New Work & Research

I have been looking at the workings of the Austrian War Ministry and the General Staff’s work on planning possible campaigns. This included mapping territory and obtaining maps of neighbouring areas. It put me in mind of Carnot’s Topographical Bureau, where Napoleon briefly served, and a Google search threw up this interesting exchange about Roberts’ claims in his Napoleon book https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/16987/curious-office-hours-of-topographical-bureau-where-napoleon-served-in-1795 A chap called Gil Olivera takes Roberts’ claims apart: “. I've got to the decrees organizing the bureau in a very detailed way, but I'm still looking for the source of the Roberts extract. Also, Napoleon was a very short time in the bureau. I'm very suspicious of the accuracy of the information” and “Roberts has a good narrative but only on secondary sources. No need to agree. I like the sources first.”

And finally, a pretty devastating critique:

“(Roberts) has only two references for the passage that don't justify the points of fact (even less the reasoning). A primary source, i.e. a quote from a letter that Napoleon wrote to his brother. A secondary source, p. 128 of a book from historian Howard Brown.

Andrews use of Napoleon's letter is strange: "three days later [20/08/1795] he was crowing to Joseph: ‘I am at this moment attached to the Topographical Department of the Committee of Public Safety for the direction of armies.'"

The full letter is available in translation. It starts "I am attached for the present to the topograpical board of the Comittee of Public Safety for the direction of the armies; I replace Carnot."

It then goes on for a full page on completely unrelated matters. I don't see any crowing. Self-agrandizement (to replace Carnot?)? well it's Napoléon...

As to the analysis of the Bureau functions it seems to be based on a page of Brown. I couldn't check this book but I would be surprised that it would bring something new to this answer (a part giving some credibility to Andrews ideas about the Bureau). The assertion about the hours goes without reference and its not clear that its source is Brown (there's another unrelated reference before the assertion).”