Wars and Conflicts permalink
Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 4th October 2008
What is the latest on this book and the thesis of Peter?
I remember that he was once on our boards overhere. If my memory serves me, there was also a claim from the Wellesley family towards him for defamation?
For a French Napoleontic messageboard I did some research but most is in English. I have put it on their "English forum" and have said that it better would be renamed "British forum"
.
Warm regards to all,
Paul.Link to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 2
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Sunday, 5th October 2008
Paul
As you remember did Peter and I have some clash,as we had in real life on a semminar.
Have to give to Peter that without the Prussians would Wellington lose Waterloo.
What Peter miss is that if Wellington wouldnt had been 100% sure that the Prussians would come.Wouldnt their have been a Wateloo since the britts wouldnt make a stand.
I do understand Peter since Waterloo are seen as a just brittish victoria not at least at those boards.To make it the other way around as he does are also a history falsification.
What Peter dont see is that the brunt of fighting was made by the Brittish army.On the ther hand if not the Prussian apperance on the field had been delayed by Gneisenau should Napoleon had withdrawn in good order before the allies.Presto no Waterloo and another turn for history.
Lev väl
HasseLink to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 3
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 6th October 2008
Re: Message 2.
Hasse,
as usual a balanced view from you. Yes, you have to see both sides of the coin. It was due to the Prussians, but also to the British that the battle of Waterloo turned. But if I understand it well the "tenure" of the book is the Brit, who tried to make the maquette as real as possible, asking the "veterans" from all sides. He was set aside by Wellington/Wellesley because he had dared to emphasize the real role of the Prussians? Shame to Wellington. And if I remember it well the Wellesley family started a claim for defamation against Peter Hofschröer?
I also agree with the many intangibles that you mentioned about the turnout of Waterloo.
I had however expected more from the other British contributors as I thought the "subject" would be still "hot" even in 2008. To be honest not received any answer on the same question from a British coordinator on this Napoleontic messageboard on the "English forum" of the "l'énigme des Invalides". I many times don't feel me at ease between all these Napoleon enthusiasts, as I find the matters too specific about "one" subject...lucky that the moderator started since the beginning of 2007 a new forum: a general one: Tribune Histoire (as another I contributed to: the Histoforums collapsed).
Warm regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 4
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Wednesday, 8th October 2008
Hi Paul
I have not read Peter Hofschröer book, or for that matter Wellington’s account of the battle of Waterloo, so I will have to comment about the subject in a more general nature.
Criticism of the Iron Duke does not bring about squeals of protest much nowadays, unlike Victorian England where he was the hero General of the Napoleonic wars.
The poor old duke has suffered greatly from a the press, bad decisions in politics, correct but unpopular decisions in politics and revisionist history that thrives on debasing old heroes.
Also any modern student of the Napoleonic wars, well those who have read books written over the last 40 odd years, will have a clearer picture of events surrounding Waterloo. They will be better informed than the rather partisan Victorian accounts of the wars allowed the public to be during the 19th century.
But in defence of the old Duke I must disagree with some of the themes presented by this book. As I say I have not read it, but I have followed your links. And much of what I have to say has already been pointed out by Hasse.
Wellington decided to fight at Mont-St-Jean purely on the guaranty that Blucher would send at least a Corps in support. To say that the British would have lost at Waterloo without the Prussians is missing the point that without the Prussian guaranty of support they would not even have fought the Battle!
17,000 British troops were left at Hal, 10 miles away, who could have been included in any battle if no Prussian reinforcement had been promised.
To say that the Battle was a British victory is obviously misleading but so is it to say that it was a Prussian victory. The battle was always going to be an Anglo-Prussian affair or not at all.
Many people say that if by some chance the Prussians had not arrived, or arrived much later then the French would definitely have won. This simply is not born out by the actual course of the battle.
Napoleon SHOULD have attacked as soon as possible, but he waited to 1.00 p.m. to allow the ground to dry out, wasting hours when no Prussians could have hindered his plans.
D’Erlon,s corps SHOULD have attacked in a better formation than the mass it actually used, it also SHOULD have been better supported.
Prince Jerome SHOULD have kept a clear head and not thrown all of Reille’s 2nd corps into the attack on Hougoumont.
Marshall Ney SHOULD have co-ordinated the French attacks, and he most defiantly should not have launched thousands of French cavalry against the British squares unsupported.
By all rights the French SHOULD have won the battle if the Prussians had failed to arrive, but looking at the real events they had wasted golden opportunities repeatedly all day, so why should that have changed?
Why would Lobau’s 10,000 troops and 6,000 guardsmen have been used any better than d’Erlon’s 20,000 men, Reille’s 25,000 or the 5,000 French cavalry hurled at the British squares?
All we can say is that Napoleon SHOULD have won Waterloo if the Prussians had not arrived, but thankfully the old fighter Blucher was true to his word.Link to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 5
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Wednesday, 8th October 2008
Paul
In my eyes are Wellington the best general of the Napoleonic wars.
To put it in sport terms had Napoleon a better higest he was brilliant at his best,but Wellington never had a bad day and that it what counts in a long league season.
A small funny tidbit.
When Chrystal palace was built had they problems with that pigeons moved in,and put droppings that wasnt apriciated.
Their was a great calamity on how to get rid of the pigeons before opening day,since you obviously couldnt shoot them.
Queen Victoria said get Wellington so he got there old and stoped,did get a look through his glasses.Said only two worlds before they led him back to the carriage and tried his solution that did work like a charm.
He said "get Hawks".
Lev väl
Hasse
P.S. Would very much apreciate to get some booktips off you in my thread on history hub.Since I know that you are both learned and with a level head.Link to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 6
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Thursday, 9th October 2008
I remember a TV show a few years ago where wargamers 'replayed' some of the major battles of history. Waterloo was the only one where the result came out different.
Wellington didn't have to win Waterloo.(although it would have been lost with any other general in command of his army)
Napoleon and his generals lost it!Link to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 7
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 9th October 2008
I can't recall when or where but I once read that Wellington didn't have all his troops at Waterloo, and that a good portion of them were still scattered in billets around the Belgain and French coast. Any truth to that?
Link to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 8
Posted by Itzenplitz (U7123545) on Thursday, 9th October 2008
Hi!
This is Peter Hofschröer.
I have no recollection of ever having attended any seminar involving anybody by the name of "Hasse". Furthermore, I have no recollection of "clashing" with anybody in public ever over this issue. Perhaps Hasse would be good enough to remind me of the time and place. Is "figment" the time and "imagination" the place?
As anybody that is not severely literally challenged would notice, I have never claimed that the BATTLE of Waterloo was a Prussian victory. The title of the 2nd volume of my work on the 1815 Campaign is "1815 - The Waterloo CAMPAIGN - The German Victory" The title is in BIG RED LETTERS on the cover, and anybody that has got as far as the contents page would notice that a good half of the book covers events AFTER Waterloo, when GERMAN forces were involved almost entirely by themselves in defeating the French.
Sorry Hasse, but you are talking complete RUBBISH.
Regards,
Peter HofschröerLink to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 9
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 10
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Friday, 10th October 2008
If Itzenplitz is indeed Peter Hofschröer then the comments being made do not reflect well on his ability to analyse the facts objectively.
If we use terms such as German, in an era when many German states existed, we do really need to define what we mean. Are we classing the Austrian-Hungarian army as a German army?
Using German ethnicity in this historical context can only lead to confusion and absurdity that E. Nikolaos constantly degenerates into regarding Greek ethnicity and Macedonian.
To base an entire book on such a weak premise such as "1815 - The Waterloo CAMPAIGN - The German Victory" leaves me wondering if there is some other agenda at play.
We could go through most of the Napoleonic wars and make a claim for German victory or defeat in most of the battles. The campaigns of 1809 could be classed as a German civil war!
This reappraisal of history along ethnic lines should be seen for what it is, nationalism and thinly disguised bigotry.Link to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 11
Posted by Itzenplitz (U7123545) on Friday, 10th October 2008
Please explain the following in the context of your argument:
Part of the forces in Blücher's army that was used mainly in siege operations was the North GERMAN Army Corps. If Germany did not exist at this time, then how come it was called the North GERMAN Army Corps?Link to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 12
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Friday, 10th October 2008
Are we dealing with Prussian Germanic nationalism or Itzenplitz Germanic nationalism?
If you want to define all Germanic states during the Napoleonic wars as just “Germany” then it is you who needs to define what exactly is meant by the term German. Is Austria Germany?
Germany during the 1930’s had a very clear picture of just what is Germany and what is not German.Link to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 13
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 10th October 2008
Not an expert on this but I always thought that if a unit or army was recruited from more than one part of Germany it was refered to as German. if it was recruited from a specific part of it then it was refered to by the name of the area, i.e. Brunswickers, Hanovarian.
Presumably the North German Army Corps was made up of units from all over North Germany?Link to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 14
Posted by Itzenplitz (U7123545) on Friday, 10th October 2008
May I suggest you try reading a history book, preferably one written by somebody that knows what he is talking about?
Let's start with schoolboy basics:
The Romans first recorded the existence of Germany. That is where the name comes from. Romans were around a few thousand years ago.
The first written records of the German language date from the 8th century. That was quite a long time ago as well.
The Kingdom of Germany that existed from the 10th century onwards later became known as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, or the First Reich. The First Reich was around until 1806. That wasn't quite so long ago, but it was before the 1930's.
In 1815, a German Confederation was formed. Its extent covered most of the German-speaking territories. That too was before the 1930's.
There are some who say that Germany did not exist in 1815. Such people are an indication of how poor the British educational system has become. It now fails to teach the basics.Link to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 15
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Friday, 10th October 2008
As I thought this is about German nationalism, and very little to do with the Napoleonic wars.
It would be much simpler if Itzenplitz used the term “Aryan master race” and then we would all know the premise behind this nonsense.
I think I will put my spare time to better use and read a history book, but preferably not one written by Mr Peter HofschröerLink to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 16
Posted by Itzenplitz (U7123545) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
Hi englishvote!
Your reply reinforces my views about the sad state of the British "educational" system.
But here's a link that might interest you. Go to:
and search on: Bomben auf England
If you want me to send you the words, do let me know.
And in case you have a sense of humour, here's one for you:
What do the English do after they've won the World Cup? - Turn off their PlayStations. Geddit, or do you want me to explain it to you?
Ever read "Götz von Berlichingen"?Link to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 17
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
Itzenplitz
You have not yet defined what you mean by German, or Germany for that matter.
Is it the modern nation of Germany, or maybe the greater Germany including parts of what are now neighbouring states? Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, Austria and large parts of modern day Poland and the Czech republic.
Many of the German states that fought for and against France during the Napoleonic wars are not now part of Germany.
So what do you define as German?
You said “The Romans first recorded the existence of Germany”, so maybe Germans are the tribes that lived in what Rome regarded as Germany. But that does not really help in defining what is German and what is not German during the 18th and 19th centuries.
Germanic tribes such as the Saxons and Franks settled in other regions of Europe, maybe they should be classified as German even today? Of course other migration occurred into what is now Germany as well as out of Germany.
Maybe you are using ethnicity as a basis for what is German, which would require a lot more evidence than presently exists to come to any fundamental understanding of what is German?
If you are a historian then you should be able to argue your point, or at least present some evidence rather than just contribute derogatory remarks
Maybe you don’t like discussions and maybe you want to appear superior, either way I don’t really care.Link to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 18
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 13th October 2008
Re: Message 14.
Itzenplitz,
if you are indeed Peter Hofschröer, I now understand why a former contributor (perhaps also still a contributor to these new dna boards) to the old messageboards said about you that he knew you personally and that you had done a lot of remarkable research, but that you wasn't a person with whom he normally would "socialize".
If I remember it well, I had you in high esteem those days and you appeared under your own name on the old boards. I asked you for instance about the 1000 hectares of land that the Wellesley family owned in the nowadays Walloon Brabant as gift for his deeds at Waterloo and you answered that you weren't aware of this fact.
As this discussion degraded to some as "Suvorovetz" called it: "ping pong playing", I wished I hadn't started this thread as it at the end as nothing to do anymore with serious historical debate. And if you are among the discussions in public of your books as "vitriolic" as you show here I can understand some reactions. See also my reactions to you from the time that I considered you as Itzenplitz in the thread here bumped near this one.
Nevertheless with esteem for you research,
Paul.Link to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 19
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 13th October 2008
Re: Message 5.
Hasse,
thank you for this interesting reply.
Lev väl,
Paul.Link to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 20
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 13th October 2008
Re: Message 4.
Englishvote,
thank you for this survey concerning the Battle of Waterloo, as you see it. I read it with great interest.
As I only visited as a Belgian, some three times in my life, the Waterloo site and again as a Belgian have a general interest in the event, I don't know nevertheless that much about it. It was my intention to confront some experts of the French forum of Napoleonists with the new "views" here, but in the "present" "climate" of this thread I want rather to close it (for what concerning my contributions).
Warm regards from your friend,
Paul.Link to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 21
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Tuesday, 14th October 2008
Hi Paul
As always it is good to read your thoughts.
I have unfortunately never visited the battlefield of Waterloo, but I have read a few modern books about the campaign and battle.
It would be very interesting to hear a Belgium point of view, not just about the battle but the entire Napoleonic wars.
Having said that it would be interesting to hear Dutch, German and French points of view as well, I am sure that we all have differing interpretations of the effect of the battle and the entire period.
Maybe a new thread would be more appropriate though.Link to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
-
Message 22
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 17th October 2008
Re: Message 21.
Englishvote,
"it would be interesting to hear Dutch, French, German points of view as well"
Completely agree with you, but for me it is always time and competence.
I am still nowadays "digging" for the Suvorov-Hasse thread, the Russian Kerensky revolution, the situation that led to the Munich agreement, the state of the French aviation in 1938, 1940, the links between Roosevelt and Pétain till 1942, why the West and not the East and many times I am diverted on these boards as with the translation of bra's in French, Dutch and German...oh and I forgot Belgium...and I need at least one year to study Napoleon, Wellington and Waterloo.
On that French board I contribute to, we have two Belgians me and someone from Brussels. The other French, including that one from Brussels, are very competent about the Waterloo and Napoleon question, but I suppose mmost have only a passive knowledge of English, if even that. Nowadays more and more Walloon country (wo)men in Belgium are learning English. And it is easy for them as already half of the English words are from Latin or French origin. The Flemings speak already a long time English and it it easy for them too, while the other halve of the English words are Dutch related.
But French seems to resist? Out of pride? Have to say however that in the Sixties many young Frenchmen already spoke English, more Frenchmen in my ears than the Germans (but it can also have been conincidence from my small sample I heard?)
We had then an "international" meeting in Belgium being an American factory. (perhaps is Nordmann familiar with it? He seems to have worked in Belgium too (on what place on earth he didn't work?)). We started in English with some young Frenchmen, and some older Englishmen, hmm one young Englishman was also around and at the end we spoke English for the forum, French with the Frenchmen in asides, and Flemish with each other of the Flemish branch. The same with the Germans but we had to translate the English into German. Also in meetings with Germans, English and French speaking Belgians we had to translate for those Belgains in French what they said in German or English. But as I said a lot in 50 years time is changed for the better among the Walloons and those from Brussels. Not sure about the French, but now that they have Sarkozy...
The Dutch and Waterloo? Not sure if they would be interested, but I can be wrong.
As for the Germans I put yesterday "Itzenplitz Hofschroer" in Google and came to some Waterloo discussions in German, Itzenplitz (BTW that's a real name) many times in the same role as overhere.
And while I am on the Belgian notes on these boards today: It isn't while the Belgians want to further stick together that the British can't devolute?
One more note about English on international meetings in Belgium: I was two years ago with the wife in the famous spa of Spa. There was a meeting in that spa and in the evening we sat close to the dinning table of that obviously international community. They all spoke "reasonable" English the English the best (still for how long?), you could easely hear the German English and even more the French English and the Flemish/and the Dutch English, but the old different languages and difficulties seems to be disappeared...
Warm regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: Peter Hofschröer Wellington's smallest victory
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.