"Marengo 1800 - Is it biased?" Topic

Hi all, I have been trying to follow the thread about David H-W on this forum and get the impression from that thread that Dave Hollins, the author of Marengo 1800, has an axe to grind about Napoleon and may have a tendency to be selective about sources. I don't wish to spark off any sledging, or go into whether or not this is justified, but would those who hold this view please advise me on if this bias is present in this publication?

Oh lord…..

Why oh why! And again we go with this!

You're new here, I guess?

Ok Ok I'm sorry hush my mouth. I just hate to read that maybe an author I've read and based games and stuff on might not be 100% accurate. I suppose I should check the refs and so on myself but I'd really rather spend the time painting figures…

I know for certain that the British did not win!

Tally Ho!

BRICOLE, BRICOLE, BRICOLE!

There I did it!

60+ sources, all but 8 being French (and Terry Crowdy did most of the work on those sources) and the few that have turned up subsequently confirming the account (although i think Evan makes a forceful argument that it was just the main Guard battalion involved). We debated endlessly all kinds of things between us and came up with an account that met the sources from those, who were there.

In the other corner, we have the repetition of a handful of sources, many of which (quite naturally) used the publicly available material of the time (ie: the Napoleonic propaganda) to colour in their accounts. Their texts have been quoted endlessly as though the whole account is primary and the end result has been the unintelligible nonsense of Furse, Elting and Arnold.

One simple example – the last phase of the battle shown in Lejeune quite clearly shows where it took place, yet all the "keepers of the true flame" and the books they adore place it almost in San Giuliano.

As for accusations of "bias" and "selection", the people on the threads have neither read most of the acounts nor understood the background to the campaign. However, why do any research when a smear will do? As Goebells said "Repeat a lie enough times and people will believe it".

None of them have answered the question on the NSF about artillery and maps (although Campaign 70 basically answers them). They haven't done the research – it is just the same tired old smears and repetition of the received wisdom. However, can I suggest you read Furse or Elting and ask yourself a) why do they use about 6 sources and produce an account which makes no sense and b) where is the account of the Guard standing in square before asking yourself who is selective and whose logic is flawed.

I am quite happy to discuss this intelligently, but this endless nonsense about things happening when no account exists and the repetition of a single source on timing making it true just makes it pointless (as Arteis noted) discussing it any further.

"might not be 100% accurate"

Sir, I can guarantee to you that ANY author is NOT '100% accurate'!

I can also guarantee to you that any author has, to a greater or lessor extent, 'bias'. 'Bias' is not, in itself, necessarily a bad thing.

As you "spend … time painting figures…", consider this:

NO ONE can guarantee that the color scheme you have selected for you figure was worn by anyone, let alone someone in the unit you are painting. The chance that your figure is painted INCORRECTLY is almost 100%!

Yours, in firm research,

Steve

Dude,

7+ pages of this wasn't enough for you?

The sources are available for the most part, look at them and decide for yourself.

I assure that Steve is 100% correct in that every author is 'biased' and no author is 100% correct 100% of the time.

"60+ sources, all but 8 being French"

But Dave you still will not list those sources?

Why?

???

Hmmm ………. wonder what the blast radius will be on this one … (reaches for helmet & flak jacket)!!!

The games should go all right, shouldn't they?
The 'stuff' is another matter, clearly.

Imagine if Hamilton Williams had simply never listed his sources.

Oh the outcry and nashing of teeth…..

Dave what's your problem with the late John Elting?

Captain Gideon

Dave, please list your sources …..it is only the right thing to do

>>>>Dave what's your problem with the late John Elting?<<<<

simply because he is an American and Dave feels Americans should not or cannot write about European history….what he does not understand is that most Americans and Australians have long and deep ancestries coming from all over Europe and we are all intensely proud of being who we are now and where we came from originally…

Shane

"most Americans and Australians have long and deep ancestries coming from all over Europe and we are all intensely proud of being who we are now and where we came from originally"

Too right too.

Well, why not address the issue?

As far as Elting goes, much of his Atlas and accounts of key battles are wrong beacuse he used a handful of sources. His writings on the Continental armies are just outdated nonsense. Why is no-one getting worked up about Arnold and Furse then?

The sources have been largely published already and those related to the Guard and times have been gone over several times. There are some, which for commercial reasons, we are not listing at the moment – the longer version has not been published and I am not aware that any bibliiography ahs been published before a book goes out.

However, De C is on the Net now, many of the accessible sources are in Elting and Arnold, while the regt histories are available in their national libraries and elsewhere if you want to check.

There would not be much point poublishing a bibliography since on here, it seems that some authors have been able to get away with long lists of works they cannot read, let alone understand!

Another double standard!

dave from memory you (or was it someone else, I realy cannot recall) said the plans for the longer version had been shelved.

Or is that (or the rumour therof) not correct?

Just a practicality of the market place, I'm afraid, and some of the material would show up in an espionage book. However, there may still be opportunities – but if people are that bothered, most of the refs have turned up here or on the NSF or are also listed in Arnold and Elting plus my article in FE on Montebello. So there is nothing to stop anyone checking up for themselves, although some would no doubt prefer smears! Maybe they would like to answer the NSF question from Sheldon White – if they know so much.

Bias is a very easy allegation to make, but it is patently absurd when all the sources we could find were used and we have not stopped looking. I am not saying the book is error free, not least as I would adjust some details on the basis of further examination or material, which ahs turned up. However, as I have said before, I could have copied Elting etc. and received the same money and none of you would have been any the wiser. Let's nface it – plenty of you have bought books in which books have been listed to give a false credibility, so perhaps H-W was right to take it to an extreme by making things up?

>>>>>There would not be much point poublishing a bibliography since on here, it seems that some authors have been able to get away with long lists of works they cannot read, let alone understand!

Another double standard!<<<<<

Wow, such an amazing statement from a man who refuses to declare his sources but yet countless times of the years hammers others to reveal their sources….talk about a double standard!!

Face it Dave, you do not like American authors because you feel they encroach on a field of study you deem is not their right to do simply because they're American…makes me sick really.

Shane

Like I said Sparker, you have a bunch on here, who prefer smears to answering your question: "would those who hold this view please advise me on if this bias is present in this publication?"

How do they know when they have not read the material? No. When you present the material, do they address the issue? No. Can they produce any contrary evidence. No.

Shane, For your information, I have contributed to the ABC-CLIO Encyclopedia and have been quite happy to work with Jack Gill and Mike MacGillivray and others. Do you still have that "Aussie cringe"?

Why don't you ask Kevin why he sold you a book, where he lists all kinds of books he did not read? Would you have preferred that I wrote Cam 70 copying Elting anmd others, even though there was no evidence to back htem up and indeed much to the contrary?

Should you perhaps go to the Fantasy boards instead?

That's the way, Dave! The best form of defence is attack.
I do not think Dave Hollins' Marengo is biased.
The book is a fair account of the battle with the added information that the Consular Guard was destroyed.
This is presented as fact.
After carefully reading the Hamilton-Williams thread it is clear it is a surmise based on a few mysterious sources.
Dave does not want to retreat on this point and I do not blame him.
You can sell more books with a little controversy.
You stick it up them, Dave.

Shane,

?

I thought it was determined that here on the TMP Nap Forums that if a person did not 'properly' ask a question, then the party being asked did not have to respond. In the alternative, no person was required to answer a question on the TMP Nap Forums unless the party wished to answer. It also seemed to be 'bad form' on said Fora to ask over and over the same question, trying to goad an answer out of someone who did not answer. Perhaps, I misunderstood and that these rules only applied to the Kev. Now that's a double standard that you, Shane, could sink your teeth into!

Enquiring minds want to know. <;^}

Yours, in firm research,

Steve

yet you still dodge the question put to you on your own sources for Marengo….

Ohh, and I remember you previously on this board over a year ago attacking American authors for writing about Napoleonics and said something about they should stick to ACW because you yourself would not even try to write about that but felt American authors should be instead of Napoleonics…

Basically you said, European authors living in Europe should write about European history while American authors living in America should write only about American history…that to me is total hogwash.

Let me see…

My Mother's family tree :
Grandmother (Alive) born in county Kerry Ireland – family migrated to Australia in the 1910-20's
My Grandfather (passed away) born in Germany – family also migrated to Australia in the late 19th century.
Mother (alive) born in Australia, lives here.

My Father's family tree :
Grandmother (passed away) born in Holland – migrated to Australia just after WWII
Grandfather (passed away) born in Holland – migrated to Australia just after WWII
Father (recently passed away) born in Holland – migrated to Australia with parents at 5 years old just after WWII

I, like many other "Aussies" have deep family roots in Europe and we still see ourselves as having European blood even if we call ourselves "Aussies". Just like many Americans do about their own family trees and ancestries. You sir fail to understand this and cannot comprehend this all that well.

Down here in Oz one of the most asked questions two Aussies will discuss is family history and where you come from (original country of your family). We always reply to these questions proudly as to which country in Europe we came from and our history and connection to these countries. This is something many people in Europe do not understand about us yet. It is one thing to be a proud Aussie but it is another to be also proud of your heritage.

So that my friend gives us Aussies and Americans every right to write about and discuss European history as much as you do and your putting down constantly of American authors grates with me and I dare say many others!

Shane

Steve, you are

Shane, you are

Sincerely,

Steve

Are you & Shane going to write a book?

raducci – Go and read the thread again. You will find every source there and what it says – it all points one way, except for a line from the Bulltin, which expanded through the propaganda to produce a tale, which actually has no witness or participant evidence. Now, do tell me why I should go with the latter? Is it just because a few people, who prefer smears to evidence get upsaet about it? The soucrtes are there – all are in print (bar Hiochenegg's little contribution). Go and read them and then explain what happened to me.

Shane – , read what I said above about the sources, go and read the sources and then start playing with the big boys, who read their materials. I know you would rather that we all stayed at the Kevin level of lying about the referenced material and making key things up, but that is your problem. Stop distorting what I say – I said that Yanks get a bit precious about the ACW, but I were to write on it, I would look at all the American sources I could find, not copy secondary French or Uk works.

And now you all wonder why Krieg isn't going to happen. Well, go on, you lot do it.

Rad,

Absolutly! Any kind of 'press' is good press!

"Nap Forum 'humor'" by Shane and Steve. Shane is the 'straight man'. <;^}

That boy can sure get himself worked up!

Yours, in firm research,

Steve

are you like steve ?

Oh and while you are at it, Shane, you and Kevin can answer the NSF questions on Marengo – as you obviously know so much. I think the poster is American, so obviously, I am not going to do anything about it!

dave, again, list your sources…..and I might consider your request to, "".

wow dave, getting a little touchy aren't you???

come on mate, you have been hounding kevin for years to prove his sources..funny how you get mad when asked to do the same…

steve, your up mate, sitting here in anticpiation of your next post.

Shane,

Please develope some new material – you have used that one before. <;^}

Actually, I find s interesting, something that I could not say about most of your posts. <;^}

Sincerely,

Steve

>>>>Actually, I find s interesting<<<

?

That good enough material for ya?

If ya want to know, my teenage son, standing here atm looking at your posts wants to know why you constantly use ""<;^}"" every second line?

he tells me that itself is very childish and thought you had to be very young….made me laugh I can tell you.

Dave I have a hard copy of the relevant bits that I cut and pasted.
It is a case book example of spirited historical debate.
I said I admired your last ditch defence but I am sorry. You lose on points.

"Shane", the last word one hears before a chorus of laughter. LOL! <;^}

I am sure everyone one else here understands that one! LOL!

TTFN

Sincerely,

Steve

now I am convinced .

>>>>And now you all wonder why Krieg isn't going to happen. Well, go on, you lot do it.<<<<

mate, no matter to me, the sun will rise in the morning sky tomorrow and the birds will continue to chirp in the trees outside my home. I could not care less if you don't do Kreig, someone else will one day and I will purchase the book, simple as that.

Its about time .

Shane

Shane – ? NEARLY ALL OF THE SOURCES HAVE BEEN LISTED HERE AND ON THE NSF, PLUS SEVERAL OF THE ACCESSIBLE ONES ARE IN ARNOLD & ELTING, A FEW HAVE BEEN HELD BACK FOR COMMERCIAL REASONS, BUT DO NOT IMPACT ON THE GUARD OR TIMING.

Got it now? Go and read them.

Raducci – Please then tell me where all the eyewitnesses are wrong. Then produce the eyewitness account of the Guard. I am still listening, but nothing is said.

my point is proven…

<<<<?>>>>

One thing these TMP hissy fits are good for is warning readers not to purchase books from anyone involved. I almost added a few volumes to my library of very dubious value.

"? NEARLY ALL OF THE SOURCES HAVE BEEN LISTED HERE AND ON THE NSF, PLUS SEVERAL OF THE ACCESSIBLE ONES ARE IN ARNOLD & ELTING, A FEW HAVE BEEN HELD BACK FOR COMMERCIAL REASONS, BUT DO NOT IMPACT ON THE GUARD OR TIMING."

But I and others would like to see you for once, a printed listing of the SOURCES you used. Yes if we go off of SOURCES listed by others here and on other sites we would most likely find your SOURCES!

So Dave list the actual SOURCES you used for your book!

Unless you made up the hole thing using secondary SOURCES and have been hiding behind this defense all these years.

?

PS Why should not a person from the USA be allowed to write about European maters.

Perhaps then a person from the United Kingdom should not be allowed to wright about France or Austria or a battle that took place in Italy in 1800!

?

PS, PS. We all know you will never list your SOURCES.

oh good lord. Sparker must be new around here.

Every post with an author's name in the title seems to have Shane very actively involved trying to provoke and fan the flames. You have too much time on your hands, Shane, if this is what you do for fun. Every thread I look into I find you trading silly insults with someone or other.

As has been pointed out, the original question is flawed. The question should always be to ask what is the author's bias. This is a classic grad student exercise, playing "find the bias." Overt bias of interpretation is one, but then there is the lurking bias of sources used and the always challenging and typically subtle bias of the time/society in which the author lived.

As far as helping the OP to evaluate Marengo 1800 I can offer the following:

As far as I can tell, the sum total of "thumping error" and "egregious bias" in the book is with regard to two things: the number of prisoners taken from the consular guard, and the definition of the word "destroyed". The sound and fury of the … is it 8 years now? of animated "discussion" revolves around these two points. On the rest, there are any number of points that can be discussed or debated, usually quite amicably, but these have been the hot-button issues. Everything else is perfectly within the usual range of interpretation giving allowance for the odd slips in detail here and there that appear in everything written. There are some variations in timing and locations and specifics, but that's normal ambiguity resulting from imprecise sources.

And what is a discussion of Hollins without invoking the name of the most persistent of his detractors (already invoked by Dave, I should point out)?

Since the names of Hollins and Kiley have become inextricably linked in internet circles (one would think at times that Hollins-Kiley is a hyphenated name like Hamilton-Williams), I will add that the fire Kiley draws results almost entirely from a few paragraphs in the first chapter or two of his artillery book regarding the "invention" of the bricole and Gribeauval and his system. Anyone who stops to look will find that the largest (and best) part of Kiley's artillery book concerns the specifics of smoothbore artillery operation, equipment and tactics. These parts are not the subject of controversy.

Neither of the parties has dealt with the challenges to their research and conclusions well at all, even though they relate to fairly minor issues in the context of their overal works. Both have been particularly stubborn and reluctant to back down from positions that, to my eye, seem to be pretty tenuous and certainly open to debate and revision. And both have been eager to attack the other in highly impolite terms, drawing inevitable counterfire back on themselves in the process. And their on-forum personalities have been such that many end up judging their works based on their online personalities, which is understandable but unfair.

And then some have apparently decided that Kiley's peculiar brand of insult and condescension, stubborn refusal to re-evaluate positions and overt pro-Napoleon bias is admirable and far preferable to Hollins' brand of insult and condescension, stubborn refusal to re-evaluate positions and overt pro-Austrian bias. Others have reached the opposite conclusion. The Kiley-ites see Kiley as innocent receiver of unjustified abuse, the Hollins-ians see Hollins as the victim of repeated unjustified attacks. And so on.

A matter of taste, I guess. I don't much care for the on-forum behavior of either, and I don't have much sympathy for either (karma is such a bitch). For the most part I can just shrug both off when they get "that way". On the other hand, both are very pleasant to correspond with off-forum, have excellent knowledge of the era (though with very different strengths), though Dave has better access to archives material and is more likely to bring new material to the table.

So there you have not only commentary on the book, but also commentary on the author and his most notorious critic, with some barbed comments about other forum members thrown in for good measure – plus a mini-rant as a bonus. I don't get on here that often, so I need to get all of that out in one go.

Ciao.

You did. I didn't. You did. I didn't…