Got a response from Scott Bowden

@tomholmberg On this thread- or a new one?

If there's been a post on this board which less deserves 70 responses I'd like to know. 🤐

Hard pounding, gentlemen. Let us see who will pound the longest.

It’s sadly a function of having my neurotype that I have to continually apologise to my abusers. And suffer begrudging and disingenuous apologies in return, as somehow I’m responsible for their level of ignorance. Genuinely though, thank you for your response. It is the first step on the road to building a better relationship, and I’m very grateful for that. We might not always agree, but the warmth and support on my part is constant. We have a shared passion, and I believe that makes us kindred spirits. For those of us on the spectrum there is no hidden meaning in what we say. We are very analytical but we are not hardwired to read your intent either. We largely neither offer, nor get, sarcasm. It’s unintelligible to us. To us the world is a logical and ‘normal’ from our perspective. The wider world is filled with a confusing array of people and social interactions that sometimes, try as we might, we just don’t ‘get’. There are some excellent websites explaining neurodiversity and I commend them to you and all fellow forumites. It is only through education and awareness that we can build the tolerant, welcoming and diverse community through which we can indulge our shared passion for history.

Far from it @tomholmberg “I guess in this thread secondary sources don't matter” Secondary sources and good historical enquiry will be very welcomed by me. Thirdary, Forthary, Fifthary…n..thary repetition of the same old long debunked myths are less welcome.

With respect @Geraint Thatcher I said nothing of the sort. @Kevin F. Kiley said “@Geraint Thatcher Well done finding this correspondence.” Now, a long standing opposition to the use of Wikis and scathing comments about the lack of editorial policy has led me to be amazed at this volte face, so I simply asked “@Kevin F. Kiley but isn’t it on the unreliable Wikipedia?” I first read the text of these letters over four decades ago, and have seen them often since, in various forms and media. I neither challenged the veracity or relevance of them in any way. Just the rehabilitation of Wiki.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_campaign:_Waterloo_to_Paris_(25_June_%E2%80%93_1_July)

There was fighting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_campaign:_Waterloo_to_Paris_(25_June_%E2%80%93_1_July)

In some respects, comprehensively defeating the French army in the field but allowing it to retreat had it’s political advantage for the allies. Annihilating it would have scattered trouble causers and ne’er do wells throughout France. Having negotiated the fall of Paris, allowing what was left of the army to retreat behind the Loire made sense. All the rotten apples could be kept in one barrel.

“If it was a total collapse, then where were the eagles that should have been captured in a situation of that type?” The real answer? Hidden in the darkness. Wrapped in black crepe. Snapped off staffs and concealed inside clothing. With one or two exceptions, they were not being defended by or fought over by anyone. They had largely been spirited away in this ‘sea of fugitives’ By the way, I’m not using British or Prussian sources for the rout, but the French themselves. The works by Andrew W Field and Paul L Dawson are instructive. Much of the army of the Loire were not Waterloo veterans, consolidated units being fleshed out with those from the depots. Likewise much, if not all, of the post Waterloo fighting was done by troops that were not there. As to the 1st Grenadiers leaving the field in good order, well, if you spend all day sat in reserve…. It’s fair comment that the sanguinary nature of the battle and the amount of marching undertaken by the allies hampered the follow up. It allowed the rout to be stabilised into a retreat instead of it’s conversion into an annihilation.

Yes, there was. And Davout's command after Waterloo, before retiring behind the Loire, numbered 117,000. As Napoleon had already abdicated, however, he saw no point in continuing which was probably a mistake.

“Comparing commanders of different nationalities and armies is one of the interesting historical exercises and can be beneficial to both readers and historians.” @Kevin F. Kiley I respectfully disagree. Commanders and their armies are integrated systems. Analysing them separately is at best an exercise in the analyst’s opinion, depending on the analyst’s insight. At worst, it devolves into an infantile game of enthusiast’s Top Trumps. There is plenty of evidence that the quality of the Armée du Nord in 1815 was much more varied than some works (particularly Swords) would suggest. The extensive and meticulous studies by Paul L Dawson are instructive. Morale was much more brittle. Evidence? The total collapse at and after Waterloo. If that could (and did) occur in the inspirational presence of Napoleon himself, what price Davout? I don’t regard ‘alternative history’, diverting as it is, as real history. It’s historical fiction. In my very humble opinion these arguments are merely fantasy football league or football manager games. It has a similar nodding acquaintance with real historical enquiry as they do to real football coaching. The real historical enquiry is the nature of period generalship and the systems of command. Systemic comparisons are very valid. Ultimately though, generalship is the ability to use what is to hand, in the terrain you find yourself and under the political direction or expediency you have been given. When you appreciate the variables, the dangers of equivalent comparison is self-evident. I fear that debating this will reveal more about the personal opinions of the than it will about the generals, or their generalship. Personally, I set zero store by these theoretical A vs B or top 10 list type posts. A lighthearted playground game, and no more. Of course, others are perfectly entitled to engage but I’m sure you will forgive me if I decline.

I figured you'd hear from the Bowden-bashers.

Wellington was fortunate to have commanded the allied contingents with his army or he undoubtedly would have ended up as Moore did-driven out of Spain. And without the Spanish guerillas Wellington would have been driven out of Spain, allies or not.

Davout won three battles on his own-Auerstadt, Eckmuhl, and Moghilev. His unyielding defense of Hamburg in 1813-1814 was an excellent example of how to defend a fortified city.

Davout also excelled as a trainer and organizer-he reorganized the I Corps in 1813 and then was ordered to turn it over to Vandamme, whereupon he organized the new XIII Corps, which included the new 15th Cuirassiers which he also had organized, to defend Hamburg. In 1815 as Minister of War he organized the Armee du Nord and got it ready for the campaign in Belgium. In 1809 and 1812 he commanded corps each of over 60,000 men comparable in size to Wellington's Peninsular army.

Comparing commanders of different nationalities and armies is one of the interesting historical exercises and can be beneficial to both readers and historians.

As an aside, comparing Suchet in eastern Spain with Wellington is also an interesting intellectual exercise. With a much smaller army than Wellington commanded, Suchet had an unbroken string of successes against the 'allies.'

You cannot compare Davout to an independent Army general like Wellington, Wellington could do it - time and time again, one success after the other, Davout, tactically yes, but he did not have experience of independent army command.

He did not get of course the hardest assignments, those who had to fight in the Peninsula got it.

Scott Bowden's Austerlitz landed in my waste bin, so I am not that all in awe of him.

And Davout is one of the few generals of the period that was never defeated. He commanded the best-trained and best-led French troops of the period, and he 'usually got the hardest assignments.'

Scott Bowden is an excellent historian and writer, and 'is a good man to have around.' I greatly value his research and writing and the assistance he is always willing to give. His opinions are very valuable and are based on solid research.