Preußische Heeresbibliothek

(Preußische Armee Library)

Grapeshot
By Robert Hamper
with Peter Hofschröer

Welcome to the first installment of Grapeshot where we fire a bunch of questions at our guest and see what turns up. Our first unfortunate target is Mr. Peter Hofschröer, a man well known in wargaming and Napoleonic history circles. He is renowned for his in-depth study of the Prussian/German side of events during the wars against Imperial France and for his cutting edge analysis of these times. Mr. Hofschröer dares to be different.

Mr. Hofschröer's published works include a two volume account of the Waterloo Campaign (the second of which was released in October, 1999); volumes in the Osprey Men-at-Arms series on the Prussian and Hanoverian Napoleonic Armies; an analysis of the Leipzig-1813 battle for the Osprey Campaign series, as well as numerous articles in various academic and hobby magazines.

Welcome sir, we'll start with a little background on yourself.

I was born on the 28th of May, 1956 in London, England. I attended King's College, University of London, where I received a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in German and History. King's had, at that time, Britain's leading War Studies Department. I currently reside in Rottenmann, Austria.

When did you first become interested in military history?

Ever since I can remember, I always have been.

Do you have interests in other eras of military history besides the Napoleonic one?

Frederick and Bismarck.

Which is your favourite and why?

Bismarck. The combination of modern weapons with the colourful uniforms of earlier periods is an interesting combination.

Do you frequent any historical discussion groups on the Internet?

Several, particularly the Napoleon Series.

I understand you helped in the design of a wargame for the computer, could you tell us a bit about that?

I didn't design the game. I merely provided historical information for MicroProse's "Fields of Glory". In its time, it was a revolutionary product.

Are you currently involved in any similar projects? If not, would you like another opportunity to provide historical assistance for another computer game?

No. I would happily provide historical assistance for another computer game.

Do you wargame yourself? If so, could you tell us about the extent of your interests here?

I stopped years ago. You can see my wargames army on display in the Blücher Museum in Kaub on the Rhine.

What surprises you most about wargamers in general?

I have not been in touch with the wargaming community for so long that I cannot comment.

(Interviewer's Note: I asked Mr. Hofschröer several questions on wargaming, but since he was no longer in those circles, he felt he could not adequately answer them. I have omitted them to avoid repetition and to save space. Mr. Hofschröer if you are curious about computer wargaming, drop me a note!)

You have often stated to the effect that Anglo-historians perpetuate myths about the Waterloo campaign by re-hashing second and third party sources that don't quite have the whole picture. Name three of the foremost English language authorities on this subject.

William Siborne was the one and only British historian ever to conduct original research into the Waterloo Campaign and his writings were based in part on primary sources. Chesney's analysis of the Campaign was remarkable in its attempt at objectivity. I cannot think of any other British works on the subject that meet those two criteria - solid research and objectivity.

How about non-anglophone authors? (ex. German/ French/ Dutch/ Belgian/ Russian)

Pflugk-Harttung exhausted the German archives. Charras wrote the first authoritative French account of the campaign, although it was published in Belgium. He did not make himself popular at home, as Waterloo remained a sensitive subject in France for decades afterwards. De Bas and T'Serclaes de Wommersom based their work largely on the Netherlands archives. I know of no Russian work on the campaign.

What would be the best, if any, German sources translated into English that are available to would-be scholars of the Napoleonic period?

Some of Clausewitz's work, although that suffered from having been published posthumously. Had the famous solider-philosopher himself read the manuscripts, I am sure he would have made some alterations. Müffling's memoirs, though these are unreliable in places. His memory was rather selective when it came to his own errors. The best works - the general staff histories of these campaigns - have never been translated. That is a shame because these works are of the highest standards.

You have done so much archival research from sources that, until recently, were largely ignored or overlooked. Do you feel there may yet be a wealth of data that remains untapped, say in archives of former East-bloc nations?

Ironically, one of the main untapped sources of archive material on the subject is that in Britain. Thanks to the Royal Commission for Historical Manuscripts and the National Register of Archives, it is possible for the historian to locate all known papers via the internet. There is a substantial amount of unused material that British Waterloo historians have never used and it is so easy to locate. Instead, we just get a regurgitation of selected myths, often with new embellishments. This contrasts with the Prussian War Archives, which are missing, presumed destroyed in World War 2. Thanks to their extensive use and direct quotation in works such as those by Pflugk-Harttung and others, it has been possible for me to reconstruct a substantial part of this missing material. Incidentally, rumour has it that the larger part of the Prussian War Archives survived 1945 and is currently held in the former KGB archive in Moscow, but nobody is admitting this yet.

In your recently published books you lay out the evidence that the Duke of Wellington actively deceived Blücher and the Prussians. At what point in your studies did you formulate this theory, that is, what inspired you to look deeper into this question?

I was aware that a number of German historians had made this accusation a century ago. When I began my researches, I considered their charges to be flavoured by the politics of that period. However, on checking the papers of Sir Hudson Lowe, for a time Wellington's quartermaster-general (chief-of-staff) in 1815, by coincidence, I found several documents that indicated he was not convinced by the version of certain events as given by Wellington. Pursuing that line of research added several years of work to this project and took me to archives and private homes, particularly in Britain. Here, I found a number of significant items that corroborated the charges made a century ago. The accusations made then by those German historians, as it turns out, were fairly mild. The full extent of Wellington's attempts at manipulating the record to cover his own errors has yet to be told. My books mention only one or two instances.

So, Wellington, in your assertions, is more guilty of what he didn't tell Blucher then in what he had already promised?

To an extent, yes. However, let us not forget that Wellington deliberately misled Blücher, Müffling and the Prince of Orange as to his intentions on the morning of 16 June 1815. For instance, several times Wellington claimed he was moving a substantial part of his army to Quatre Bras. The fact of the matter is that, other than part of the Reserve, he issued no orders for any further troops to move to that point until after the fighting had started. In fact, had the Prince of Orange not been so alert and ordered up certain divisions himself while Wellington was away at the meeting at Brye with Blücher, then the chances are that Ney would have overwhelmed Quatre Bras very quickly.

Were there any major surprises that arose as you gathered materials for this project?

The biggest surprise was locating the manuscript of a translation into English of Clausewitz's History of the 1815 Campaign. I was aware that the Earl of Ellesmere, a close associate of Wellington, had translated Clausewitz's 1812, and I always wondered why he did not translate the 1815 volume as well. When checking some other papers in the unpublished Wellington Papers, I found the manuscript of the translation of Clausewitz's 1815. Wellington disapproved of parts of Clausewitz's writings - he was particularly sensitive about the issue of his broken promises of support made to Blücher. He made his disapproval known to his associates and they discretely dropped the issue. The manuscript was never published and Wellington, in effect, ensured that it did not see the light of day.

Do you think Clausewitz's 1815 will ever be published in English?

Clausewitz's 1815 will be published in English in the next couple of years. Dr. Gregory Pedlow, SHAPE's official historian based in Mons, Belgium, near Waterloo, is working on the translation and Dr. Christopher Bassford, a Clausewitz specialist, is editing the text. I have assisted this project by supplying part of the correspondence on this issue between Wellington and certain of his associates from my files.

Is it your assertion that Wellington willingly wanted the French blows to fall first upon the Prussians or was his supposed deception a cover up for his misjudgments?

The balance of the evidence indicates that Wellington did not deliberately intend leaving Blücher in the lurch. However, for reasons we can only largely speculate at today, Wellington did not react to the news of the outbreak of hostilities on 15 June 1815 as quickly as he should have done. Wellington misled Blücher as to his positions and intentions to buy back the lost time. When he started to mislead Blücher, putting him in danger off facing a substantial part of Napoleon's forces with little or no support from Wellington, he did so in the knowledge that Blücher had ordered all four of his army corps to concentrate in the Sombreffe position. It was only the next afternoon at the meeting at Brye near Ligny that Wellington heard Bülow would not be arriving. The battle was just about to start and by then it was too late for Wellington to go back on what he had said.

Obviously you have been subjected to vehement attacks from Wellington supporters. What is your biggest argument with them, that is, what vital bit of information do you suppose they are ignoring that would invalidate their claims?

Wellington's supporters have been conducting a smear campaign against my person and my writings. They have not been able to refute a single point of my case. Instead they have deliberately misrepresented it. I find it ironic that those attempting to defend their great hero against charges of duplicity and deceit do so by being duplicitous and deceitful themselves. Sadly, they are the last people to realize that they have done more to undermine the reputation of their great hero than anything I have ever written. They have deliberately ignored the entire body of significant documentary evidence I have produced. I suspect this is because this evidence is so overwhelming that a plausible counter-argument is not possible. Instead, we have had a display of hysterics.

You have quoted yourself as "having an axe to grind" like other author-historians that write along national lines. Is it possible that your arguments are slightly biased, thereby bringing a sort of patriotic balance to the whole picture?

I am the first to say that my work is not balanced. I have never claimed it is. I am telling the other side of the story and hoping that my one tome will go some way to correcting the false impressions made by British writers over the best part of two hundred years.

What is your feel for the German people's appreciation of their 18th and 19th century heritage?

Germans today are taught that they only have twelve years of history, that they must be ashamed about it and that every person coming along with a story - even those that are implausible - about how their family suffered in that time, must be given sympathy and preferably money. The rest of German history is largely ignored. There are a number of cases of good historians that have been persecuted for not toeing the line and being politically correct.

What is your next topic going to be? Do you have any more Napoleonic topics that would like to research?

I am currently working on an Osprey Campaign on Lützen/1813. The project I am currently planning has the working title "Waterloogate - How Wellington Manipulated the Record". You think my work on the subject to date has been controversial? I have saved the best parts for last!

(Interviewer's note: Ouch! Can't wait for that one!)

Thank you Mr. Hofschröer for your time and patience. Perhaps we can visit with you again when your next works are published?

That concludes the first edition of Grapeshot for the Napoleonic Wargaming Club Newsletter. I hope you found it an enjoyable and intriguing read. Although the Editor has not decided on publishing feedback on this article, send some in anyway and if there's something we feel would merit our reader's interest perhaps we can coax him into publishing it! Who will be our next target for the Grapeshot volley? Ahhhh, that's a secret not even Ocampo's Cossacks will find out!

Updated 15/11/99

Return to Previous Page

Site Maintained by Scott Ludwig 

E-mail: Eric2900@aol.com

© 2004-present