the article, which appeared in his short letter in “Despatches” in FE68. Obviously he has a right to reply - when I submitted the piece, I said to the editor that I should expect to be a target if I put my head above the parapet, and I am happy to join the "Légion d'Hofschröer" - and I appreciate that with book deadlines he may not want to enter into debate with a detailed reply - but I feel his response was unfair and inaccurate. Mr. Hofschröer’s response was un-fair… The response was discouraging and patronising to me and other amateur researchers and writers. The article was meant to inspire comment, debate and more articles on Napoleonics in general – to show that it is possible (for amateurs especially) to write a meaningful and intelligent article using basic published sources, without necessarily having to use obscure works or archives – and preferably within the pages of FE, rather than on the internet, where the level of debate is often low. For the amateur wanting to doing original research, possibilities are limited for several interconnected reasons (I assume that Mr. Hofschröer, though he belongs to the charmed circle of authors backed by publishing houses, appreciates at least some of them): Predisposition: whether it is simple innocence or ignorance, prejudice or in extremis outright hostility, this will obviously influence the motivation for and methodology of research, especially on issues concerning a “group” (normally a country) other than one’s own, but even if a researcher concentrates on his own “group”, he or she might be predisposed not to search out the truth about that but to settle for the “myths” with which they are already comfortable - with obvious consequences. I can say no more, except that I try to be, and hope I am, impartial and unprejudiced, but only others can judge that. Much of what I say in the following will necessarily reflect my perspective as an Englishman, but perhaps others will recognise common issues. Language barriers are an obvious challenge to doing research – it is often said that learning foreign languages is not a British strongpoint, and without a foreign language it is far more efficient, if more limiting, to use English language material, or translations. Mr. Hofschröer has criticised the reluctance of the British – or at least English-speakers – to make more use of original material, in archives or elsewhere, both in English and other languages. I am English, and I have been interested (on and off) in the Napoleonic era since, when a child, I read a library copy of one of the Funcken uniform books - and that Christmas, I got both volumes brand new, and spent Christmas Day poring over them! My interest lies with the smaller Rheinbund states of what is now Germany - the Saxon Duchies, Nassau, Anhalt, etc. I do not care that these states did not play a significant military role compared to others – in many ways that makes them more interesting, because they are more individual and unusual than the armies of the larger states. I am also interested in the political, economic and social contexts for these states’ military history. Since 2001 I have spent a considerable amount of time in Germany, and my interest has been revived. In 2002 I joined the German States Study Group, to which I was glad to see FE65 gave publicity. So I am learning (and motivated to learn) German - it takes time, but practice makes better, and the results have been rewarding. Through German libraries and bookshops I can access many old German texts, and I can now read them quite easily, even the old typefaces used in much German printed work until quite recently, and I have begun to tackle manuscripts. Time is another barrier to original research in any language - most amateur enthusiasts have commitments to jobs and families, and other limitations – not least perhaps a lack of confidence in their own research and writing abilities, or in the commercial potential of the fruits (it can be a very expensive labour of love). Hence most of us do our “research” in effect by proxy – that is, we let authors do research on our behalf using historic resources (which are supported by our public and private funding), and then buy their products, our money rewarding the authors and publishers. Having to rely on the work of others is not in itself bad: professionals have fewer excuses, and extra incentives (perhaps publishers’ advances and prospective book sales) in the face of the difficulties which the amateur enthusiast might face, and may therefore have more success in research. However, the public cannot select the subject, and it is thus dependent on what the market will provide, which will tend to be that which will sell in large enough volumes; nor direct the methodology of the author, and has to trust that the author will do balanced objective research – if that is both author and public want… Cost and Quality of Service provided by the institutions which keep historical resources can also be a barrier to original research. My experience of large UK institutions is not good, and I hope unrepresentative… Early in 2002 I wrote to 3 UK national institutions holding historical collections – all in London – detailing my interests in a couple of issues and asking if they had relevant material, or could they tell me where else I should look. The replies were standard letters, listing formidable obstacles to using the material (not least the need to come to the institution in person – which is extremely expensive in terms of travel and hotel costs for people who live outside London - or hire an expensive freelance researcher to do the legwork), with no more information as to what material these facilities had (not everything is searchable on the internet), no encouragement to do original work (one reply suggested that I buy the relevant Osprey book!), and in fact no indication that my letters had actually been read or understood or given individual attention. In May 2002, I visited the 1806 Museum near Jena in Germany, easily the best Napoleonic museum I have seen anywhere, and while there I noticed a portrait on prominent display which was incorrectly captioned, so I tried to be helpful and pointed this out to the staff, but I was not believed. Later I wrote to a national art institution in London, known to hold a version of the portrait, enclosing a copy of the Museum’s portrait, explaining my interest, and asking them to identify or verify the subject. After 3 weeks before I received a reply, which was minimally informative and did not actually answer the question, so I wrote again asking for a reply suitable for forwarding to the Museum but received nothing. In the meantime, since the subject of the portrait was Dutch, I wrote - in English - to 2 galleries in the Netherlands, and got full unambiguous responses - in English - confirming that the Museum was indeed showing the wrong portrait, backed by biographical details and references, which I was able to include unaltered in my follow-up letter to the 1806 Museum. Late in 2002 I tried to get hold of copies of some documents from UK institutions. The British Library quoted me, for a photocopy of a 3 page document, express delivery to Europe (a hardly express 10 working days) £34.08 (and not much less if I was in the UK); while the Public Record Office wanted an up-front payment of £10 merely to provide an estimate how much the cost of an actual photocopy would be! The cost of the estimate can be offset against the cost of an order – but of course if the estimate turned out to be too high for me, and I did not order, the cost of the estimate was wasted. The PRO told me that the reason for the high charges in the UK, and its charges for estimates, is that: “…In line with Her Majesty's Treasury regulations, the prices for copying, and for supplying estimates for copying records are calculated on the basis of full cost recovery. They include the costs not only of staff, materials and equipment but also of the accommodation area in which the service resides. They also reflect additional costs of special equipment and processes required to provide copies of unique public records which vary greatly in nature, size, fragility and legibility, without damaging them….”. So Siborne Sr. was not alone in falling foul of Treasury rules! The high charges reflect not only the actual cost of the copying work and delivery, but also all of the overheads, and of course these are all the higher because these records are held in institutions in central London. Such costs must deter the use of these institutions’ collections for research - a large part of their raison d'être. My experience with libraries, museums and archives in Germany, and smaller regional institutions in the UK, has been positive. All have been helpful and efficient in finding good and often obscure material, provided free or at low cost for often substantial texts. Last year I ordered from a German archive a copy of a document of similar length and age to the one requested from the BL, mentioned above: it arrived within a week and cost just over £5. I do not doubt that there are many reasons for the differences between my experiences as between major UK institutions, and regional UK and German institutions: different philosophies of taxation and funding of public services between Germany and the UK, cultural attitudes, etc. But for the user, the outcome of the “high cost-low service” ethic in the UK is that original research is stifled, while the immaculate citation of sources by an author - a check on academic integrity and a stimulus to follow-up research - is worthless, because it is too costly in money and time for the interested reader to access those sources. Is it any wonder that people rely on what is readily available on the market, when the costs quoted above, for a few pages of photocopies in the UK, would buy a brand new hardback?! The result perhaps can be seen in the military history sections of UK bookshops: books in which authors and publishers, often exploiting the British enthusiasts’ narrow, xenophobic world-view, offer Brit-focused material, (often already and recently published elsewhere), with little or no original research, (or perhaps just a bit of new stuff thrown in - it can always be recycled later), a cap-doffing foreword by a peer or academic (not for new or relevant insight, but for a patina of credibility and an opportunity to plug their own books), and a new dust-jacket – hey Presto! - a “new” book. Mr. Hofschröer observed in a book review in FE65 that a scanner is handy for this purpose. A PC with word processor and thesaurus software is also handy – to make it easier to find alternative words, and a different text order, to those used the last time. Now some may argue that this material’s popularity and profitability subsidises its producers to produce quality material for more serious readers or viewers. I see little evidence – and if the public is content to be re-fed the same old stuff, often fallacy and fantasy, then its producers have no incentive to commission anything better, so they give the market more of the same, and the market and industry rewards them for doing so. Having said this, I agree with Mr. Hofschröer that Mark Adkin’s “The Waterloo Companion” (Aurum Press, London, 2001), reviewed in FE65, is excellent in its user-friendly layout, graphics, photos and uniform plates and sets the standard by which other books will be judged – even if it is still a little too British-oriented for my liking, and not all or even most of the material is previously unseen. Mr. Hofschröer’s review made one criticism - a joke I think – that its size would make it difficult to use as a guidebook when visiting the battlefield - but personally I would have been happy if “The Waterloo Companion” had been three times as big and gave more space to events pre- and post-18th June 1815, as well as to the myths and controversies, which deserve further research; and I suspect that many “armchair Sharpes” will use it as a substitute for visiting the real place anyway... I have used books as my example, being the area in which I have most experience, but in principle the same applies to magazine articles, TV programmes, videos and films, etc. And here I must mention that, as I was finishing this letter, German television showed on the same evening a British documentary on the events of 1815, and the 4th part of the international TV film drama “Napoleon”. The former was first shown on British TV late in 2001 or in early 2002 (I only saw a tape of it later): it was full of “talking heads” largely repeating the same old material, and its staging of the Battle of Waterloo showed clearly that it was a British victory (although the British artillery was represented by Brunswick re-enactors!), with scarcely a Prussian in sight. As for the latter programme, (apart from the fact that the actor playing Napoleon looked more like my bank manager than the Emperor familiar from numerous images - or were all those portrait painters wrong…?), this British victory at Waterloo was specifically secured by a couple of companies of kilted Highlanders, (some wearing outrageous false beards - no wonder the French ran), and the Prussian Army was referred to but nowhere in sight. Seriously, I accept that it is impossible to recreate a battle for such programmes; that screen time is too short to pack in more detail; that the target audience is non-specialist, etc: but in a documentary especially one might expect the content to be better: the end credits for these productions listed many “experts” as contributors or consultants, and who surely should be presenting the best and latest scholarship: but instead those members of the general public interested enough to watch were fed old myths and no new perspectives: while those viewers with some knowledge of the subject were insulted. Mr. Hofschröer’s response was inaccurate…. Mr Hofschröer says: “…may I suggest he obtain a copy of Siborne's Papers (known as the "Waterloo Correspondence") from the British Library in London? They can be ordered as a microfilm via the BL's website…” Thank you, but I have known the whereabouts of the Siborne Papers, and about the BL website, for a long time, having long been interested in seeing some of the Papers (not for the reason Mr. Hofschröer is interested). I return to the cost-service issue again...Before I wrote the article, I had twice contacted the BL’s Department of Manuscripts - first in late 2001, then in July 2002 - to enquire about obtaining access to and copies of parts of the Papers - and the second time I asked specifically whether there were any plans to publish the unpublished letters; and what would be the legal, copyright or other obstacles? On neither occasion did the BL’s reply indicate that the Papers had in fact already been published in microfilm form – by Adam Matthew Publications, Marlborough, Wiltshire, U.K. in 2001. I found out about this from the staff at a German library. I do not recall seeing reviews of its publication, although as my interest in the subject was only revived recently I may have missed them; and nowhere on the BL website (or in the BL mail-order catalogue) was the microfilm advertised. When I queried this with the BL, I got a reply thanking me for drawing its attention to the microfilm, of which it had been unaware when it wrote previously! At £640 the microfilm is still too expensive for a mere amateur. But the German library loaned me its copy of the microfilm last year, and I have been reading the Papers since (Mr Hofschröer’s implication that it might take me until 2004 to absorb the contents of the Papers is not worthy of comment…). The Siborne Papers might be expected to provide more insight into the alleged conspiracy against Siborne Sr. Mr. Hofschröer has published several articles on the theme of the Siborne Model, the latest of which was “Peer Pressure!” in FE65, to whet the reader’s appetite for his forthcoming “book of the Model”, and in my article I said that perhaps he has kept back the best bits, and will soon publish more evidence to support his case. (I only found out about the projected book by chance and after the article was substantially finished - perhaps I should say, pace Wellington, that “…I did not hear of this event till late in September…”). So there – another plug for Mr. Hofschröer’s work – as if there were not enough for his past ones (and other Greenhill books) in the article. For the purpose of research. the on-line index to the Papers on the BL web-site has shortcomings, which I note even though I an expert on archiving or information technology. Firstly, one cannot drill down to access the individual letters on-line – such a solution, if technically feasible and even desirable, would probably be very costly – so you do have to visit the BL or get the microfilm to do the research. Secondly, I wrote up the notes I made as I read, and produced a spreadsheet “database” of the letters, and found that the index is imperfect: importantly, for example, it does not list Siborne Sr.’s own letters to his correspondents (except for a few which are indexed under the names of the recipients) or Siborne Sr.’s own memoranda to himself – his thoughts on issues raised by his project. For an article elsewhere in this issue of FE, I looked with particular interest at one part of the Papers about which Mr. Hofschröer has written. Thirdly, the picture is not complete without looking at other papers of Siborne Sr. not in the BL, or the papers of Wellington and the key players in the establishment. For example, one letter to Siborne Sr. is a refusal of his request for promotion, with reasons: in itself it does not prove that Siborne Sr. was deliberately denied a promotion because of his Model activities – we need to know more about the circumstances from other sources. I can only say that I have seen no letters that point conclusively to a conspiracy by Wellington or the British establishment. I presume such evidence must lie elsewhere, and that Mr Hofschröer has the time and motivation to collect and interpret this evidence: personally I do not, but for the record when I asked the BL for the whereabouts of any other papers of Siborne Sr., the reply was negative. I will say no more about the Siborne Papers, except to recommend anyone interested in the era and in these events to see them somehow. Mr Hofschröer says: “…May I also suggest that he also read both volumes of my "1815 - The Waterloo Campaign" as I fear he has missed much of my material?” If anyone has missed any material it is Mr. Hofschröer who has missed some of mine, and he should re-read: the references: for reasons mentioned earlier, the article was deliberately based on recently published and readily available books or magazine articles: including both of his “1815” books, both of which I own and have read thoroughly; both the Sibornes’ books; and other material to hand – a couple of more obscure sources, but nothing drawn directly from the sort of archive research which Mr. Hofschröer champions. I have read all of the works cited: I would not cite them otherwise, and Mr. Hofschröer should save such comment for others, who may cite works without reading them... the introduction: I said that, insofar as it related to the campaign itself, I explicitly restricted myself to events of the 18th June - specifically the two issues of Lobau’s Corps and Wellington’s general advance. No more detailed reading of Mr. Hofschröer’s books, or any of the others cited, will change the points I made about those issues. I did not claim that one or the other – Siborne Sr. or Mr. Hofschröer - was true or right, but merely contrast the two versions: the reader can read – the books are all readily available - and decide. (Incidentally, more on the Lobau issue will feature in a book called “Waterloo par Napoléon“, by Bernard Coppens, which should appear in March 2003, in which he will examine what he claims are “myths”, which may have originated with Napoleon’s re-writing of history while on St. Helena, which have subsequently have passed as “facts” into the history books). Mr Hofschröer says that he expects that I will shortly be revising my views and article… In an earlier article by Mr. Hofschröer - “Were the Sibornes Frauds?” in FE23 – he said modestly that he “…would be the first to admit that his knowledge of the subject is so limited that he cannot answer this question fully”. In similar spirit I would express my humility. However, I try to read widely, to gain more knowledge and seek different views, and with an open mind, not seeking out only that which confirms my views, or accepting uncritically the latest views on offer. My views are open to change if I am persuaded by new information – but I will not revise my views just because someone thinks I should. So as things stand, I defend the views expressed in the article, restricted to issues of the 18th June on which I felt able to comment, based on the sources cited and "general" knowledge, and aware of and open about those constraints. The reader of Siborne Sr.’s “History” will find no censure of Wellington, and little which explicitly supports any accusations made about Wellington’s conduct in Mr. Hofschröer’s version of events pre-18th June. Mr. Hofschröer’s interpretation of those events is not that of Siborne Sr., whose overall tone in “History” is that of “…an advocate who believes that his hero was incapable of mistakes, and cannot suffer him to be charged with any…The book is thoroughly British, no doubt, but hardly suited for general use…” (“Lectures”, p.21). “History” is a classic account in many respects, but written with an underlying pro-British assumption, based upon original but flawed research, by Siborne Sr., who may have been more “malleable” than is assumed. On the specific issue of the Siborne Model, and Wellington’s conspiracy, I look forward to more information on the subject, but on the basis of Mr. Hofschröer’s article "Peer Pressure!" alone, and my readings of the Siborne Papers, I am so far unconvinced: I am not taking the role of the defence to the prosecution in this particularly fantasy courtroom case, simply that of a juror, uncomfortable about convicting Wellington on the evidence the prosecution has so far presented or I have found. I am no apologist for Wellington, who is no personal hero of mine. I am prepared to accept that he made errors, was economical with the truth, and was capable of “ex post rationalisation”; and of course he was in part motivated by political considerations. (The authors of several books published since Mr. Hofschröer’s “1815” books still seem to overlook such matters). It is clear that there did grow a British Waterloo myth, its growth perhaps assisted (or at least, accepted) by Wellington and the British establishment, and by adherence in some quarters to Siborne Sr.’s “History”; and the contribution of other contingents has perhaps been misrepresented and under-valued, and may deserve more recognition. But I find my increased appreciation of the involvement of the troops of all contingents is spoilt by the case made at the same time by Mr. Hofschröer against Wellington - especially when it comes to rely so on Siborne Sr. We need a balanced account of the “Belle Alliance” campaign which would draw upon all available sources, and covers all ranks, all contingents or “nations” involved, and the whole of the campaign; attempt to separate where possible the facts; and clearly highlight the discrepancies, controversies and myths, while seeking to avoid national prejudices, and explaining where they have crept into subsequent histories. I called for such an account in my (slightly tongue-in-cheek) proposed European “Belle Alliance” project: perhaps the idea could be incorporated into the proposed re-vamp of the Waterloo battlefield announced elsewhere – or will that too be driven purely by the commercial desire to extract money from the general public? Finally, Tom DeVoe in the USA has pointed me towards his old Empires, Eagles and Lions magazine, and in an old article (EEL, Vol. 3 / 1 1996) Paddy Griffiths proposes a Society to Forget About Waterloo (the SFAW). He suggests: "…the contributions of the Dutch-Belgians and the Prussians to the Battle of Waterloo have already been comprehensively written out of the record, and offer an excellent example of how the British and French contributions might also be forgotten in future… the recent attempts to rehabilitate the Dutch-Belgians and Prussians…must…be deplored, as tending to raise the profile of the battle as a whole…". Surely not?! Yours sincerely,
Editor: Apparently Mr Hofschröer reconsisered his initial response to Mr Cousins as I recently recieved the following.... Siborne & Hofschröer – A Reply to Gary CousinsMay I start by thanking Mr Cousins for his most thoughtful contribution to “First Empire” No. 67, his article entitled “A Belle Alliance”. Being used to suffering the intemperate ranting of the psychotic and the deliberate misrepresentation of the dishonest, it makes a most welcome change to read politely phrased comments on my writings. Before examining certain of the points Mr Cousins raised, may I first say that I always try to avoid discussions on all the possible meanings of odd words taken out of context? Debates on semantics are generally fruitless and many pages can be filled without clarifying the issues in question. Instead, I wish only to address certain salient features of Mr Cousin’s article. I fear that Mr Cousins – and just about everybody that had raised this point – has misunderstood the thesis presented in my two volume work on the Waterloo Campaign. When the second volume – “1815 – The Waterloo Campaign – The German Victory” was published in 1999, I got a phone call from a reporter from the “Daily Star” who wanted to interview me on this issue. He asked me why I was claiming the Battle of Waterloo was a German victory. I pointed out to him that was not my thesis, but that my case was that Germany provided the lion’s share of the manpower in this campaign and suffered the greatest losses. Furthermore, I pointed out to him that Anglophone accounts normally present the campaign as a British victory, which was not correct. If one was to attribute the victory to any one nation, then in view of the greater contribution made by Germany, then one would have to describe the CAMPAIGN of Waterloo as a German victory. This reporter did not want to hear that. The next day, 15 October 1999, his article appeared with the first line, ‘THE GERMANS want to rewrite history – claiming THEY won the Battle of Waterloo.’ Sadly, this reporter was not the only person to suffer from selective hearing. After all, the title of the book in question is “1815 – The Waterloo CAMPAIGN – The German Victory” and not “1815 – The BATTLE of Waterloo – The German Victory”. ‘The Waterloo Campaign’ is in big red capital letters on the cover of the book in question, - Mr Cousins describes it as ‘eye-catching’ - yet that would not appear to be clear enough to certain of my critics. Mr Cousins appears to be confused about my position on Siborne. Although I am not quite sure if I have understood him correctly, it would seem that his argument runs as follows: Hofschröer has made positive comments on Siborne. Siborne did not claim that the Battle [sic] of Waterloo was a German victory. Ergo, Hofschröer’s position on Wellington’s treatment of Siborne is inconsistent. I am not sure exactly what Mr Cousins is trying to get at here. Is Siborne at fault for not knowing the results of the century and a half of further research that has taken place since his death? Should he have been clairvoyant? Should Hofschröer, as he sympathises with Siborne, have simply ignored all this further material? Surely the study of history is a dynamic process of accretion, with one historian taking a subject so far in terms of research and analysis, and another picking up from that point and broadening our knowledge and understanding of that subject with further research and analysis. Mr Cousins appears to believe that as I have a positive view of Siborne the historian, I should simply accept everything he wrote without question. If that is indeed Mr Cousins’ position, then I regret to say I do not follow his logic. If it is not his position, then I apologise for the misunderstanding. Equally, Mr Cousins appears to regard my position on Chesney, whose work on Waterloo I have reviewed favourably, as being somehow inconsistent because he made certain negative comments about Siborne’s History. Again, I have tried to work out the apparent logic of Mr Cousins’ line, but cannot quite comprehend it. If I have understood him correctly, then Mr Cousins would appear to be saying that as I have made positive comments about Chesney, and he has made negative comments about Siborne, then I should not be making positive comments about Siborne. I do hope I am not misrepresenting Mr Cousins’ position, but forgive me for saying it is rather convoluted. A century and more have passed since the two works in question were published. More information on the subject has come to light, leading to new analysis and interpretation. One cannot in any way blame Siborne and Chesney for not being clairvoyant and not knowing what the future would bring. As for Chesney’s comments on Siborne, I disagree with them. Siborne’s Correspondence did not come into the public domain until after Chesney’s death, so one cannot blame him for not knowing the full extent of Siborne’s research. To the question of the role of Lobau’s Corps at Waterloo and the effects of the Prussian advance on its deployment, Mr Cousins rightly points out the unreliability of various eyewitness accounts. He disputes my claim that the Prussian advance tied down Lobau’s Corps relatively early in the battle. He is right to point out that Bülow’s Prussians only became directly involved in the fighting about 4.30 p.m. However, he fails to consider the difference between becoming tied down by a manoeuvre and becoming involved in combat. D’Erlon’s Corps attacked Wellington’s centre between 2 and 2.30 p.m. Only a charge by Allied cavalry at about 2.30 p.m. stopped him penetrating the Allied line. Uxbridge’s troopers were beaten off and were hors de combat. Why did not Napoleon then send in Lobau to finish the job? Indeed, why had he not sent him off in immediate support of D’Erlon? Can it be the Prussian movements on his flank had tied down this Corps? Mr Cousins disputes my statement that Vivian had received orders from Wellington to move his men to the centre of his line after the arrival of the Prussians. He claims that my statement that Vivian could only so do after the arrival of the Prussians conflicts with p 354 of Siborne’s “History” and p 152 of the “Waterloo Letters”. I regret I was not able to find anything on this issue on p 354 of the “History”, nor on p 152 of the “Letters”. It could well be that in my rush to write this reply, I have overlooked something and would be grateful for Mr Cousins’ guidance on this point. However, on page 329 of Siborne’s History, we find that, ‘It was shortly before the columns of attack [of the Imperial Guard] were put into motion that Vivian . . . [due to the] arrival of the Prussians . . . felt there could be no longer any apprehension of the left of the army being turned; and having previously understood from Sir William Delancey and other staff officers, that fresh cavalry was much wanted in the centre, he proposed to Vandeleur, who was on his right, and who was his senior officer, that the two brigades should move towards the centre, where they might be of service. Vandeleur declined to act without orders; whereupon Vivian put his own brigade in motion . . .’ Furthermore, on p 334 of Siborne’s History, this movement of Vivian’s Brigade is discussed: ‘Vivian’s hussar-brigade drew up immediately in rear of these troops . . . The brigade had previously, in consequence of a mistake in transmission of orders, been halted on the left of the high road . . .’ De Lancey, as we know was Wellington’s chief-of-staff and mouthpiece. We do not know his exact words to Vivian. He would not appear to have passed on a formal written order, but Wellington’s wishes were clear. At some stage during this movement, Vivian does appear to have received a formal order to halt in a particular place. Let us now return to page 329 of Siborne’s History: ‘The Prussian troops, whose advance had thus induced Vivian to quit the extreme left, were the advance guard of Zieten’s corps . . .’ We now have the sequence of events. Vivian was sent to look out for the arrival of Zieten’s Prussians, as Wellington knew they were on their way. This was before the final attack of Napoleon’s Guard. Wellington had let it be known to Vivian that he required his cavalry in the centre. Vivian moved off and received the formal written order when en route. Thus Wellington knew the Prussian advance was taking effect before he admitted to this in his “Waterloo Despatch”. Vivian’s evidence, Siborne’s History and the position I expressed in my article “Peer Pressure” coincide. Yet, Mr Cousins claims I am ‘stretching facts’ here. I would beg to differ. With regard to Wellington and the Prussians, Mr Cousins accuses me of interpreting the “Waterloo Despatch” in a questionable way. However, the FACT is that the FIRST mention of the Prussian intervention in the Battle of Waterloo comes only AFTER Wellington had defeated the final French assault. There is only one logical way of interpreting this. Mr Cousins may deny this fact as often as he wishes, but that will not change it. Added to that comes Wellington’s dispute with Siborne over the numbers and positions of the figures representing the Prussians on the Large Model, which lasted many years and grew increasingly bitter. Yet Mr Cousins seems to think there was no correlation between the questionable statements made in the “Despatch” and issue of the position of the Prussians on the Model. This is despite people like FitzRoy Somerset mentioning both matters in the same breath time and again in many letters over a period of some years. Again, I may have misunderstood Mr Cousins here as well, but if that really is his position, then I regret here too I do not see the logic of his case. Mr Cousins continues by questioning my view that Wellington knowingly made a number of questionable claims in his “Waterloo Despatch”, stating ‘it is open to question whether it is deliberately false’. Another misleading assertion in the “Despatch” that both Siborne and I have picked up on was the time at which Wellington first heard the news of the outbreak of hostilities on 15 June 1815. In the “Despatch”, he claimed it was in the ‘evening’, yet in a letter that night to the Duc de Feltre, Wellington mentioned it was at 9 a.m. In later years, Wellington mentioned receiving a report from the Prince of Orange at 3 p.m. Neither 9 a.m., nor 3 p.m. are ‘evening’. I have written extensively on this subject elsewhere and discussed it in detail in my “1815”, which Mr Cousins has read. Yet it is he who accuses me of being deliberately selective. As for Siborne’s relationship with Wellington, Mr Cousins has based his view of his own interpretation of certain words from Siborne’s History. As such, he can only be telling part of the story. One cannot read between the lines of Siborne’s text without knowing what was going on in Siborne’s mind at the time he wrote his History and what else was going on in certain circles at the time. I would suggest that Mr Cousins go to the trouble of reading Siborne’s Correspondence. There are about one thousands documents in six volumes in the British Library and further material can be found in other archives in Britain and Ireland. I would also suggest he spend a couple of weeks in the Newspaper Library in Colindale reading the various journals of the period. Rather than taking odd words out of context and attempting to see the meaning behind them without knowing the full facts of the situation, Mr Cousins would be better equipped to understand what was actually taking place and what certain of Siborne’s statements really meant. One of Mr Cousins’ interesting claims is of the existence of an ‘establishment’ view of Waterloo being Wellington’s victory. He does not clearly define whom he considers to be ‘establishment’ figures and I would suggest he does a little more work researching this subject. He might like to start by looking at the list of subscribers to Siborne’s History as printed in the 1st edition. It included Queen Victoria, as well as princes, dukes, lords and generals. As these people supported Siborne – Wellington did not subscribe – then am I correct to assume that Mr Cousins does not regard them as ‘establishment’? I would then suggest that Mr Cousins read Siborne’s Correspondence on the issue of subscriptions to the Large Model. He will see that one of the important sponsors was Prince Albert. I assume too that as he supported Siborne, he too does not come under Mr Cousins’ definition of ‘establishment’. Mr Cousins should then go on and read particularly General Sir Hussey Vivian’s discussion of the role of the Prussians in the battle with Siborne in the Correspondence. Vivian was not the only army officer wanting to give the Prussians full credit, and he was aware that Wellington was much against this. I assume that Vivian is, in Mr Cousins’ view, not ‘establishment’ either. Then I would remind Mr Cousins that the godfather of Siborne’s son Herbert Taylor Siborne was no less a person than King William IV’s private secretary, Sir Herbert Taylor, who did much to help Siborne. I assume he was not ‘establishment’ either. Finally, I would advise Mr Cousins to read the newspapers of the period, where he will see that, for instance, The Times supported Siborne and complained about the way in which the government and a certain high authority were treating him. I assume that The Times was not a pillar of the 19th century establishment. Forgive my irony, but as I stated in my article, only one person and his small handful of supporters wanted to play down the role of the Prussians in the Battle. That group of people was certainly not the ‘establishment’. Again, a more comprehensive knowledge of the subject matter and the period of history in question would have helped Mr Cousins understand how the dispute between Siborne and Wellington was conducted in public. It was not done directly and Mr Cousins can find no evidence of Siborne being bitter about the way Wellington treated him. I would refer him to the 3rd edition of Siborne’s History, especially to the long rebuttal of Gleig’s “Story of Waterloo”. Proxies such as Gleig and Egerton conducted the dispute on the Duke’s behalf. I would again refer Mr Cousins to Siborne’s Correspondence, where he will find further evidence of this. I would also advise him to look out for certain statements originating from Siborne that can be found in the press of the period. For some reason I do not quite comprehend, it is fashionable in the Anglo-Saxon world today to consider that Germany only came into existence with the founding of the Second Reich in 1871. As I certainly remember being taught something quite different during my schooling in Britain, I assume this fashion has come about since. According to this point of view, Germany did not come into existence until 1871. Following on from that, Waterloo in 1815 could not have been a German victory. The exponents of this position ignore historical and linguistic fact. The word ‘Germany’ originates from the Latin ‘Germania’. It would seem the Romans knew of the existence of Germany a couple of thousand years ago. The earliest surviving texts in the German language date from the 8th century, a thousand years before 1871. From the 10th century, there were kings of Germany, so one assumes they had both a kingdom in which to reign and a people over which they reigned. The First Reich was founded in the 12th century and was also known as the Holy Roman Empire of the GERMAN NATION. It was disbanded in 1806, before being replaced by the German Confederation in 1815. I am mystified how anybody could argue that Germany did not exist until 1871. Another one of the recent fashions of historical interpretation is the denigration of the merits of the published historical works of the Prussian General Staff. Mr Cousins would appear to support this. Indeed, he describes their material as ‘laundered’. This particular view would appear to have originated from the post-WW2 Marxist interpretation of history. According to it, the Prussian General Staff was a proto-fascist organisation that was part of a grand conspiracy preparing the way for the Third Reich. It must have been clairvoyant too! Perhaps Mr Cousins would be so kind as to provide us with some documentary evidence in support of his accusation? This point of view simply ignores what the real role of the historical section of a general staff was – to provide textbooks for the instruction of army officers. Previous campaigns were studied to learn the lessons of that war so they could be applied to any future conflict in that theatre. Like all school textbooks, they tend to be dull, pedantic and rather boring. These books are somehow supposed to have prepared the masses for the National Socialist regime. That is, in my view, simply a flight of fantasy. If that unsupported accusation were not enough, Mr Cousins charges me with being selective in how I used material from the Prussian archives. He provides no evidence in support of that charge, and indeed he will not be able to, as it is simply not true. If he were familiar with this archive and its collection, he would know there are two documents of relevance. Reference to the bibliographies and the footnotes of both volumes of my “1815” shows that I did cite these documents. As Mr Cousins refers to my work in his article, I assume he is aware that his charge is unfounded. At least he made the apparently obligatory false accusation politely. Finally, Mr Cousins appears to have a problem comprehending that one cannot put every point in an article of 3,000 words that will come in a book 100,000 words long. Let me assure him that will be the case. May I suggest he look out for my forthcoming book “Wellington’s Smallest Victory – The Story of William Siborne & the Great Waterloo Model”, coming from Faber & Faber in 2004?
Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #69 Back to First Empire List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2003 by First Empire. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com |