FRANCO AMERICAN CO- OPERATION

Your 'Where Did Our View of Napoleonic Warfare Come From' by Paddy Griffith (issue 12, pp. 22-24-ED) was outstanding, as was the job on French and British cavalry (see issue 11, pp. 11 - 18 and issue 12, pp 14-19-ED). Griffith had one "John Bull" line however, of the sort that leaves us puzzled: "In the USA, which fought as Napoleon's ally against the redcoats (emphasis mine).

We were at war with you at the same time, but Wellington's army was still being fed (like the British in Canada) by renegade US merchants, and there was strong anti-Napoleon feeling in New England -- his abdication was actually celebrated there. Napoleon himself was very slow catching on to the possibilities, and when he finally urged Decres to work out some naval co-operation, it was 1814 and away too late. About all the co-operation that took place was that American privateers could use French controlled ports, if they could get in or out. And even then they were on their own with little or no help refitting (and apparently having to grease official palms).

Of course, Oman rather set the stage in his Studies in the Napoleonic Wars where he stated that the US decision to go to war in 1812 "...was being concerted in strict agreement with Napoleon.", which would have surprised the devil out of little Jimmy Madison!

--Colonel John R. Elting, USA (retired)

FASHION AND NOBILITY

I would like to qualify one of the quotations used by SV Petty in his article on Peninsular rig (issue 13, pp. 25-27-ED). This much cited remark in Grattan (Adventures in the Connaught Rangers, Greenhill Books, reprint of 1902 edition, London, 1989) is often believed to describe the Peer's casual attitude to dress. In a manner of speaking it does, but apart from the initial remarks about the other rank's trousers, the following passage describes nothing other than an outbreak of dandyism among the officers of the army. The reader is advised to look at page 51 (1 presume that we are using the same edition) for further evidence of this. There is even an anecdote of an 88th Foot light company officer's attempted capture by some Portuguese infantry (who mistook him for a French General). However, this is only to be expected from the army of someone who dressed more in the manner of a London Dandy than in the manner becoming a general officer in His Britannic Majesty's Army!

While I recognise the contribution that Peter Hofschroer has made to our knowledge and understanding of the Prussian Army of the Napoleonic Wars, and concur, at least in part, with him in deploring the monoglossy of the wargamer and, occasionally, the historian, his remarks on the aristocracy require comment.

First, let us look at the matter of the particule (sometimes particule de noblesse). Peter Hofschroer correctly states that the German 'von' does not necessarily indicate nobility. It could be added officially or otherwise to a person's name, and there is the old usage indicating provenance, from which the particule de noblesse derives. But it would be incorrect to say that this usage was peculiar to German-speakers;. one has only to think of Maximilien de Robespierre. And MacDonell of Glengarry was not merely a title, but also a means of distinguishing him from any other MacDonnells you might happen to know (Highland chiefs tended to be unimaginative in the matter of Christian names).

Peter Hofschroer's interpretation of the nature of aristocracy varies from the debatable to the erroneous. It can with a fair degree of certainty be stated that the West India merchants, be they British or French, were not of the nobility. The word 'nobility' covers a multitude of sins from the great magnate to the squireen (if you will pardon the Irishism).

The continental practice of calling all the progeny of a noble by the same title (according to sex), brings us on to primogeniture. If we ignore some families who, Salic Law notwithstanding, descend through the Female line, this means that the eldest son inherits and the rest are left to their own devices. Arthur Wesley was the third son of Garret Wesley, Earl of Mornington and his rapid advance through the commissioned ranks was due to his elder brother, who was in Government, exercising government patronage on behalf of his sibling. Thus while Blucher may indeed have been a glorified pig farmer, the comparison is invidious: the large estates were the gift of a "Grateful nation" after Waterloo and the Peninsula. No, the hobereau, the younger son and the junker had more in common than might be supposed.

On a lighter note, Peter Hofschr6er is quite correct to state that the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were not battleships; they were battlecruisers. Finally, can I make a plea to all contributors to indicate the edition they are using, as it helps contrary old souls like myself to find the reference.

--Magnus Guild

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF LEGION OF HONOUR

Having read the report on the Paris Musee de l'Armee in issue number 13, which I had the chance to visit only recently, I decided to bring to your attention another Paris museum, the National Museum of the Legion of Honour.

Though not as well known as the Army Museum, it stores a very nice and rare collection of international military decorations and orders of all times. Most attention is given to the Legion of Honour, but all other Napoleonic orders are included as well. Of special interest are the personal medals of the Emperor Napoleon himself and a variety of memorabilia of Marshal Berthier, including the splendid court dress. Also to be seen is the British Waterloo medal.

The Museum offers a very good view on a not so popular but nonetheless very interesting aspect of Napoleonic history. Entrance fee is 10 Francs and the museum is open from Tuesday to Saturday from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. It is situated in the Rue de Bellechasse, next to the Musee d'Orsay.

--Sven Biscop