"Peter Hofschroer" Topic

I haven't played Napoleonics for decades. I started playing when Column Line and Square was the dogmatically accepted set of rules and Robert Jones was accused of heresy when he published Jeu de la Guerre.

Research at that time consisted largely of reading Chandler, and maybe G. Rothenberg's little book.

Peter, along with the other New Jersey Wargamers writing for Empires Eagles and Lions really opened up the whole field of primary research in the Napoleonic era.

Now, I loved Hamilton William's book on Waterloo. I am shocked to hear that the scholarship behind the book may be dodgy or even 'made up'. I would love to see a SERIOUS discussion of errors in the book. Now that I look at it again I find that there does not indeed seem to be a bibliography, and a large percentage of the footnotes refer to a secondary source written as 'in press' by the author'.

What I find particularly sad, is that a book using Prussian and Dutch sources to debunk myths about Waterloo would have been something that Peter Hofschroer would have embraced, since he has devoted years of scholarship to debunking similar myths about the Prussian army of 1806 (I own 8 Regiments of them in 28mm Elite miniatures.).

In conclusion, I think that Peter's work on the Prussian army qualifies him as a significant scholar in the area. I object to him being banned or being forced to write under a pseudonym for the crime of conducting scholarly debate. If his tone has seemed harsh or inappropriate then I would be honored to serve as HIS editor of posts and print them under my name.

Michael Guth M.D.

Peter's a hoot if you get to know him in person. On the 'net his contentiousness starts fights – which is partly because you can't see the smile on his face, and partly because a whole lot of people take themselves WAY too seriously. But in the flesh he's very friendly.

Mike and Sam,

I do not know Peter, but I also object to banning him. I have found his work on the Prussians in the old EE&L to be first rate and very useful. Whether or not one likes the tone of Peter's postings, he does cause others to READ and do their own research. That has to count for something.

Frankly, I thought the whole 'Therapist' bit was pretty humorous.

Given the beahavior of his attackers here and on other fora, I do not consider the diagnosis of their pathology as misplaced.

Allen

As I understand it he was banned following questions about the accuracy of some of his work. Particularly concerning his obsession with the 'evil' Wellington. Rather then respond he accused the critics of being insane and then registered under false names to support himself. He may have contributed to Napoleonic studies but I find his behaviour laughable and pathetic. It was immature and does not inspire any confidence in his scholarship or opinions.

Oh, you mean it is his own opinion about Wellington? I was just about to sell all of my Brits as apparently they played no part at all in the Napoleonic campaign! If The British had not been there then the Prussians would have won a great victory on their own just as they had done at err, Ligney perhapsd?!

Then that is life nowerdays every week someone comes up with "new facts" about everything from Food to history.

Whatever I have my rules and love to fight Napoleonic battles as part of fictional campaigns so in my own simple way I am happy!

Tally Ho!

What are Napoleonics?
VR
James Mattes

Very well said, Condottiere.

Allen

"…I'll probably pickup a few stiffles now, as before."

That would be a shame. I used to stifle quite freely, but have cut my list back to just a very few really obnoxious types.

If one turned it around and stifled everyone who ranted madly on the Napoleonic boards, there would be many threads with nothing left to read!

Allen

The bottom line is Napoleon lost. Too often generals get the credit for the sacrifices made by thousands of men (on all sides) whose names will never be known to "history".

Hello All,
Whatever the truth behind Peter's claims and whatever the bias from those with nationalistic tendencies, it is worth bearing in mind that these are opinions, in part supported by reference to primary sources. They are not facts, to have facts would be to have been there, non of us were. A person may write down their opinions and experiences, but I doubt seriously that these are written without some influence of bias, opinion and politics.
However people being people and politics and power being what they are, it makes arguing over something that cannot be proven very sad.
I think it is worth recognising that without the man power of the Prussians then maybe Napoleon may have struck earlier at the Anglo Allies and tilted the battle the other way, but there again maybe not, we make sweeping generalisations and the outcome of the day offered much to timing and luck, the outcome is hypothetical.
Again the Prussians most assuredly would not have been such a threat if British Money had not backed them. Maybe research into the governmental expenditure of all the nations involved should be undertaken and this may support trying to distil the truth.
Wellingtons troop dispositions suggest he was very worried about a possible attack further west and perhaps Napoleon and his espionage machine had been very effective. Wellington clearly could not over commit to the Prussians, do we know what info Wellington had and why was he so convinced? Does this seem too simple to have a bearing on the subject? Or was it a case of he was deliberatley malicious? Does anyone know how good his German was?

I think the search for a solution to Wellingtons behaviour is like looking for a medicine, we wnat a single pill to fix all the ills of mankind and I am afraid we will not get it.
Let's bring this to a close and channel our energy into celebrating the period and researching the knows.

Best regards, Ausrobal

I object to him being banned or being forced to write under a pseudonym for the crime of conducting scholarly debate.

If he had limited himself to scholarly debate, there wouldn't have been a problem.

Unfortunately, he seems unable to behave in a civil manner on the forums.

Back on point, whatever was said and how it was said, banning Peter H. is the equivalent IMO of banning Chandler. A critical issue is that Peter can actually READ German, and has produced some of the best scholarship to date in the area. I'd be happy to edit his posts for him. Peter was a CRITIC of Hamilton-Williams book, which was CRITICAL of the British role at Waterloo. I believe his main question was regarding the authenticity of the scholarship of the work.

This problem exists in my current area of interest as well, the Thirty Years War, where there is no English translation of the Sveriges Krieg, or offical Swedish war history of the TYW. Of course, the 'official' history is probably biased, and there are few English primary sources except for Montrose. William Guthrie, a lovely fellow, recently deceased, produced two volumes on the TYW, but a. he was an engineering professor, not a historian, b. could not actually read Swedish himself. I found out that he had been working from translations prepared by colleagues, and that he had limited reading knowldege of French, German and Spanish himself. So, while a valuable work, it could not meet the standard of detailed examination of first hand accounts from numerous sources.

Hopefully Peter H. will be unbanned.

"Unfortunately, he seems unable to behave in a civil manner on the forums."

And if anyone to whom that statement could apply were also banned…

Allen

Peter has recently contributed to a couple of threads on the HaT (plastic figures) forum, and I found him to be very forthright. I get the impression he puts in a few 'digs' and 'arm pulls' to spice things up a bit, I have no problem with that. Seems a shame to ban a current Napoleonic author just for defending his corner, I know I would if somebody publicly attacked my work which is my livelyhood.

I would have thought, to chat direct to somebody who contributes to a subject that I am interested in would be a good thing. And until the 'Definative Big Book of Napoleonic Facts and Figures' is discovered it would be better to have people like Peter around making contributions to a site like this.

I havent read Peter's model book but I have read his 1815 Waterloo Campaign book and regardless of whether you agree with all of it, it does add a lot to the understanding of the campaign and to an large extent he is right about the rather blinkered anglicised version of history we get from most Waterloo books.

I agree with what Condottiere and others have said above.
Personally I think the attacks on him are by and large overstated and unconvincing, although I can understand his being banned, as sock puppets are against the rules, but its not like his sockets puppets were not completely obvious, most I have seen were rather tongue in cheek so it does seem rather harsh.

I like Napoleonics discussion. It makes all the rest of us crabby argumentative backstabbers look rational by comparison. I say, "Bring him back!"
Once one gets past the "How vcould you be so stupid as to thing that, you lowlife scum!?" remarks on the Napoleonic boards (not singling ANYBODY out!), it is very informative.
I don't have a dog in the Waterloo fight, but at least the "discussion" gives one something to think about.

In the meantime, <MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH>

Back on point, whatever was said and how it was said, banning Peter H. is the equivalent IMO of banning Chandler.

A truly academic argument as Mr Chandler is no longer with us. However, he was a gentleman and Mr H's antics would have been beneath him

Hopefully Peter H. will stay banned until he a) apologises, and, b) learns to moderate his behaviour and act like an adult

Hero worship has no place in the heights of academe to which some people on here appear to aspire…

"However, he was a gentleman…"

I would love to read second opinions from Messrs. Griffith and Duffy. However, since they both *are* gentlemen, I will have to be content with having *heard* their opinions on the subject. From my direct observation on many vists, the politics at War Studies at RMA Sandhurst under Dr. Chandler made TMP micturation contests look like afternoon tea.

Drs. Griffith and Duffy driven off from Sandhurst; Hofschroer driven from TMP: similar dynamics, IMO.

"Hero worship has no place in the heights of academe to which some people on here appear to aspire…"

Terrific irony, there, if you only knew.

Allen

As I cannot PM you, kawasaki, I should explain that my post is not a swipe at you, but rather at the very carefully crafted public persona which Dr. Chandler maintained. I had the unique opportunity to see another side during a period of a number of years, when visiting Sandhurst.

Neither do I have anything but respect for his published works, going back to when I was a youngster and "Campaigns of Napoleon" was my first scholarly reference.

But as so often happens, there are two sides to every story, and everyone has their faults. As you say, hero worship has no place… but some actively pursue that adulation for themselves, to the detriment of others.

Allen

To sum up the arguments from Peter's supporters. It is okay to act like an idiot and break the rules because his sock puppets posts did not offend them, Chandler may not have been a very nice man, other people are allegedly uncivil and aren't banned.
Incredibly, Someone is even offering to edit his posts for him thus freeing him of the necessity to act like a reasonable person.
In another context the word fanboys would come to mind.

Fanboy or one and the same person…

Is there ANYONE nice in Napoleonics then?

Mikeguth, I also object to your comparison of Hofschroer with Chandler. Chandler was a gent and a scholar. To my mind Hofschroer is a book salesman who gets his books published on the basis that Lord Wellington attempted to claim all the credit for Waterloo. Logically, this must mean that either Hofschroer isn't familiar with the Waterloo despatch, which is poor scholarship; or wilfully chose to ignore Lord W's peon of praise for Blucher and the Prussian army's efforts in that dispatch; which surely puts his academic integrity into doubt?

Hoffie's been banned from several forums.
Note: not his books but him.
And on TMP *all* Hoffie posted was abuse
Of course when he's attacked, dear old Allen doesn't respond (he does leave TMP in a huff but that's not the same thing) so maybe we should all just have turned the other cheek.
The sanctimonious types here should give it a rest.

"Hero worship has no place in the heights of academe to which some people on here appear to aspire…"

Terrific irony, there, if you only knew.

LooooLLL!!! you would not believe the catfights i have seen aswell Hoot

vojvoda 17 Feb 2008 8:51 a.m. PST
What are Napoleonics?
VR
James Mattes

An Historical CA?

"Hoffie's been banned from several forums."

Particularly those run by his detractors, but don't let that get in the way of a good story.

"And on TMP *all* Hoffie posted was abuse"

Not from what i've gone back and read, but don't let that get in the way of a good story.

"Of course when he's attacked, dear old Allen doesn't respond (he does leave TMP in a huff but that's not the same thing) so maybe we should all just have turned the other cheek."

You may not realize it, but some of us have had to *catch up* on these goings-on on the Napoleonics board, since some of you long ago made it a place not worth visiting. It was easy to miss the attacks by all parties, if one had already come to the realization that visiting the Napleonics board was like the old saw about wrestling with a pig: all you're going to get is covered in mud, and the pig will probably like it. So if Bill hadn't outed it, you could have kept your dirty little secret on the Napoleonics boards.

"The sanctimonious types here should give it a rest."

At your command; would't want to get in the way of a good story.

Allen

Hofschroer ignored the part of Wellington's despatch praising the Prussians because it spoilt his argument that he denied them the credit they were due.

He added the word 'gloating' to the story of Wellington's visit to a waxwork of Napoleon.

Just two examples of how Hofschroer does not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

mikeguth 17 Feb 2008 9:53 a.m. PST
Back on point, whatever was said and how it was said, banning Peter H. is the equivalent IMO of banning Chandler.

Mike,
Your going to get hate mail over that one…
VR
James Mattes

Hi, Allen,
so Bill here at TMP is a "detractor" of Hoffie's? Are you sure this isn't a good story?
And the abuse issue.
Please note: "Therapist" * Ziethen" (the latest manifestations of Hoffie) were banned for abuse. Please find one constructive post from them. Or from several previous dopplegangers.
You are conveniently ignoring the fact that Hoffie was banned for returning after being banned. Do you really think he would have been again cast into outer darkness (where there is wailing & gnashing of teeth) if he'd posted positively?
Allen, it's nice to live in a glass house but the stones issue does apply to you.

mikeguth 17 Feb 2008 7:09 a.m. PST
''In conclusion, I think that Peter's work on the Prussian army qualifies him as a significant scholar in the area.''

I'd be grateful for your opinion about the objective questions that have been raised about his 'scholorship' then.

This a quote from a previous TMP thread:

''Hofshroer made assersions and attempted to back them up with detailed descriptions of events and motivations with references. I, and others, have discovered that Hofshroer's references are spurious, his events coloured by apparent bias and his details made up.

So yes, we are entitled to question his conclusions''

This is the thread. TMP link

This is a summation of a simple analysis of one of his books which includes Hofschroer's responses.
link

Then you could make up your own mind.

Regards

Hoffie's written some books.
My original opinion (for its limited worth) was they were a needed counter-balance to the accepted story.
I've stated this several times.
This opinion has been modified somewhat. Counter-arguments (for instance at First Empire) have been raised & not answered by Hoffie. At least not rationally.
A pity.
However I still think the books worthwhile.
None of this is about the history. It's about forum manners & rules.
To sum up Condittiere's posts, he has an agenda too. Some of us, regrettably have become far too abusive. Some, in another context, are just subtly bitchy.

mhoram,

I do not count my self as a supporter of Peter or anyone else. I simply object to banning people. If someone does not like him or his postings, then stifle him. However, I would like him to have the chance to answer Cacadore's questions here. I think all of us would benefit from the exchange.

Welly huggers who wave the despatch like a flag of victory should maybe have a look at a few more of Wellingtons battle despatches to understand the protocol involved in them.
Something I understand Peter spent vastly more time on than politely answering every fly by night with an opinion.

Now where those darn puppies, its way past suckling time.

I've never hugged a Welly or embraced a galosh in my life.
Who expects esteemed authors to answer every question from a low-life at TMP?
I don't. However, regularly turning up under false names to accuse all & sundry of loony-ism makes one suspect Hoffie did indeed have the time to be civil.
Are you legally allowed to suckle puppies? I saw women in PNG with their piglets….not for the squemish.
donald

Well that's awful, Condittiere.
But (even?) Kiley rebuked such a fool.
So if Hoffie reviles others, this particular bully doesn't deserve a rebuke? Interesting set of standards you have.

Nevr liked the mans books, deriding the anglo-centric view of Waterloo, as Britsh jingoism, complaining that the previous histories have left out anything that paints the British in a bad light, then going on to do do exactly the same thing from a Prussian point of view, is just lazy writing, (two wrongs and all that).Peter's no fool, he knows to sell a new book on Waterloo you need an 'angle' he did just that, and, sorry to say, I smiled when I saw 'new perspectives' in a remaindered bin for £2, a while back.
knew nothing of his writings on TMP, try not to go over to the Napoleonic boards, since some, er, unpleasentness, so this banning means nothing to me, oh Vienna.

Love 'n' big noses,

John

When a guy you vaguely know throws another guy you vaguely know out of his house because he doesn't like the way he behaves, you have to decide for yourself which one of them was behaving like an ass.

When the chuckoutee keeps coming back to shout obscenities through the other guy's letterbox, it helps to clarify the mind on this point.

I love the Nappy board – it's a great place to go to watch the animals roar and fight; a Bedlam for the modern sensation seeker if you will. And unlike CA there is not the slightest temptation to wade in add my own ill-informed comment, as the whole period is a closed book to me.

Pat

Bitching don't work so we're trying abuse & bullying?
I thought you were against that?

I cannot remember a single author that has brought up so much controversy over the past 30 odd years of Napoleonic history that I have been involved in. He came out of nowhere to ascertain very descriptively that Wellington was a liar and wanted to preserve his own truth about waterloo. That he wanted to play down almost to zero the intervention of the Prussians at that great battle and to formulate a brand new history of that campaign where PH is to be seen as the modern age great historian.

Its all about exposure and popularity coupled together to increase book sales, PH wanted an angle to seel another Waterloo book at a time when others were sick and tired of Waterloo and the general consensus was that no more could be written about it. He knows it, we know it, his exposure and controversy sells his books. Hell, even this thread is giving him more exposure. But you know what? We all know the campaign very well and understand pretty well what happened in those three or 4 days of European history. I have all PH books and read them; I cringed at some of his claims and coughed with masked expletives a few times.

I think most of us had done this and really cannot take him totally seriously as much as he would want us too. PH wants to re-write history as though he has uncovered a truth lost in time for the past 200 years. Although I was curious at his claims and kind of see some truth in his words I fail to believe most of his outrageous claims about Wellington.

What I do believe is there is the British version of Waterloo, there is a French version and there is a Prussian version. Gather all the "facts" from all three sides and add them together and you get the full, true and correct picture. So many things happened in that campaign in such a short space of time with such a crescendo of activity that no one can be sure exactly who is correct. PH has tried, and still is trying to fly the Prussian flag but he is doing it the wrong way. He should not stomp on the British versions just to sell his story, if he was a decent man and wanted to be known as a serious scholar he would have done much better to stop short of accusing the Brits of this and that as he has.

A historian's job is to research, state facts and move on, not dig, and dig and dig in an effort to discredit a single person from history with half baked claims which I fail to see can be substantiated 100%. If PH had not gone down this road and instead written a complete historical version of Waterloo from the Prussian viewpoint he would have done much better and probably have been lauded as a prominent historian in his own right today. Instead he joins Napoleonic forums, says really nasty things, acts like a child and hurls abuse at anyone who tries to question his work.

I have only been here on TMP a couple of years and have noticed a constant theme with PH, he remains quiet until someone mentions his name, he forms a TMP account and right away hurls abuse and acts like a child saying really weird and crazy things as though he is enjoying all the attention, without answering any academic questions aimed at him. He then gets found out by the Editor who he really is and gets banned. The cycle has repeated itself several times since I have been here and it will happen again soon enough.

I would be sure he is sitting at his PC right now laughing at all of this attention and that is the problem. He is an attention seeker and enjoys it, my advice for what it is worth is to let him fade away. I know he has a new book out which it seems to me is an even deeper attempt to create drama and controversy. I will not be purchasing it and I suggest others do the same. He might be a good researcher and great for Prussian history but at what cost? Sorry but his childlike attitude over the past few years at any attempt to question him is poor from a scholarly point of view.

Simply don't give him the exposure he craves…

Shane

Write a History of a TMP Controversy? As well write a History of a Ball!

Pat

anyone want me to hold their dog yet?

>>>>anyone want me to hold their dog yet?<<<<

not a chance mate, you would let go exclaiming, "whoopse, could not hold it" .

And are you helping?
Check out yourl anguage. "pompous", "fanboys" "effeminate" "acting like idiots", "is English your 2nd language". My favourite is the "even Kevin Kiley" when Kiley has not posted on this thread.
Seems pretty aggressive to me.
And when you try to seize the moral high ground,I'd suggest you need the principles to go with it.

And Condottiere please note "biterness" & the fact I didn't use a cheap shot like, "is English your second language?"

The nappies never disappoint.

A big thank you to all the participants for the fun. Any chance of stretching this for another 200 or so posts?

Shane has put all the history very well. I've seen PH act that way at least a couple of times in these boards, not a nice way to behave.

So where am I coming from? I'm "sticking up" for Cacadores?
You like interpreting posts to suit your views.
I don't think it's convincing but if it fools you, keep it up.
I could try to explain wit, irony & figurative speech to you but it's all pretty futile?
Instead of slowing your typing down, could you slow your reading down?
I have an agenda: I don't like bullies.
you have clearly shown yours here.

Condottiere,

Although I applaud your passion to stand up for PH, I have to ask why based on PH's past history and total disrespect for any and all who wish to question him on his writings? Surely you have seen his multiple manifestations here on TMP and have witnessed his nastiness? I find him aberrant and not worthy of a place amongst serious historians. He, granted had done great work on the Prussian army from an historical point of view but stained all his good work with his claims. He himself would reply that I am just another who does not see the light and just want to believe English studies but that is far from the truth. I desire more than anything a French point of view and when his Prussian view came out I was excited to get it but the content disappointed me when it kept harping on back to the same old theme of stomping on Wellington. The history of the campaign was lost in his incessant attacks on Wellington, sad really.

Please, will someone who knows PH's many apparitions on TMP go through his replies and abuse and post them all so others can see fully the extent of his rantings. I do remember another handle name with a Chinese name and something about, "no speaka the engrish", that was appalling and I remember it well. How can one take a man like that seriously?

If he had remained aloof or answered questions without going defensive he might have faired better, If he had not attacked Wellington at all but gave an historical account from the Prussian side he probably would have been lauded in Germany as a great man and awarded with medals and his own kingdom but ehh, he ruined any chance of that and probably finds now many closed doors from high profile people not wanting to be seen associating with him…

Shane

Shane: the Voice of Reason.
I do not understand the Hoffy-Huggers or the Hoffie-Haters.
Nor do I get emotional if the Prussians are cast as Waterloo villains or victors.
It's history, as they say: it's the dead past.
I do relish a spirited historical discussion that is played respectfully & honestly. That's all PH needed to give us (or stand aloof from).
Condottiere: the pathetic nature of a forum-stoush does not reflect well on either of us.
I apologise for my heated words & if we are fated to remain opponents, I would like it to be as friendly ones.
donald