"Napoleonic Artillery by Dawon, Dawson, and Summerfield" Topic

Has anyone bought a copy of this book yet? It isn't due to be published, I guess, in the US for a few months yet.

As it has been brought up quite often in postings in the last month or so, I'd be interested in anyone's opinions of it as it is quite expensive.

Sincerely,
Kevin

No

…but 25 quid isn't that expensive for a reference work IMHO

It's $32.97 USD on Amazon.com with free postage. Quite reasonable – a book 'preview' feature has been added to the Amazon site.

Steve

Yes, it is, but it isn't available in the US. I tried to order it from Amazon UK and they stated it wasn't available to be mailed to the US.

Kev,

"Napoleonic Artillery" is almost $4.00 USD less on Amazon than "Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars"! Expensive indeed. Now that is RICH! LOL!

Steve

A friend of mine has read the book and he tells me that the authors claim on pages 245-247 that canister was designed NOT to rupture upon leaving the barrel, but in fact to rupture ON IMPACT with the ground in front of the target. This would seem to run counter to everything that I have been led to believe, which is that cannister is like a giant shotgun blast.

While I don't agree with that assessment, I'm willing to listen to evidence to the contrary and would like to hear more.

Canister – a cylinder filled with musket balls – or 'grape' – filled with iron balls of larger diameter. At the short canister ranges one wants a rupture at or near departure. At longer distances a rupture at first ‘bounce' would be best. I notice on several occasions it was mentioned that the ground was ‘too soft for [grape]'. Waterloo being one of them. This puzzled me. The rupture at first bounce would explain this. Of course, the larger, iron balls of ‘grape' would also bounce on hard ground.

Yes, I agree, the book will be an interesting read.

Steve

How do you control the rupture of the canister if it was indeed possible to fire in both these manners? I have never read anything that would lead me to believe that canister did not rupture at or near departure from the barrel. When one of the authors was recently questioned about this novel theory, his replies were less than convincing.

Canister ruptures as it leaves the gun tube. The force of the explosion of the propellant causes the round to rupture. That's the purpose of the round. If it ruptured when it hit the ground there would be little or not effect on target. The ricochet of the individual iron balls of the canister round is what is being referred to with the ground being too soft.

Sincerely,
Kevin

I have moved the discussion over to the Napoleonic Hisory Board re the canister 'bounce'.

See: To rupture or not to rupture. That is the question.

Kev's post was not present when I posted to that board.

Capt S,

Maybe they're getting canister and spherical case confused.

Sincerely,
Kevin

or with shells?
Isn't it only in bad Hollywood movies that every round from a smooth bore AWI, Nap & Crimean Wars artillery piece explodes on impact?
donald

I never was aware that regular canister had a fuse and detonator inside of the can. All those artillery manuals and ammunition books gone to waste.

Too bad the thread got diverted, though. It would have been nice to see if anyone had seen or read the book.

Oh, well, maybe next time.

Sincerely,
Kevin

You wouldn't be the same Kevin Kiley from North Carolina, who has just put a 3-star hatchet job on Amazon.uk, decrying anything which goes against your own book, wouold you? How did you manage this (reviews take a day or two to be published, so it must have been written last weekend)?

Well, we know the problem, don't we – these guys have done the research, whereas you could not even tell the truth about where your material was coming from!

I will make no comment as to whether it is a hatchet job, that is for everyone to make up their own minds on.The review is by a Kevin F.Kiley, and a marker says it is his real name. It is dated the 22nd January, and is fairly long and raises specific points. This thread started on the 20th January. If it is the same Kevin F.Kiley then I suppose it is possible that someone sent him a copy and he stayed up all night and read it thoroughly.

The question does need to be asked though; Kevin, is it you that wrote this review?

C'mon, dave.
You can behave better than this.
How are you involved in this discussion?
I do think you need to get over some criticism of your Osprey booklets from 4 years ago.
Move on, as our American cousins tell us.
donald

Yes, it is. And it isn't a hatchet job.

I asked here if anyone else had the book and there was only one person who answered 'no.' I wanted other opinions on the book before I reviewed it.

I bought the book from a UK dealer on the internet and have read it twice. I have also noted in my copy the errors in fact in the book.

It is a fair review. I could not in good conscience not review the book because it is in my opinion flawed and too many of those errors in the book have been repeated here.

The review has nothing to do with anything I have written and that is in print or is about to be published.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin, I fear you've done yourself no favours with this. Your initial post to open this thread and your second one at 10.40 on the 20th are too easily interpreted as being from someone who is looking to acquire the book rather than from someone who has it and wants a second opinion.

Why not just say "I've got it, I want to review it, what do you think?"

Shortcut – It is a hatchet job from someone, who is jealous of other people actually doing some research rather than copying out third hand claims. I needn't says anything more than "everything from the bricole to Graves on de Scheel" need I?

I had the same hatchet jobs on my Ospreys. but Amazon removed them.

Should we take seriously someone, who makes comments about this book not being up to Master's standards (I hold an MBA so I know), when his own book would be caught by UK software looking for plagarism at A-level (18yr olds)? Then he says: "If the authors had used the two biographies of Gribeauval, by Hennebert" – well, Kevin, had you read hennebert, you would have known what Gribeauval's 1762 report said (well, if you could read french!) rather than making up halfd a page on it!

Isn't a review supposed to be based on your own opinions anyway, not other peoples?

Kevin you sure do have questions to answer here before I lose all confidence in you and burn YOUR book.
Regards
Gerry McGinty

Shortcut,

I understand and that wasn't the point of doing a review, which I asked a couple of people about it before writing it. I also asked a history professor I know who is also involved in the Consortium on Revolutionary Europe about a few points, such as the lack of page numbers in the notes. I also showed the book to some of the history teachers I work with, and although we teach middle school, these teachers know their history and were quite surprised at the note issue and the reenactor photographs.

I really could not, in good conscience, let the errors go. If that isn't understand or agreed with, then that's the way it has to be. Historical accuracy is not a popularity contest.

I've had the book for about ten days and the review went on the site as soon as I posted it a few days ago.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Gerry,

Ask any question you like. I presented the material in the subject book that I believe to be in error. If you disagree that's fine with me-you are entitled to your opinions as I am to mine.

What you do with your books is your business, but burning any book is a very sad thing.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Postumus – Certainly, a review is an opinion, but it is normal to admit to even a possibility oif an agenda. Then we have an attempt to undermine it completely – apparently, some brief footnoting makes it "unreliable" for further research. Well, coming from someone, who hasn't read the relevant mnaterial, how would he know?

"If the authors had used the two biographies of Gribeauval, by Hennebert and Nardin, this material would have been understood. Neither of these volumes is in the bibliography. These errors and assumptions on Gribeauval are not sourced in the text and one can only guess where the material originated."

Interesting coming from someone, who doesn't list either book in his own work (despite including several books he has not read himself and taking material from recent English language books, while listing Germanic period works), who makes things up about Gribeauval's report and includes claims originating in Thiers, ending with a rant about Gribeauval's innovations, when these were not his, you can only wonder what the agenda is. As for illustrations, this might be the person, who could not even get the nationality of one gun right and if you want an editorial error, Greenhill mixed up a shall and a canister on p.95. We all know what editors can do – so a little more charitable approach on that might help.

Book burning has become less fashionable – so some "reviewers" try to say to people "don't buy this book" much like the Church disliked people reading the bible for themselves in the vernacular – although they could get burned for that too!

As Kevin is so fond of Amazon Uk, perhaps this review of his latest books by someone called NJ Rogers (and I have no idea who he is) might be revealing – just for balance, you understand!:

"Kevin Kiley's book is, in short, dreadful. It's hard to know exactly where to start. I should say that the only reason I haven't given this book only one star is down to Kiley's enthusiasm – it's clear that he is fascinated by his subject. However, the way he chooses to portray that fascination is at best misjudged, at worst downright unprofessional.

The language of the book is not what one would expect from a serious study of a detailed topic. Each chapter begins with a ridiculous attempt at building some sort of excitement by describing the 'nitty gritty' of a battle through the use of a semi-fictional style. This does not work!

Although this book is supposed to be about Napoleon's generals, in essence it is a series of simplistic overviews of a number of campaigns or battles, with a few potted biographies of some of the key commanders tacked on at the end of each chapter. Kiley himself seems to suggest that he only had one source for these biographies (Georges Six). Considering that this is what the book is supposed to be about, I am most surprised.

Kiley also allows his own views of people or events to cloud his judgement over historical fact. For example, he seems to have some sort of vendetta against Marshal Ney, calling him 'witless' on at least one occasion, and attacking him wherever possible! Inexplicable.

The book is also littered with mistakes and poor editing. Dates are confused, words are misspelt (for example, 'sabering' is repeatedly misspelt as 'sobering'!) and many sentences do not quite scan.

I could go on but, in short, do not buy this book. 'Napoleon's Marshals', edited by David Chandler, is much better for senior French commanders, and you are likely to get more information on specific generals by reading books about their top campaigns than you will from Kiley's book.

A poor attempt."

Careful what you wish for, eh?

Just received from Amazon UK:

Dear Mr Hollins

Thank you very much for bringing this review to our attention.

Please rest assured that these comments have been removed from our
database and will shortly disappear from the website.

We do exert some editorial control over our customer reviews and
strive to block these kinds of reviews. Amazon.co.uk does not
tolerate profane or spurious customer reviews. Our intention is to
make the customer review forum a place for constructive commentary
and
feedback, so reviews that fall outside these guidelines are removed
from the website.

We apologise for this situation and thank you for taking the time to
let us know. Feedback from conscientious customers such as yourself
helps us maintain the quality and integrity of our website.

Thank you for your interest in Amazon.co.uk.

Contrary to Kevin F Kiley's believe – re – enactment has finally found its place in historical research, examples?

Dr. Markus Junkelmann, re constructing Roman Armour with a – call it re – enactment group – and testing how it performed, or re constructing Roman tack, etc., etc.
One can buy his books where he carefully describes archeological findings, re constructions and how they did work under working conditions.

In case one is looking at the book Firepower by B. P. Hughes – one will find a photo of a gun and in a distance – people – just to show what gunners were up to. Now why should such a photo with re – enactors be worthless?

One could place a man in modern dress – against a gun – or a re – enactor – what is the difference?

Further the highly acclaimed Collector's Illustrated Encyclopedia of the American Revolution by Geore C. Neuman and Frank J. Kravic show photos of re – enactors, is it worthless because of this – or of less value – I don't think so.

About spelling and misspelling, Legion of the Fistula?
Otherwise Kevin F Kiley seems to have a lot of problems to do any correct quotes, and he is very evasive when one is asking where he found it, he speaks if von Scheel – but then hides that he is using a translation, the same with Gassendi and so on.

His tactic to discredit the authors of this book, before it was published is very evident reading the postings on this forum, he failed.

Ouch!

In medical terms, a fistula is an opening where there shouldn't be one!
This here Legion… do they suffer from them… or inflict them?
I'd want to know before I faced them on the battlefield!

This has gotten completely out of hand. What a surprise.
The amount of good will in this place couldn't be collected in a tea spoon.
Insults, recriminations, age-old feuds, censorship, secret identities(that's you H-K v W isn't it?)….it's got it all.
I'm disgusted.
donald

Thanks Dave, now I can't read the review, you have to be quick around here! was the review that bad for Amazon to pull it? although obviously Amazon want people to buy the book after reading the review and not to be told 'not recommended' (is that a double negative?)

Yes Donald, seen it all before, but does it matter if VW is H-K or someone else. .

That feud is a real joke. Perhaps we should ban artillery topics from this forum… the leaner, artillery-free TMP Napoleonic forum. *sigh*

All the wannabe writers of this world are published in this period of information overload. Hollins, Kiley, Dawson may or may not be rated as such (everyone is entitled to make is own opinion… and please don't feel obliged to share it), but their attitude here is not that of litterate gentlemen. Grumblers were marching with a musket at the shoulder… they were not the one to lead the pack.

I must admit Kevin explained his point without any attempt at offending someone in the current thread but others showed jagged knives kept unused for too long so it seems. Sad.

My dear Graf,
does *any* of this really matter? As enthusuastic as I am about Napoleonic military history, I'd still say, "Not very."
As for the Secret Identities, it is interesting some would hide behind pseudonyms & then plant the knives. Of course this doesn't mater, either. Unless their conscious' bother them.
donald

"As for the Secret Identities, it is interesting some would hide behind pseudonyms & then plant the knives. Of course this doesn't mater, either. "

Of course it matters – there are those in this life with the courage to look you in the face and tell you what they think, and there are those who will skulk in dark corners, throwing cheap shots and anonymous barbs when your back is turned only to scurry away from any light turned upon them.

Life is about choices and the standards you choose to at least try to stand for yourself, if not attempt to hold up as an example to others.

Daryl

<<About spelling and misspelling, Legion of the Fistula?>>

One of those "don't ask, don't tell" units, perhaps?

Ochoin – well said, mate.

You realy do have to feel sorry for the Fistula Legions Regimental Surgeon though, not one of life's sought after positions I'm sure.

Good point Therapist.
But Elting's book was published when?
This one was published when?
Perhaps there should be Some progress in historical writing?
BTW welcome on board. It's nice to see so many very new members with strong opinions on these controversial matters.
donald

Oh dear, it looks like he's back again.

Captain Snort,
Who's back?

Wagram

The soberer of the Fistula Legion? Sobers wherever he goes!

Beware the Fistula soberers, they will sober anything, you see.

They also spew forth psycho-babble as they sober, you see.

Sad, really.

Graf,

Here you go. I'd have answered you sooner but we had to go out of town. Sorry you missed it the first time. ;-)

Sincerely,
Kevin

Review of Napoleonic Artillery
By
Paul Dawson, Anthony Dawson, and Stephen Summerfield

This volume is full of promise, packed with photographs of period artillery pieces in museum collections, secondary drawings of artillery pieces and ancillary vehicles and equipment, but in the end is a disappointment. Napoleonic Artillery is a survey work that is attempting to be all things to all people, and while profusely illustrated, the book needed the editorial direction to be either an illustrated history of the artillery of the Napoleonic Wars or a scholarly history of the artillery of the period. The book is trying very hard to be both, and unfortunately, it is neither.

The authors have attempted manfully to shoulder the entire gamut of the European artillery systems of the period, from field artillery to siege, garrison, and fortress artillery, but what they have accomplished is a wide range of material with little or no depth to it. Like the Powder River, it is a mile wide and an inch deep.
In this flawed endeavor, the book fails in two areas: it is not well-sourced (or on the surface appears not to be) and there are too many errors in fact in the text to be a reliable source of information for researchers.

First, and most important, while there are over four hundred reference notes in the volume, about forty percent of these have no page numbers to the works that are cited. This is very poor scholarship, and would fail in any credible masters-level history or military history course. Because of this grave omission, the book's text cannot be used as a reliable source for further research and it brings the book's actual sourcing into question.

There are issues raised in the book that need to be sourced, and are not, which begs the question where did the authors find the material stated as fact? An excellent example of this is on pages 246-247 where the authors erroneously describe canister, one of the anti-personnel rounds of the period, as bursting on impact with the ground instead upon leaving the gun tube when the round was fired. It is incorrect information about how the canister round reacted when fired and there is no sourcing to back up the claims as stated. There is a diagram made for the book that supposedly demonstrates this phenomenon, which is nothing short of fantasy. There is no contemporary artillery manual that supports this theory. This not only shows a lack of serious research but it clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the artillery and ammunition of the period. And this is not the only place in the text where this takes place.

Jean-Baptiste de Gribeauval was one of the great artillerymen of the mid-to-late 18th century. The artillery system he created was arguably the epitome of 18th century artillery development, but that opinion is clearly not shared by the authors of this volume. However, in those opinions, incorrect information has been given about Gribeauval, such as stating he was an engineer; that his ‘fundamental profession was the building and attacking of fortresses;' and that he was ‘a specialist in the attack and defense of fortified places.' Further it is stated that Gribeauval was ‘exchanged into the Austrian service.'

Gribeauval was a school trained artilleryman, and was commissioned into the artillery as a lieutenant-he was not an engineer. He also gained a reputation for innovation and artillery design before 1750. He was a specialist in siege operations because that was part of the training an artillery officer of the period was given. His ‘fundamental profession' was artillery, and in that he excelled. He wasn't ‘exchanged' to Austria, but seconded to them in the Seven Years War as the Austrian Army was short of qualified artillerymen. There he distinguished himself among the Austrians, who considered him a gifted colleague, and was promoted to general officer rank and decorated in the Austrian service. If the authors had used the two biographies of Gribeauval, by Hennebert and Nardin, this material would have been understood. Neither of these volumes is in the bibliography. These errors and assumptions on Gribeauval are not sourced in the text and one can only guess where the material originated.

Further, the authors state on page 262 that ‘The Gribeauval System was not an all-encompassing and radical change' and this is neither sourced nor explained. Evidence from French artillery manuals of the period and such credible secondary works as Nardin's biography of Gribeauval and Ken Alder's Engineering the Revolution state, and largely prove, otherwise.

French General Ruty is quoted in the text on page 78, but the document from which the quote originated is not listed in the bibliography. This again begs the question, where did the material originate? Another such unsourced claim is on page 225, stating that the French adopted an Austrian piece of equipment to replace their own prolonge, and that they reverted to an older use of draft horses to move the field piece under horse power. Again, there is no sourcing or evidence provided for the assertion and none is in the French artillery manuals of the period. If controversial material is going to be presented it either has to be sourced properly or either not used as being inaccurate or stated that it might have happened.

There are other questions that are raised in the text, such as giving credit to both the Prussians (in 1722) and the Austrians in the 1750s of developing the bricole, an artillery tool used to move a field piece by manpower. It's either one or the other, or it originated somewhere else, and contradictory claims in the same volume do not support the volume's credibility. Further, in one of the reenactor photographs used in the book (which is not a good idea-reenactors provide good service but they should not be used as references in any scholarly attempt at military history), it reads that bricoles are illustrated by the ‘French' gun crew. What is shown is not a bricole, at least not a French one, merely looped rope being used as a drag rope. Perhaps this is a failing of using multiple authors.

There are four errors in the book that are as serious as they are puzzling. First, on pages 128-129 there are two diagrams which name the French corps commanders in November 1806 and May of 1807. Andoche Junot is named the commander of the VIII Corps on both diagrams, when the commander of the VIII Corps was actually Marshal Mortier for both dates. On the second diagram, for May 1807, Lannes is named as the commander of the V Corps, when at this time V Corps was commanded by Marshal Massena and Lannes, who had been ill, now commanded the Reserve Corps, at the head of which he fought at Friedland on 14 June. Also on page 128 it is mentioned that the Sailors of the Imperial Guard manned the floating batteries in the Danube for the Battle of Wagram. The Sailors of the Guard did not arrive in theater until after Wagram and the sailors that did the work and manned the floating batteries were the Battalion of the Danube and the 44th Bataillon de Flotille commanded by Pierre Baste. These errors could have been avoided by using easy-to-obtain reference material, some of which is listed in the bibliography. A little careful research goes a very long way.

There appears to be confusion on artillery organization on page 273. The authors state that ‘artillery can be classed as battalion guns…regimental…brigade artillery…position artillery…and horse artillery. Apparently they are talking about field artillery. The manuals of the period classed light artillery (of which all of the above were) as field artillery, horse artillery, and mountain artillery. Further, you have siege, fortress, and garrison artillery which was the heavy artillery of the period. All field guns of 12-pounder caliber and below are classed during the period as light artillery, and the authors' further establishing their own classification to the light artillery is both confusing and incorrect (they have also done this when ‘naming' artillery systems of the period-for example, they have named no less than fourteen artillery systems for the French between 1680 and 1827 when in actuality there were only four: that of 1732 (Valliere), 1765 (Gribeauval), AN XI (1803), and Vallee (1827-1829). While it may be convenient to ‘class' artillery in systems for a book, it is historically inaccurate and leads to confusion, and it cannot be backed up here by research and citations-and if you're going to use a method such as this for simplification, it needs to be stated as such up front-here it was not).

The authors make a point of differentiating between artillerie legere (light artillery) and artillerie volante (flying artillery) as two different types of horse artillery when both terms meant the same thing regarding horse artillery. Finally, a comment is made on page 70 regarding the utility of the Gribeauval 8-pounder as being unsuitable (i.e. ‘too heavy') for close infantry support when in fact it was the favorite field piece for French artillerymen. Again, there was no citation to support the allegation.

The book's strengths are the photographs of period artillery pieces and equipment which are more than helpful and the line drawings done for the book (although why the originals were not used is a puzzle as they are clearly out of copyright). Further, the chapter on the British artillery is excellent, and the authors went to obvious great pains to include most if not all of the belligerents of the Napoleonic period (although the US is neglected and rockets have been left out-interestingly, the one American artillery manual listed in the bibliography, Louis de Tousard's American Artillerist's Companion, is not described accurately. The authors state that it is the ‘American interpretation of French artillery tactics' when it is in actuality a complete artillery manual of over 1200 pages in two volumes with an accompanying volume of plates.

The flow charts in the text are confusing and do not help in understanding the period unless the reader is interested in solving puzzles. Further errors in the horse artillery section, the tactics section (the authors apparently do not understand the French system of artillery command and control add to the confusion that is apparent in the text, Further, the authors make unsupported statements such as on page 203 that ‘France was the only country that relied on the ammunition caisson' and on page 283 that the ‘French cavalry divisions…did not have permanently attached artillery.' Both statements are again incorrect and unsupported by any evidence.

That being said, the book should be read by anyone interested in the artillery of the period, bearing in mind that there are better artillery references (many of them are listed in the bibliography). This book was a great opportunity to educate and enlighten, but the opportunity was definitely missed by the authors. There are too many errors in fact in the volume and because of this the book cannot be used as a reliable reference for much of the artillery of the period, especially for the French. The excellent photographs of the actual artillery pieces and ancillary equipment are not supported by the mediocre and error-ridden text. The book, however, is recommended, for the illustrations (excepting the reenactor photographs) and the material on the British if used with great care in the other sections of the book.

Therapist is of course that welcome visitor PH.
I would think it is a classic Freudian slip to give himself *that* name as he clearly requires the attentions of one.
Sad really.
donald

Kev, Kev, Kev, oh you kid!

I am surprised that you think so little of the TMP Forum to post a ‘review' that was rejected by Amazon.uk. You APPEAR to be posting said ‘review' on TMP for the sole purpose of providing it to our mutual friend ‘Graf Bretlach‘. I sent a copy of your ‘review' to our friend Herr ‘Graf Bretlach‘, the same day he mentioned not seeing it, by e-mail. I am surprised that you did not just send a copy to him the same way – after all, you do have his e-mail address. Perhaps, like your pretense as to not having read the ‘reviewed' book in your initial posting, you had some other purpose?

I am surprised that you purchased a book that "is quite expensive" along with incurring the cost of even more expensive Air Mail postage. Although you have clearly stated many times that you are NOT an expert on Napoleonic artillery, I would have thought that waiting a few more months to buy a considerably cheaper volume on the American market would have made more sense. Perhaps there was some other reason you required the book quickly?

I do not have the book – I have ordered it from Amazon – but I have seem some of the proof sheets – perhaps 20-30 book pages. In fairness, I had a very small involvement in the production of "Napoleonic Artillery" – I provided a large selection of photographs and drawings from my own collection, as I did to you for your artillery book. Some of these materials are used in "Napoleonic Artillery" as materials provided to you were used in your book. I reviewed the few proofs sent me, providing some input and some additional information. Only the proofs concerning the chapter that has the ‘bursting cannister' line are presently available to me. These were sent to me AFTER I had posted all of my comments on that thread here on theTMP Forum.

With this in mind I can make the following comments regarding parts of your Amazon.uk rejected review of "Napoleonic Artillery":

"Napoleonic Artillery is a survey work that is attempting to be all things to all people, and while profusely illustrated, the book needed the editorial direction to be either an illustrated history of the artillery of the Napoleonic Wars or a scholarly history of the artillery of the period. The book is trying very hard to be both, and unfortunately, it is neither." A "survey work" – hardly! The proofs I read covered in depth the development, design and use of artillery from countries of the period. The world of books is divided into only "illustrated" histories or "scholarly" histories? This is shucksterism at best! Which are your books? You state, "This volume is … packed with photographs of period artillery pieces in museum collections, secondary drawings of artillery pieces and ancillary vehicles and equipment." Gee, what is an "illustrated" history of artillery?

"… line drawings done for the book (although why the originals were not used is a puzzle as they are clearly out of copyright)." I can only speak of original drawings I provided for the book. A number of them were photographs I took at archives in many parts of the world. I was allowed to makes photographs by these institutions with the understanding that they were for my personal use. To use my photographs of these materials in a book would require permission from those institutions as they hold the copyright. Published drawings of appropriate age would not be in copyright unless photographs were taken of materials in institutions that reserve the copyright, on said photographs, for commercial use. The Anne Brown Collection, for instence, reserves such copyright. The materials I provided to you were published AND my property. I gave you permission to use them in your book, releasing any copyright I might have had on their use. I do note that you made photocopies and then had someone ‘strengthen' the lines, as otherwise they would not have been clearly viewed in your book.

I note that your title of this thread has an almost 17 % spelling error rate – presumably, by your standards, this thread "is not a reliable source for further research"! Mr. Dawon had nothing to do with the book. <;^}

"The Powder River has been described as a mile wide and an inch deep, too wet to plow and too thick to drink." Sorry, Kev, "Napoleonic Artillery" is NOT the Powder River – No need to plow through it – it is a rewarding and fun read, take an enjoyable drink of its cool refreshing water – Enjoy.

Steve,

And you are more than entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.

And yes, you helped me with material for Artillery which was more than gratefully acknowledged in the book if you recall.

And I posted this here because it was asked for. If you cannot accept that, then that's your option, whether it is accurate or not is another matter.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kev,

Where does someone ask you to post the rejected Amazon.uk 'review'?

Steve

Could I suggest that a groundrule for discussing this inexplicably controversial book be : you've actually read it?
Seems logical to me.
I'm not sure where that puts you with 30 pages, Steven, but at least you've read some.
Also, if you are discussing this book, why would the substance of your remarks be attacks on other books?
donald

No publicity is bad publicity.
BTW I wasn't going to buy the Dawon book.
I may now, just to see what all this is about.
No offence to Kevin but a single opinion wouldn't influence me much.
I hurry to say, though, that he is entitled to have one , print it & defend it, of course.
donald

Kiley, I knew you'd find a way to get your hatchet job back up on the net.

In your first post, you also implied the book was expensive, a tactic to make the book less attractive to a potential purchaser. Yet the book is cheaper than your book, covers a wider range of nations in greater depth and has photo's, line drawings. Even if the book was more expensive than yours, for those reasons alone it would still be of more value.

In your second post above, Yes, it is, but it isn't available in the US. I tried to order it from Amazon UK and they stated it wasn't available to be mailed to the US., the clear implication is that you hadn't been able to get the book and would like people's opinions before purchasing. On the 23rd you state you had bought the book from another source, obviously a week or so before your review is posted on Amazon, considering their lead time for reviews, directly contradicting the impression you tried to convey. Which makes it fairly obvious that your post about the non-availability of the book was meant to deceive.

You present you opinion as fact and use your opinion to "prove" that Dawson, Dawson and Summerfield's work must be flawed:

Further, in one of the reenactor photographs used in the book (which is not a good idea-reenactors provide good service but they should not be used as references in any scholarly attempt at military history),

The use of re-enactors in photo's is dependent upon the context in which they are used. In the context of the photo's, which is to provide human scale to the artillery pieces and how some of the gun tools were handled, the use is, in my opinion, acceptable. If the uniforms, physique or facial features were the subject of the photo's, and used to "prove" that the re-enactors were completely accurate depictions of troops of that type, your opinion would have merit. In this case it is merely an further attempt to erode confidence in the book you purport to be reviewing.

In your review you make unsubstantiated claims about accuracy:
In this flawed endeavor, the book fails in two areas: it is not well-sourced (or on the surface appears not to be) and there are too many errors in fact in the text to be a reliable source of information for researchers.

Back up those words. Despite your authoritative tone, at the moment all we get is your unfounded opinion.

You misrepresent the quality of the photo's, downplay the worth of the diagrams and nit pick to discredit the book.

Having read your book and having the one you criticise so strongly (your usual tactic of damning by faint praise at the beginning and end of the review so you can argue that your review was not a hatchet job is transparent) I'll make the following comparisons:

Kiley's Book:

Well put together, good quality product. Kiley uses a number of German sources to make his book seem more authoritative, despite not being able to read German with any great skill. In fact, his errors in translation on various boards, when presented with quotes from the sources he references, show he is nearly illiterate in the German language. While Kiley's book contains a lot of information, in my opinion it needs more illustrations and many of his repetitive claims need to be referenced to sources he has actually read. I base this opinion on discussion boards where Kiley has clearly shown to have mistranslated, or possibly misrepresented, some of the sources he used.

D, D & S's book:

Well put together, good quality product. It is lavishly illustrated, showing original photo's and diagrams never before published. The authors can apparently read the language of the sources they reference, though I don't have enough knowledge, nor the referenced sources, to be able to make a decision on their accuracy. Discussion on various boards will, I hope, clarify this matter. For anyone interested in artillery of the period, the photo's and diagrams themselves will make the book the best current reference on the subject. The amount of data presented by the three authors is useful. True, there are some problems with the book, but it a great advance over what was previously available.

As for you, Kiley, why are you on this board? You've previously dismissed wargaming as a childish hobby, on the NSF and when I was moderating Dom Goh's old forum. Your posts here show you have no interest in this hobby. One can only conclude you come here because you are able to post things that would not go unchallenged on other, more tightly moderated boards, and where you veracity is not so strongly challenged.

Your review was a thoroughly reprehensible act, designed to damage a book, and diminish potential sales, for your own purposes. I've never pressed the button before, but on this one I will. The amount of controversy, argument and sheer bloody-minded nastiness you bring to this board, a board focused a hobby you have previously denigrated, greatly exceeds any benefit you may offer by your knowledge.

Dallas Gavan.

"Your posts here show you have no interest in this hobby."

Dalas I don't think of heard kevin discuss actual wargaming either for or against, but from memory I've heard Kevin mention he is/was a collector and painter of miniatures a number of times.

I'm not sure but are you thinking of Hollins, who I've never heard claim he was a gamer, painter or collector at all, and has actively derided Napoleonic Gamers as a collective entity on a number of occasions, and seems to as you say, have no other reason to be here other than the discussion itself.

Daryl

G'day, Daryl.

True, KFK collects Britain's and Historex figures, at least. The closest he's come to referencing wargaming on this board are references to playing with toy soldiers against his brother/s, as a boy. Combined with his expressed negative opinions about wargaming on other boards, I think my point is fair. Though he has moderated his opinion on the hobby, probably to avoid offending his audience, here.

As for DH, he's made references to buying miniatures in recent posts. I don't know his position on the hobby (and don't really care). If he's not a gamer, why is he here? To continue the feud at the expense of these boards?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think you need to be a gamer to post here. But if their posts cause the damage that KFK and DH cause, and they aren't a part of the hobby, why would anyone want them here?

Cheers.

Dal.