John Franklin's Quatre Bras OOB

[Whirlwind]

John Franklin gave me permission to post his orders of battle for Quatre Bras – i.e. an extended version of that published in his recent Osprey http://www.amazon.co.uk/Waterloo-1815-Quatre-Bras-Campaign-ebook/dp/B00OM104TU  onto TMP.  Here is the link for anyone interested: http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=383136

Regards

 

[Not Connard Sage]

Cheers. It is an improvement on the , frankly, not very useful OoB in the Osprey. I wonder why this more detailed version wasn’t included?

 

It will be interesting to compare it with Adkin’s OoB in ‘The Waterloo Companion’

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Whirlwind]

No worries.  There was just not enough space apparently.

[Jonathan Gingerich]

Did the thread get pulled for some reason?

[Whirlwind]

Yes, Osprey objected, unfortunately…from John Franklin:

Osprey have already written to inform me that they own this content and have asked that the thread be removed immediately. I have forwarded this message to Bill accordingly, and assume the content will be withdrawn shortly [which it now has been].

In this thread, at the bottom: http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=381915

 

[Not Connard Sage]

Osprey own the OoB for Quatre Bras?

Interesting. I expect they will be issuing suit to all other authors of same and their publishers, and to the national archives of several European countries?

I also expect that they understand the concept of ‘public domain’ and ‘fair use/issue’. Especially as many of their publications have used/abused same over the years.

 

 

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[grizzlymc]

I hope they don’t own uniform details. Be a real pain if they sued you every time you paintd up a unit that they had left out of a publication on the grounds that they owned Uniforms of Napoleon’s German Allies.

Or a battlefield. Worse yet an AFV or plane.

[Not Connard Sage]

“Waterloo? That’s one of ours, you can’t have it”

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quatre_Bras_order_of_battle

 

Suck on that Osprey

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[grizzlymc]

Of course if you authour an Osprey, they probably have a clause in your contract prohibiting you from publishing something better for a while.

Out of period, but on that subject. Has anyone else looked at that new Russian tank and thought “”they’ll be getting a letter from GW’s lawyers soon”?

[Jonathan Gingerich]

Well the thread on TMP has taken a peculiar turn.  William Armintrout (the site owner) has published email from John Walsh even though he is a banned member.  Walsh accuses John Franklin of claiming a director at Osprey assured Franklin that Osprey would never accept material from Walsh.  I have no idea where this was said, as Walsh does not say.  Nor do I understand why Walsh is so upset.  Either Osprey accepts his material or it does not.  I am a bit bemused as to what Walsh intends to offer to Osprey, though.

[grizzlymc]

Fortunately I have done my monthly drive by of the Place We Do Not Name. With a bit of luck it will have fallen off the page by early June. Sounds most unedifying.

[General Slade]

I saw that thread too.  I don’t know Franklin’s work but I do think he would have done himself a favour if he had ignored the people who posted negative reviews rather than engaged with them. If you attempt to argue with a blowhard you will inevitably end up looking like a blowhard. The same is true of arguing with an idiot.

[grizzlymc]

And because they are on familiar grund, they always win.

[Jonathan Gingerich]

And now Margaret Chrisawn barges in, trying to take a chunk out of “Alexandre”.  Granted “Alexandre” is a porpoise in a puddle of polywogs, so it’s good that someone can catch him when he misspeaks about Houssaye being a romance writer.  Margaret posts on Napoleon -Series frequently.  She’s a bit of Bonapartist,  but there her posts are not this clueless and disingenuous.  Maybe she is just trying to fit in with the local culture…

[Not Connard Sage]

It would help if people understood that there were two Houssayes – pere et fils. The former was a novelist, poet and dramatist, the latter a historian, and immortel d’Academie francaise.

Only one wrote a history of the Napoleonic wars

 

Just saying

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[janner]

I agree that John didn’t handle himself as well as he could, but he has since shared some interesting new (to me at least) material 

 

http://jannersjaunt.blogspot.dk

[Jonathan Gingerich]

I agree and I’m sad to see you say so, because John is the aggrieved party here.

Kiley is pathologically incapable of admitting error, Margaret Chrisawn and “Sparker” are juvenile delinquents, and “Waterloo200”  passive-agressively equates real research with imbecility.   Our little hobby should hold them accountable.

[Whirlwind]

Kiley is pathologically incapable of admitting error, Margaret Chrisawn and “Sparker” are juvenile delinquents, and “Waterloo200″  passive-agressively equates real research with imbecility.   Our little hobby should hold them accountable.

Whether this be true or not, the thing I really like about TWW is that we don’t discuss such things here.

[Jonathan Gingerich]

Don’t enable.

 

(You are doing a fine job on TMP btw.)

[Whirlwind]

Thanks.  But I’m pretty much done there, I’m boring myself now.

[janner]

If you don’t mind me, saying, whilst a demanding exchange can help hone one’s argument, it’s always challenging to remain cool in the face of ignorance, but descending to their level never helps. However, it’s hard for them to counter someone who continues to calmly state the facts without rancour.

Keep up the good work, John, it is much appreciated 

http://jannersjaunt.blogspot.dk

[Sparker]

“Sparker” are juvenile delinquents,

Now that’s the kind of reasoned argument I like!

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Norm S]

I read the post in the other place last night as the original posters question is of interest to me as I am working on a Quatre Bras scenario. I was disappointed as to how the thread deteriorated, though there remained a spattering of helpful posts trying to keep things on course.

Here seems to enjoy better self discipline – long may that last.

The argument as to whether the second cavalry brigade was there or not, looks to be something that will need some time before the academic community decides one way or the other – if they ever can get a consensus. But in the meantime I thought the unit would at least make a useful balancing option if the scenario was in need of adjustment.

Good job none of these things really matter

 

[Sparker]

I thought the unit would at least make a useful balancing option if the scenario was in need of adjustment.

Yes I agree! I have written a Quatre Bras scenario for Sam Mustafa’s Honour website which seems to have been used some, I wish I’d known about the possibility of a Dragoon Brigade being present, it would make the scenario much more interesting. What is really fascinating is that there is an account of at least one of the units dismounting to give fire. Now if correct that’s really breaking ground, I’ve not come across any such example of Dragoons used in this way in the later Napoleonic period.

And be a good use of the box full of Perry plastic dismounted Dragoons I seem to have acquired!

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Jonathan Gingerich]

” it’s always challenging to remain cool in the face of ignorance”

Glad that’s over!

We are left with a long thread, full of repetative back-and-forth over increasingly narrow and trivial issues. I fear the casual observer sees Kiley and the boys at it again, and figures the truth is somewhere in between.

Yet, the question is straightforward. Everything presented (including Kellerman’s apologia), except Houssaye, conforms to Picquet’s brigade presence in a limited reserve role. Since that is unnoteworthy, it leaves the door open to suggestions they were absent. You just have to assume every eyewitness confused, every reference to L’Hertier means the general not his command, every other historian in error. [This all goes poof! as soon as Franklin’s Légion d’honneur commendations are published and confirmed, of course.]

What honest weighting would elevate Houssaye interpretation of Kellermann’s equivocal phrasing over the rest? “He’s French!”?? But why ponder when Kiley has a clear agenda – to justify his hatchet job on Amazon? He doesn’t have to prove it. Just make it controversial enough that his position is a reasonable difference of opinion.

It’s like arguing with a Creationist on the basis of science. You may show they are really bad at it, but you have allowed them to pretend it’s science.

[Sparker]

 it leaves the door open to suggestions they were absent.

I see what you did there – you did a logic flip on us – very ingenious.

The reality of course is that the alleged presence of these 2 Regiments is the ‘new’, revisionist view, therefore logically the balance of proof should be on the revisionists to prove they were present.

To my mind, as I know from experience the worth of eyewitness accounts, next to nothing, the only worthwhile evidence is the casualty report that John Franklin (very creditably) unearthed. Again, unfortunately I am all too aware that on large scale operations, the fact that casualties are incurred does not necessarily equate to prescence in battle, much less to any particular engagement.

 

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Jonathan Gingerich]

Sparker wrote:

it leaves the door open to suggestions they were absent.

I see what you did there – you did a logic flip on us – very ingenious.

The reality of course is that the alleged presence of these 2 Regiments is the ‘new’, revisionist view, therefore logically the balance of proof should be on the revisionists to prove they were present.

The rest of us have no need for proof because we do not have an agenda.  Picquet is/isn’t there, whichever way the evidence points.  Kiley based his slagging of Franklin at Amazon on certitude.  Maybe next time he will read the references first.

The revisionsist thing is a little silly (what next, Ruling Theory? ), but most would look to the early, careful, comprehensive Siborne as the baseline, and Houssaye as the revisionist.

To my mind, as I know from experience the worth of eyewitness accounts, next to nothing, the only worthwhile evidence is the casualty report that John Franklin (very creditably) unearthed. Again, unfortunately I am all too aware that on large scale operations, the fact that casualties are incurred does not necessarily equate to prescence in battle, much less to any particular engagement.

That’s another obsfuscation on the TMP thread.  Lots of posts about the fallibility of eyewitness accounts, in disagreement with, well, nobody.  (Although there was a good counterpoint made that these are not interrogations of random by-standers, but reports by officers – professional observers.)   But it is collaborative evidence.

Your idea about incidental casualties is reasonable.  And it can be tested by examining the casualty reports of Kellermann’s other, unengaged, divisions.  Now to do your research, Sparker, who you gonna call?  Franklin or Kiley?   (But note the Légion d’honneur commendations are likely a slam-dunk.)

[janner]

I fear that, in this field at least, I must rest also on the laurels of others. However, I hope that does not preclude me from participating in discussions here – or indeed on TMP.

Did you have anything in particular in mind when in comes to casualty figures across the whole division, Jonathan?

http://jannersjaunt.blogspot.dk

[Jonathan Gingerich]

Sparker is suggesting that the 17 ( ? if I recall correctly) casualties suffered by Picquet’s brigade might not have been incurred in action (at QB). It would be interesting to check what the 12th Cavalry Division suffered on the 16th as a comparison.
JG

[janner]

I understood, but have you those figures to hand yourself?

http://jannersjaunt.blogspot.dk

[Jonathan Gingerich]

No I don’t.  I think Sparker makes a fair point, one that highlights why we should respect real research.

[janner]

Agreed, but it is not unreasonable to test such research, especially when the findings have been presented without the full evidence. I too look forward to reading more of John’s supporting data in due course.

http://jannersjaunt.blogspot.dk

[Jonathan Gingerich]

Jeesh.

And in other news, you can buy a brand new copy of John Franklin’s Waterloo Hanoverian Correspondence on Amazon for $520.68 plus shipping. In paperback.

[Not Connard Sage]

Jonathan Gingerich wrote:

Jeesh. And in other news, you can buy a brand new copy of John Franklin’s Waterloo Hanoverian Correspondence on Amazon for $520.68 plus shipping. In paperback.

 

And your point is?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Waterloo-Netherlands-Correspondence-Letters-Manuscript/dp/0956339328/ref=la_B003P2U7Y4_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434436675&sr=1-5

 

Second hand copies from £70

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Waterloo-Hanoverian-Correspondence-Letters-Manuscript/dp/0956339336/ref=la_B003P2U7Y4_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434436733&sr=1-6

 

Published price, but OOP. £15

 

MTH

 

 

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Jonathan Gingerich]

As you show, it’s a curiosity of supply and demand in an electronic marketplace.  But what demand! – a bit of a contrast with the opinions of the more recalcitrant TMPers.

A mulatto. An albino. A mosquito. My libido.

[John Franklin]

Hello everyone,

 

I am not intending to participate on an on-going basis, but I was told earlier today about this forum, and the fact that I’ve been mentioned in relation to the Quatre Bras OOB, and I thought it would be appropriate to clarify several points. This is merely intended to outline some of the issues authors (and indeed illustrators) face in today’s publishing world.

I should also like to add that I do not know Kevin Kiley or John Walsh. I do know David Hollins, who many of you are aware of, particularly as he had a online argument with the same Kevin Kiley, and subsequently found that each of his books were poorly reviewed by several parties (not bothering to mention their names again). David is a proper historian who has unearthed a number of interesting items, and can speak German fluently and has an excellent knowledge of French. For those of you who are not aware, I live in Switzerland and speak German, Swiss German and French on a daily basis. Being located in central Europe has also allowed me to travel to almost all of the major archival institutions across the continent, and I have an extensive network of contacts (some of whom I work and agree with, others I work with but generally disagree with).

I have been collecting material since 1992, and have a large personal collection of original letters and reports, books, periodicals, etc., in many languages. I have also amassed a huge collection of copies from the various museums I have visited. Over 9,000 items at the last count. Some of this material has now been published (about thirty percent), in English – based on my translations of the original documents. The majority, especially those on the French and Prussians, have not been published. This has been a deliberate ploy on my part.

 

As you are aware, I was commissioned to write several books for Osprey. Please note that I did not say a trilogy of Waterloo 1815. More books will follow (but I cannot say more at this stage). At present, the three books which Osprey commissioned for release by the bi-centenary in June 1815, cover events until the morning of the 19th June. Of course, there’s a great deal more in the campaign to be covered. Indeed, there’s a great deal that needs to be covered which was omitted from the first three books due to the limitations of space. The OOBs, details of losses, etc., etc., were all editorial decisions which were imposed upon the content I supplied to Osprey, due to the limitations of the 96 page format. I can assure you that the ‘Complete’ book, when it is released, will be far more interesting for those students of the campaign. (I hope this answers the questions as to why Osprey can ask me to remove posts from Napoleonic platforms, and in effect, own the rights to certain work I had written for them.)

One of the many issues I raised with Osprey when the format of the ‘first three’ books was being discussed with the editor was the material which I could not include, such as notes, references, etc. Osprey agreed to allow me to produce four articles with each of the first three books, and for these to provide an insight into the level research undertaken. Four articles (one on the Brunswickers, Nassau-Usingen, Dutch and Belgians, and the French) appeared to coincide with the release of the first book on Quatre Bras. Most of the information in these will have been new to many readers. The articles on the French and Prussians, to coincide with the release of the Ligny book, were cancelled by Osprey, as they were afraid the ‘official’ Waterloo book by Nik Lipscombe was not receiving enough coverage. No problem. Four additional articles have been prepared for the release of the latest book. These cover the production I was involved with, entitled: The Scots at Waterloo (the one hour programme was broadcast on BBC 2 Scotland and is on the BBC iPlayer currently for those in the UK who want to watch it); there are other articles on the Hanoverians, The Prussians, and the French. The latter includes some interesting ‘new’ (unpublished) material on the attack by the Imperial Guard. Emily Haggerty, of the marketing team, will publish these on the Osprey Blog, and no doubt links will be posted elsewhere.

The content of the first book drew criticism, and a couple of poor reviews. The reviews by Kevin Kiley and John Walsh were posted by these individuals on Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com. They also made negative comments about the book on ‘every single’ post on Amazon in the UK and US. As the editor at Osprey pointed out, it was clearly a smear campaign. It is my understanding that one of these individuals had applied to have a book published by Osprey, but they were declined. When the initial post was made, I, foolishly, responded in an attempt to answer some of the points raised. I realise that there is no pint discussing issues with certain individuals, and have been told in no uncertain terms by Osprey that I am not to do this, as this is Osprey policy. (I didn’t actually read the small print in the contract when I signed it.) The comments have continued on various other platforms.

Now, forgetting the editorial decisions which reduced the content due to the limitations of space, and the formula of the Osprey campaign series, which an author has to comply with – all clearly outlined in the original Author’s Notes – the main issue arising is the role of the 2e and 7e Dragoons at Quatre Bras. Where they present?

Some of you have read the material I have published thus far. The content is derived from many previously unpublished sources. The Brunswick post I made on TMP gave an indication that these troops thought they were engaged with Dragoons. Well, they were. I have two lengthy accounts written by men from the ranks who describe the role of the 2e Dragons at Quatre Bras. There are four other short accounts which expand briefly on this (sorry, I don’t have anything from the 7e Dragons, although these troops are mentioned). These accounts were introduced to my by a fellow author. He has undertaken a considerable amount of research in France (we have exchanged a lot of material to our mutual benefit) , and was due to have a book published on Waterloo in April of this year. The release has gone back to October. The agreement we reached was that I would publish the content once his book came out. His publisher, who is a personal friend, has upheld this. I am therefore restricted from publishing these accounts.

Let me say that there is no doubt that the 2e and 7e Dragons were engaged at Quatre Bras. One of the accounts corroborates the attack on the Brunswickers perfectly, which is why I published the former. More importantly, I stumbled across some of the returns of the wounded men and horses of these – and other regiments – when at Vincennes. The documents had been misfiled among the records of the Imperial Guard. The 2e Dragons sustained twenty-six rank and file wounded. They also lost double this number in horses. (*Those who wish to go to the Archive Nationale de France, search through LH570 and transcribe the accounts are freely at liberty to do so, as I have mentioned before.)

 

Later in 2015, and early in 2016, there will be a number of books released which will contain material ideally suited to compliment the Osprey books. These will be very cheap, and can be downloaded via Amazon as part of a new initiative. The unpublished French and Prussian material will be among this. The books are not based on English language secondary sources, but new archival research and some material from my private collection (mainly British and Hanoverian). Until this time, I suggest a more open mind to the possibility to the involvement of the French Dragons at Quatre Bras, and less certainty based on the aforementioned secondary English language sources.

Kind regards

 

John Franklin (currently enjoying the hospitality of Nottingham, England)

 

 

*The files of the Legion d’Honneur are massive, and hold the records of every Frenchman – and foreigner – who applied for a pension, having received the prestigious award. The vast majority of men submitted an account of their service when they applied for a pension. Some of these accounts are lengthy and contain wonderful material which has never been published. The majority are very simple of course, with a list. Two friends of mine have been working through these accounts for a number of years and have produced incredible new evidence on Waterloo. Some of this has been incorporated into my Osprey books, such as the Dragons and the attack of the Imperial Guard, while more will be in the book I’ve written for Fonthill Media on the ‘Struggle for Hougoumont’. I sincerely hope that it is greeted with a positive response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[John Franklin]

P.P.S. I think there are a few brand new (sealed) copies of Hanoverian and Netherlands Correspondence left in the warehouse (certainly less than ten of each). So if someone wants a copy for £10 plus p&p, just let me know.

[janner]

Welcome aboard, John

http://jannersjaunt.blogspot.dk

[Sparker]

Yes, its good of you to join and share your knowledge and point of view with us, its a privilege to be able to interact with an author in this way.

All I will say about that rather rancorous thread in the other place is that I feel that Kevin Kiley has every right to post a forthright, negative, but entirely professional review of your work on amazon, and I feel you were over hasty in describing his doing so as outrageous.

Where the rubber hits the road, I have (gladly) purchased all three of your recent Osprey Waterloo editions, and both your Hanoverian and Netherlands Correspondence (and it seems these were a wise investment!) (What happened to the Guards Correspondence by the way, was really looking forward to that one!)

As regards the presence of the 2eme and 7eme Dragons at QB, as I said in the other place (Navy 417) I feel that the current balance of evidence, one casualty return and a couple of eyewitness accounts,  is insufficient to overturn the current received wisdom, which includes the testimony of the Formation Commander that they were not present. Obviously with the publishing of 6 primary sources from one of these Regiments stating they were involved in action, at Quatre Bras, the balance will fall the other way.

Which as a wargamer attracted to the sombre uniforms of Dragoons, I will celebrate!

But the important thing is: welcome!

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[John Franklin]

Hi Sparker,

Thanks for your message (which has flashed up on my iPhone – first time for everything!).

 

Please note, I never described Kevin Kiley’s review as outrageous. If you revisit the thread you will see the comment was made by Londongamer. Kevin, or anyone else for that matter, is entitled to review any book the way they see fit. I do not deny anyone the chance to review my books, indeed, you will note from various threads on TMP that I have encouraged people to do this. Osprey were unhappy that two individuals posted negative comments on every single positive review, and were responsible for ‘marking down’ positive reviews. I can add nothing to this.

With regards to the presence of the French Dragons, you will see in due course that the evidence for their being at Quatre Bras is overwhelming. You are entitled to believe what you will based on the evidence, of course.

I’m pleased you enjoyed the various books. The Guards book you referred to is being released as a much more detailed book about ‘The Struggle for Hougoumont’. It will be published by Fonthill Media on the 29th October. May I add that this is much more than a book of British Foot Guards accounts, but includes new material from the French and German archives. I hope that it will be of interest (as Dr. Tony Pollard and the Channel 5 TV crew are using it for guidance in the making of the ‘Waterloo Uncovered’ programme).

Kind regards

 

John

 

 

 

 

[Author]

Posts