In 1796 after being questioned by Napoleon on the status of General Andre Massena's division in the Armee d'Italie and not being able to answer all of the questions put adequately, apparently made up his mind 'to become an authority on military staffs.'
The result of that endeavor, published in Paris in 1800, was the first published staff manual for the French Army. It was entitled Manuel des Adjudans Generaux et des Adjoints employes dans les Etats-Majors Divisionaires des Armees. At the time Thiebault was an Adjutant General, the staff equivalent of a colonel in the line.
The next year an English translation was published in London at the Military Library near Whitehall. In the Introduction to the translation, labeled as 'Advertisement' it reads:
'The great advantages which must manifestly result from a well-conducted Etat-major or staff, are acknowledged in every military country. France, however, seems alone to have entered fully into the system, and to have added experiment of practice to the suggestions of theory.'
'In offering the following translation to the British Army, the Publisher has been principally actuated by a wish to furnish individuals with such general outlines of conduct, as suit all countries and are applicable to all services.'
General Thiebault wrote a second, updated and expanded edition of the staff manual, which was published in 1810 or 1813. It was entitled Manuel General du Service des Etats-Majors which was used by the French army for over twenty years.
There are two highlights of the 1800 manual:
First, the law of 29 October 1790 established a staff corps of 30 officers, the members being named adjutants-general and having the rank of colonel, of which there were seventeen, and lieutenant colonel, of which there were thirteen.-pages 11-12.
Second, the manual gives the organization of the staffs into staff sections, which would be headed under a chief of staff, by an adjutant general.-pages 22-23.
This staff organization delineated the duties of the staff and divided the staff work among the designated staff sections.
Buzz .... **repetition** ... discussed on Chiefs of Staff thread (where this exact post appeared).
Could you please show in the subject thread where 'this exact post appeared'? I couldn't find it.
@Kevin F. Kiley Over two posts by you on 27th January 2020.
Repeating a lie (or untruth) enough times may make many people believe it, but that thread like those on Bourcet shows the mythology that has been created by selective repetition of opinion and ignoring of the context.
@david.a.hollins Are you referring to these two postings from the Chief of Staff thread on 27 January? If so, they are not an 'exact post' to the one I posted in this thread...
1.'Thiebault's manual was derived from Berthier's operating instructions and by the procedures, practices, and organization of the staffs which Berthier implemented in the Armee des Alpes, the Armee d'Italie, and that was implemented in all French staffs thereafter.'
2.'The British had the practice of translating French military manuals because they didn't have any of their own covering the topics needed. Then they used the translated French manuals.'
'You might want to take a look at the excellent volume, Wellington's Engineers by Mark Thompson, where one junior Royal Engineer Officer, Captain Pasley, makes the comment that they didn't have any engineer manuals of their own and made use of translated French ones.'
'I believe that it is in Appendix 5.'