Daniel S | 22 Mar 2010 4:24 p.m. PST |
When I read about this book as a forthcoming Osprey Elite I was fairly optimistic due to the excellent work done by the author Keith Roberts on ECW subjects. The only apprehesion I felt was wether he would be able to do such a complex subject justice in the limited format of an Osprey Volume and most importantly wether he would be able to overcome the language barrier and access the Dutch, German, Swedish and French works which would be essential to such a study. My copy arrived today and it did not take long for me to realise that my worst fears had come true. The work almost entirely anglo-centric in it's choice of sources, the only times non-English works are quoted is when they are available in English translations. This lack of sources creates huge gaps in the authors knowledge and causes the book to be seriously flawed from the start. The treatment of the Spanish army and it's tactics disapointing due to being both superficial and ill-informed. While the author is aware of several of the most important Spanish works of the late 16th Century he has not used them (with one exception) but instead relies on works in English by men who claimed service in the Spanish army. He seems unaware of most the developments of the "Spanish" military theory in early 17th century which can be found in the important works of writers like Basta & Brancaccio and Melzo. His evalutation of the Spanish tactics in the 17th Century relies on a single Irish author
The actual descriptions of tactics & formations are short and basicly rehashes the 'classic' description of large & wastefull formations. This astonishes as detailed information on the Spansh army is easily available online or if one distrusts websites through scholarly works like Albi's "De Pavia a Rocroi" and Hrincirik's "Spanier auf dem Albuch" (as well as his joint volume on Nördlingen written together with Engerisser) German armies gets even shorter thríft as there is very little written about them as far as the early part of the TYw except to note that they were influence by the Dutch and got beaten by Tilly. Oddly enough the failure of the reformed Dutch tactics does not seem to be worthy of further notice & exploration despite the fact that is raises rather important questiosn about just how effectice they were (or about how "ineffective" the Spanish tactics were) Details only appear in the later period i.e when the author can draw either upon the descriptions in Brzezinski's Lützen Osprey or the English translation of Montecuccoli's "Sulle Battaglie". This cause errors such as Wallenstein being influenced by the Dutch and Swedes at Lutzen when his infantry deployment there is taken from Basta. The Dutch and Swedish armies are much better off but only because their armies are much better documented in English. Once again errors appear due to a lack of 'native' sources. For the Dutch there is huge focus on Maurice as the reformer while Dutch historians nowadays seems much of the reofrms as the work of a team of talented men of whom Maurice is the leader. It is both surprising and welcome that Roberts recognises and mentiones the important influence of Johann von Nassau-Siegen though Johann gets elevated to a Prince a long the way rather than his actual rank of Count. The last chapter of the book is focused on the ECW and here Roberts usual command of the subject shines brightly. The modern artwork and sketches are of good quality and well used by the author. In one or two places Hook has followed the original 17th Century artwork a bit too closely and copied errors such as Theatrum Eurpeaum showing Swedish troops ad Pfaffenhofen deployed shoulder to should without andy gaps between most units. A better title for the book would have been "Dutch and Swedish Pike and Shot Tactics as seen through English sources with a few notes on the Danish, German and Spanish armies. While decent in many ways the contents falls short of what the reader is led to expect by the Osprey description. Not nearly as bad as the volume about the Imperial army is is still a disapointment. Roberts works hard with the sources he has but even with his best efforts this is not able to overcome the serious lack of sources. With Robert's skill it had a true potential to be an outstanding work on the subjct. Now it is a decent but flawed one. Still worth buying but read with care and of real use only for the Dutch and Swedish armies. |
Connard Sage | 22 Mar 2010 4:32 p.m. PST |
Personally I don't expect 'in depth' treatment of any subject from an Osprey title. Anyone who does is doomed to disappointment. Want history? There are plenty of well written (and not so well written) books out there. The ability to read a foreign language or two may be useful. Want a 60 page collection of secondary sources and some pretty pictures for 12 pounds? Buy the Osprey. |
Phillius | 22 Mar 2010 4:52 p.m. PST |
Good review Daniel, thanks. I am no fan of Osprey, for the reasons Connard gives. Although I am often tempted. I'm not sure if I will be tempted by this one. Your little plusses at the end might be enough, but I doubt it. |
Knight Templar | 22 Mar 2010 5:08 p.m. PST |
"Dutch and Swedish Pike and Shot Tactics as seen through English sources with a few notes on the Danish, German and Spanish armies." A better title? You seem thoroughly caught up in non English sources in order to validate the English ones. I am sure this works in reverse. For instance a Germancentric book would be criticized for not going to English sources. It is Osprey after all. Why get your hopes up? They are pretty picture books and good introductions to a period or subject if you are just getting started. |
Who asked this joker | 22 Mar 2010 5:25 p.m. PST |
It's Osprey. The lazy man's history. I like them very well. Not always great but they work as designed. Thanks for the review. |
doug redshirt | 22 Mar 2010 6:40 p.m. PST |
Is there a good source to go to on the armies in this time frame, that is in English? |
Condottiere | 22 Mar 2010 7:05 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the review. I only regret that I did not wait. Well, at least most of the pictures are nice
|
Shagnasty | 22 Mar 2010 8:36 p.m. PST |
From your obvious knowledge and multilingual skills one is led to ask why you have not produced a work that bring clarity and comprehension to the era? |
Daniel S | 22 Mar 2010 10:26 p.m. PST |
I think that any book, Osprey or not should be judged on it's own merits rather than who published it or the format. While a number of Ospreys are inferior or bareley average in quality a number of them are of good quality and gives a lot of "bang for the buck" and are the obvious result of through research. "Pike and Shot Tactics" is actually not a collection of secondary sources, the author has worked extensively with primary sources which is very commendable because this is exactly what needs to be done in this period due to the errors found in the secondary sources. The problem is that the English primary source material has serious limitations once you move beyond the Dutch and Swedes as well as having gaps regarding those two armies. |
Berlichtingen | 23 Mar 2010 1:37 a.m. PST |
Osprey producing an anglo-centric book?! Surely you jest |
Mitch K | 23 Mar 2010 3:47 a.m. PST |
Daniel, thanks for the review – useful as always. I like Ospreys – within their limitations! No book with only 48 pages (eight of them colour plates) is likely to provide an in-depth treatment of anything. Ospreys, to my mind, serve two purposes: Firstly, they provide a "primer" on the subject. There is sufficient material to provide an introduction, and therefore enough for a reader to decide whether or not to pursue the subject / period in greater depth. At this point the bibliography (not withstanding your comments regarding selective sources, Daniel) provides a jumping-off point for wider reading. Ospreys provide an "acid test": if on reading an Osprey volume you find that you are not inspired, then going back to primary sources in different languages is unlikely to light your fire! Second, they are (within their limitations) extremely useful desk notes. Their size and accessibility make them (in my view) ideal for having on the bench whilst (e.g.) painting to refer to quickly. In my view Ospreys and their like give good service as brief summaries, overviews and desk notes. Anyone expecting more perhaps needs to re-examine their expectations of what can be done within the limitations of the format. |
xenophon | 23 Mar 2010 5:05 a.m. PST |
Mitch K. "In my view Ospreys and their like give good service as brief summaries, overviews and desk notes. Anyone expecting more perhaps needs to re-examine their expectations of what can be done within the limitations of the format." I would agree with your assessment. Nice notes but they should not be considered as authoritative. There are a few that are quite well done, but most of them are summaries. I personally purchase them for the artwork for painting ideas and examples. For my purposes, I would probably rather just purchase an Osprey album of all of their artwork without the text. |
Patrick R | 23 Mar 2010 6:26 a.m. PST |
Ospreys range from brilliant to downright awful. They are the Wikipedia of history books. If you're lucky the editor knew what he was doing, in others you're rickrolled. |
Dan Cyr | 23 Mar 2010 8:00 a.m. PST |
I buy any Osprey for the color pictures so I have at least an idea of how to paint my miniatures. If I want history, then I buy some books (actually a lot of books). Dan |
GoodBye | 23 Mar 2010 8:10 a.m. PST |
I try to think of the Ospreys as a cheap start. Sometimes they are good, sometimes they are bad. They are always a nice summary of sorts with some colorful examples. |
Condottiere | 23 Mar 2010 9:06 a.m. PST |
color pics are always nice-well, mostly. |
RockyRusso | 23 Mar 2010 10:14 a.m. PST |
Hi Ya, I only buy them for the art. Rocky |
huevans | 23 Mar 2010 11:49 a.m. PST |
Uh-huh. You could call Ospreys the "Playboy Magazines" of the military history world. Guys CLAIM they buy them for the articles and not for the pictures
. ;-) |
Rich Knapton | 23 Mar 2010 1:15 p.m. PST |
Excellent review Daniel. Let me address a couple of the problems. One is the problem of English translations of foreign language works. Unlike most European countries, there was a strong interest for these types of writings from the gentry and lower nobility. This means there was a large market for these types of books. These men had a vested interest in these military books as it was common to enlist in the Dutch and later Swedish armies to serve for a spell. As for 17th century English translations of 17th century foreign works, I much prefer them to 21st century translations. These translators have a much closer insight to what foreign authors meant than do we. So I personally have no problem with 17th century translations of 17th century works. I'm talking about straight translations. I'm not talking about English authors trying to explain the organization of the Swedish army, for example. As for Basta & Brancaccio and Melzo the problem is even if you can find their works you need a good background in 17th century Italian, French, or German. I found Melzo's "Regole Miliare" in Google books. Google ran the printed text through their OCR. That was bad enough but one must remember there were very little in the way of spelling rules at this time. Also, printing conventions at the time had a tendency to use letters we no longer use such as an f like letter that stands for s in certain positions in the word. Then there are u for v and v for u. Then some printers like to use gothic or italicized letters. It drives you nuts. I took that plain text copied it and dropped it into the Google Italian/English translator and got goobly gook. Daniel's criticism of not using modern foreign language text is even more spot on. There is no excuse for not availing himself of these texts. Especially since he is English and has access foreign language books that I don't have here in the US. For example, Hrincirik's "Spanier auf dem Albuch", I must purchase it from Europe for around $62 USD and then spend around $35 USD postage. I can't afford it. I did luck out with Albi's "De Pavia a Rocroi". I just purchased it from Puerto Rico. [thanks Daniel for the title]. As for Maurice, the reason he is the face of reform is because he was the States' general and was responsible for putting the ideas into practice, regardless of the sources of the ideas. I shall be receiving it in the next couple of days and read it for myself. Rich |
Daniel S | 23 Mar 2010 2:19 p.m. PST |
Rich, There was a huge market for this kind of literature all over Europe, England was no special case. Germany, France and the Spanish domains were huge markets for military litrature. Germany in particular had a strong tradition of them in the shape of the various "Kriegsbucher" appear fairly early in the 16th Century. (Not to mention specialised works on artillery which date back to the 15th) There was a lot of translating going on as well, Wallhausen was printed in German and French and in turn translated Billon's "Instructions Militaires" into German. Praissac's Discourse Militaires was translated into German and Dutch well before it was translated into. Basta was published first in Italian and then translated into German, French and Spanish. Melzo was printed in Italian Spanish and German. Indeed most works belonging to the "Spanish School" were available in both Italian and Spanish due to the role played by Italian officers in Spanish armies. I agree with you on the 17th Century translations for the most part. Far easier to read them than having a go at Monluc or Davila in the orginal language. However one does need to keep the original text nearby as the translator has sometimes changed the text to better suit his audience. For example in Davilas history of the French Wars of Religion the translator has changed the military terminology into something familiar for his 17th C readers which ruins the care which Davila took to for example separate musketeers from arquebusiers. The old style European languages is indeed a problem, there is a reason why I use the German editions of the works in question whenever possible. Not only are they the editons read by German officers but they are also the easiest to read as I've been bashing my head against old German for over a decade now. The use of fraktur Gothic letters is just such a pain. Why could they not chose a sensible style like that used by many English works, Cruso for example
Rich, if you think "Spanier" is expensive you should try to buying Basta or Fronsperger . Jokes aside "Spanier" is actually available as a much cheaper PDF directly from Shaker Verlag. Only costs a bit over $6 USD link The drawback is that the PDF is encoded and can't be printed. "Nördlingen 1634: Die Schlacht bei Nördlingen – Wendepunkt des Dreißigjährigen Krieges" contains all the good stuff from Spanier as well as expanded material. At $40 USD it's cheaper than "Spanier" as well but I don't know what Amazon.de charges you for the transatlantic freight. Congrats on finding Albi, I've been hunting a copy for years. The time I had it as an expensive intra-library load was all to short. |
Daniel S | 23 Mar 2010 3:09 p.m. PST |
Condottiere, The actual contents of the book is rather diffrent from the preview you are refering to: picture As you can see the anglo-centric focus implied in the preview is not in evidence. Instead we have a clear focus on the continental wars. Had the focus been as described in the preview I would have been less concerned about the choice of sources as the goal of the book would have been diffrent. |
Daniel S | 23 Mar 2010 4:20 p.m. PST |
Shagnasty, Who says I'm not writing on a work or two on the subject? The problem is a lack of time and of money. Research at this level is both time consuming and expensive. Just the fact that much of the source material I need to study is located on the other side of Sweden adds to both the time and cost of doing the research. Not to mention what's involved in accessing archives in the rest of Europe. So I'm trying to get there but it's slow going. |
Mitch K | 24 Mar 2010 3:30 a.m. PST |
Daniel, I read an article somewhere about how much Osprey paid authors (I can't recall where it was – Pike and Shot Association or Fortress Study Group come to mind but don't quote me). You needed to love your work and be able to do it very much in your own time, as what was on offer was by no means over generous. |
(I make fun of others) | 25 Mar 2010 8:01 a.m. PST |
I try to think of the Ospreys as a cheap start. How's that going for you? |
Daniel S | 25 Mar 2010 9:38 a.m. PST |
Knight Templar, The key question is not the use of non-English sources to validate English ones. It is the fact that the author writes about a subject without using much/most of the available sources. For example at least 45 first editions of military works related to the Spanish school of tactics were published in Spain and the Low Countries between 1567-1609, many written by men of senior rank. To this can be added the works published in Italy in the same period and the post-1609 works. Surely these works are likely to contain much usefull information for the study of tactics? Yet the description in the book relies on 3 English sources written by men whose connection to the Spanish army are not verifiable AFAIK. Another example, which is likely to provide the most accurate depiction of a Swedish brigade? The partly crude drawings published by Bariffe or the more lavish and detailed drawing commisioned by Gustavus Adolphus? It is possible to write a fairly decent introduction to the Swedish and Dutch tactical systems using English sources but you are going to get flaws and gaps in the information. The further you try to stretch the English sources the more serious the flaws will be. That is why you need the Swedish,Dutch and German sources to fill in the gaps and to provide coverager for periods & subjects for which the English sources contain no usefull information. (Such as the Swedish tactical system in the 1620's) With the Spanish and German tactical systems the problem is vastly greater due to the limitations of the English language sources. (Particularly as Roberts did not use at least one key Spanish source, Valdes, which is actually available in an English translation) The gaps & errors in the description of the Spanish tactics are a bit of a mystery to me as detailed information on the subject has been available online (in English) for years now. |
Daniel S | 25 Mar 2010 12:07 p.m. PST |
The link which goes with the last sentence is of course link |
20thmaine | 25 Mar 2010 3:36 p.m. PST |
I used to really like Ospreys – when there wasn't much else around easily accessable in bookshops. I think now they've got a lot of competition, and frankly are expensive for what you get. Things really went downhill when I read one title I was really looking forward to (due to interst in subject, but limited info available in English) and at the end thought "you know less about this than I do, and I know hardly anything". |
redmist1122 | 25 Mar 2010 3:40 p.m. PST |
Ospreys are definitly on top of the game, especially when you can get them for a dollar at the dollar store
|
nycjadie | 25 Mar 2010 3:49 p.m. PST |
Great review, Daniel S. One of the better, more balanced book reviews on this site. Steve Cavalcade Wargames cavalcadewargames.com |
Number6 | 25 Mar 2010 7:28 p.m. PST |
I'm certainly getting tired of hearing about all problems with current books and rules sets on the TYW. If there are people out there with the sources and language skills to know what those limitations are – why aren't they writing articles and rules? I'd buy them. Until then, I'll buy what's available in English. |
Condottiere | 26 Mar 2010 9:12 a.m. PST |
why aren't they writing articles and rules? I think they are
|
RockyRusso | 26 Mar 2010 11:15 a.m. PST |
Hi As someone in print
let me explain how it works. 1)you can self publish. Doing so is expensive and my affect the family finances. Such rules will be limited in circulation and if you cannot recoup your production costs, a bad idea. Sam Mustapha does this way to his credit. I don't know that he has ever made money, but he has a lot of pride. 2)A better way is to design on commission. Someone says "you have this skill would you
" No risk for the writer except his time. As the writer you decide if the time of production is appropriate for the pay. An example might be the Star Trek rules Scotty and I did a long time ago for the first movie. Took us about 2 weeks to grab modules off the shelf of stuff we were doing for fun, and we made a lot of money. The issue was not in doubt. So, getting to the Osprey. I believe they go with people they know and do so at a set price. I am sure that several of us could do vanity press stuff on the subject. The thing with vanity pubs is that, if you aren't currently in the mood, why bother? So, who is offering Dan or John the money to do this? Or should they spend their own money for the good of the hobby? Rocky |
Griefbringer | 26 Mar 2010 12:11 p.m. PST |
Osprey producing an anglo-centric book?! Surely you jest Apparently, at least their WWII line is not particularly Anglo-centric. |
Condottiere | 26 Mar 2010 1:39 p.m. PST |
Sam Mustapha
Rocky, It's spelled with an "f" not "ph". |
Dan Cyr | 26 Mar 2010 2:35 p.m. PST |
As someone who's been asked to write such short 'histories', I can tell you it is not worth it for the money. Unless you have the time, other funding like a day job and the love of subject, or vanity it takes, one does not make the effort. Few firms are going to offer the money required, or asked for, to support a historian while he does the research, the travel required, has the translations made, etc. Most history is written by folks who either have the money to do it themselves, are being supported by someone else or as a 2nd job. Dan |
Dan Cyr | 26 Mar 2010 2:52 p.m. PST |
Years ago I did some editing for Osprey (a volume on the Israeli Air Force that they were going to put out). When I pointed out that it was not a 'history' as claimed, but merely a one-sided account that only really included data from the 1970s on, I was told that their target audience did not really want to know about the period before 1966, nor did anyone need to see pictures of the Israeli aircraft from the 1948, 1956 or 1966 wars as those were 'old'. My additional comments regarding why there was no mention of the Egyptian or other Arab air forces (most Ospreys have a couple of pictures at least of the opposing side) were not answered at all. The facts, if one was not aware of it, are that most Ospreys are not written to be in-depth, to have balanced writing, be historically strong, or termendiously accurate (the editing is quick and does not involve multiple fact checkers. They rely very much on work quickly produced by fairly decent students of their subjects, not all being to the same caliber as others (smile). I like the booklets for what they do well, mainly just to provide fairly decent colored pictures on a subject with a few b&w photos that may or may not be actually titled (smile). To ask that the under paid authors they do get to 'write' the booklets have multiple language skills, or the ability to travel or access large amounts of information is asking too much. Osprey offers a cheap and very wide 'river' of data, just not very deep, to go along with the talented artist's work that is the main rationale for the volumes. Dan |
Mitch K | 26 Mar 2010 3:23 p.m. PST |
Dan, I think your last comment is highly apposite. It serves as a very useful "caveat emptor" about what you might expect to find in an Osprey. I would not necessarily expect other, similar products to be very different, either. Also, it neatly explains why many of the very expert people we know are out there are not producing books – THEY aren't making any gelt doing it! In fact not only are they not making on the deal, they are barely breaking even! Osprey (for example) are making a decent wedge from the process, but the authors aren't. And let's be brutally honest: your chances of making much money from a more in depth, scholarly work are not very high. Me, I'm just glad I get as much as I do! :-) |
balticbattles | 26 Mar 2010 3:51 p.m. PST |
I think that could change over the next few years. Ebooks, pdfs
the opportunities are improving for authors to pocket a greater share of the asking price. In fact it can give the author far more, and cost the audience far less. Perhaps we can start a system for books like the systems in place for getting new wargames models made. 100 people subscribe £50.00 GBP each for a book on the TYW, the author gets a gauranteed amount and the book is ready in a couple of years. what would the figures have to look like for it to work? |
Connard Sage | 27 Mar 2010 3:06 a.m. PST |
It seems that many are repeating exactly what I said in my first post. So
Perhaps we can start a system for books like the systems in place for getting new wargames models made. 100 people subscribe £50.00 GBP GBP each for a book on the TYW, the author gets a gauranteed amount and the book is ready in a couple of years. what would the figures have to look like for it to work? Just off the top of my head Factor in the author's time , loss of other earnings (the days of the gentlemen dilettante living off inherited wealth whilst pursuing their pet projects have long gone ), picture research, illustrators fees, foreign and domestic travel costs, possibly the need for an expert translation service across several languages ('general' translators wouldn't do, this subject has far too many unique terms and expressions, and primary sources at least would be rather archaic writings – just take a look at 17th C. English), editing, printing, distribution. There's probably at least a dozen other factors that all cost money and time. Your timescale's a little optimistic too. Your 'guaranteed' 5000 quid has hardly made an impression. Shove a nought on the end and you may be closer. Or not. Wargamers are a funny breed, we seem to think that making a living only applies to us, and that the facilitators of our hobby should do it for near to free. |
balticbattles | 27 Mar 2010 11:45 a.m. PST |
So more people or a very expensive book. looking at it another way, why is this research not a university funded research programme? |
Daniel S | 27 Mar 2010 3:34 p.m. PST |
highlandbevan, Paddy Griffith sums up the main reason why there is no such research quite well:
When we look at the specific field of military history, however, we find that a curiously discordant academic doctrine has grown up during the past thirty years or so. According to this doctrine it is in fact illegitimate to be a specialist in military history, and only the military polymath should command any respect at all. If one concentrates entirely upon the technicalities of what happens on the battlefield one is very liable to be dismissed, in the lubricious words of Professor Sir Michael Howard in a 1991 BBC radio interview, as 'childish, immoral and dangerous'. If, on the other hand, one prefers to look at what happens within the Ministry of War, the War Cabinet or the war orphans' homes, one stands a perfectly fair chance of being hailed as a great historian. In a nutshell, the problem for genuine military historians seems to be that the university has apparently decided that whereas history in the bad old days used to be dedicated exclusively to 'kings and battles', it must now be dedicated exclusively to 'politics and society'. This formula unfortunately implies that pure military history, including tactical history, no longer has auy place within general history unless it can be artificially linked in same way to either politics or society, or preferably to both.In order to win respectability within a university environment today, the military historian must apparently make it clear that his main subject of interest is not military history at all; but 'War and Society', 'Strategic Studies' or some definition of 'War Studies' (or its twin brother 'Peace Studies') which includes in its remit such things as international politics, international law, international morality, military economics, military sociology and military ethics. Strictly speaking one does not necessarily have to be a military historian at all, in order to succeed in any of these disciplines. Military historians may sometimes be tolerated and may work their passage if they are accepted, but only if they demonstrate that their interest in pure military history is secondary to some 'higher' social or political purpose.
There are some exceptions to the above dire picture of course (The short essay from which the quote is taken was written in 1994 AFAIK). Medieval military historians seem to have managed to find some room at the University level. And of course it varies somewhat from country to country. Here in Sweden it depends on the university if the view of military history is either similar to that described by Griffith or if it is held in even lower regard. At 'my' university in Gothenburg it was impossible to get any such military history work done in my day and it's only slightly better today. Forget about getting any kind of funds for a study of battlefield tactics. At best I'd be branded some sort of imoral warmonger, at worst a sadistic closet-nazi. |
huevans | 27 Mar 2010 4:35 p.m. PST |
OTOH, Daniel, it is possible for the "mainstream" historian to argue that military science is a type of "technical" study, similar to "History of Engineering" or "History of Medicine" and thus, not really a core area of history. Much as I hate to admit it, there is some validity to this view. |
Mitch K | 28 Mar 2010 2:22 a.m. PST |
Daniel, Huevans, in the UK we are quite lucky in that we have a number of quite good (IMO) "technical" military historians (often attached to the Imperial War Museum or the Royal Military Academy) who have crossed over into the mainstream – for example Richard Holmes. Certainly in the broad stream of academia, anything that doesn't consider the actual technical aspects of military history as being distasteful is seen as reactionary or misguided at best. As far as the price of books goes, it rather depends on the end product: if I'm spending fifty pounds, I want a decent, scholarly volume, thorough researched and cross-referenced, or else a very great deal of flash and fluff (colour paintings etc). If I'm getting an Osprey-like product, I am only willing to pay Osprey-like money, give or take a bit. Part of the issue is the Osprey business model – the authors seem to be paid a one-off, rather small fee, and are provided with very limited budget for procuring the photos, maps etc within the rest of the book. The illustrators on the other hand retain the copyright to their original work, and can remarket it at their own pleasure. The authors gain no extra fee if the volunme is reprinted umpteen times. My guess is this is said to allow successul titles to subsidise ultra-niche ones, but it would not seem to give the author any great incentive to produce a classic. |
balticbattles | 28 Mar 2010 3:59 a.m. PST |
You'd think that the attitudes summarised above would lead to a deficiency in the technical aspects of war and a great understanding of the socio-political ones whereas looking at recent examples the exact opposite seems to be the case!! I guess that if we want this book we'd all better start playing the lottery :-) |
RockyRusso | 28 Mar 2010 10:49 a.m. PST |
Hi John, sorry I misspelled sam's name
I guess. Dan, I commonly joke that the stuff I do about aircombat was funded by the US government, and the gamer benefits. I was doing aero/analysis for them, and weapons. Good gig, but the fall out is better gaming rules! I was lucky enough to fall into a system where military history as a study was applauded rather than sneered at. Rocky |
Daniel S | 28 Mar 2010 3:26 p.m. PST |
highlandbevan, No need to play the lottery, far better to spend the money on research funds for authors As I don't have anyinterest in making a profit, I merely want to cover the costs involved I could get a lot done with the £5,000.00 GBP in your example. The key resource is time, not money, and it is in short supply at the moment and with work and family wanting their part of it I could not honestly commit to that kind of subscription in good faith because the subscribers could get a book in 2 or 6 years time or not at all
. |
Daniel S | 28 Mar 2010 3:47 p.m. PST |
Dan Cyr, You make more than a few valid points, however the combination of the Net and the availability of digital versions of previously hard to find sources has done a lot improve the situation for researchers. A lot of sources are only a few clicks away on the Net. Add in the digital documents available in many research libraries and yoy have yet more sources that very hard to find and expensive to access 10 years ago. As I've said before, the Dutch and Swedish sections are decent but with some gaps and flaws due to the limitations of the available sources. The problems are with the Spanish and the Germans. Given that Dr. Piquets website on the Spanish army has been online for years and until the demise of Geocities was one of the top-10 (top-3?) results that turned up if you googled "Spanish Tercio" the kind of illinformed description of Spanish tactics written by Roberts is a myster. And then there is the fairly easy to access sources like the e-book version "Spanier auf dem Albuch" which costs a bit about £4.00 GBP and the part on tactics is fairly easy to translate with google and a wordbook. |
Daniel S | 28 Mar 2010 5:51 p.m. PST |
Number6, Well there is always the stifle function
What I don't get is this notion that when writing about the TYW authors whose native language is English should somehow be excused from criticism. Czech, German & Swedish authors can all grapple with and overcome the language barrier. Indeed English speaking authors do so as well in other subjects so why should the TYW be such a special case were normal standards do not apply? If I wrote an Osprey on Napoleonic tactics based only sources available in Swedish do you think it would get anything but an hot recpetion over on the Napoleonics board? Particularly if I produced a vauge & somewaht misleading text on the Brittish army in the Penninsula which referenced no Brittish texts? And just in case you wondered I dislike poorly researched and erronous TYW history in any language including my native Swedish. I actualy pointed that a fairly recent work on the subject was filled with errors, that the text was not supported by the sources listed and that there was plagiarism involved. Far worse than Robert's Osprey. |
Thomas Mante | 01 Sep 2010 6:08 a.m. PST |
Daniel Many thanks for an excellent 'warts and all' review. When I saw this title announced I did worry that it would be anglo-centric and your review indicates that it is. I can offer a couple of answers to, perhaps rhetorical, questions you have posed in other posts. DS: "Another example, which is likely to provide the most accurate depiction of a Swedish brigade? The partly crude drawings published by Bariffe or the more lavish and detailed drawing commisioned by Gustavus Adolphus?" Basically because Keith Roberts owns an original Barriffe and so copies of the Swedish Brigade diagram are easily come by! His copy of Barriffe was used by Partizan press as the basis of their facsimile reprint some years back. A recent book on the Battle of Brentford is packed with awful C19th & C20th artwork merely because the editor/publisher has a library of them! Nothing sinister just availibility and perhaps complacency or indolence? DS: "if you googled "Spanish Tercio" the kind of illinformed description of Spanish tactics written by Roberts is a myster" Well my information (some years out of date perhaps) is that he is not on the internet at home nor has a personal email address. This of course removes at a stroke access to the'net resources you mention. This explains perhaps the 'ill informed' aspect of the work BUT cannot in any way excuse it. It is fashionable these days for everyone to want a tome or monograph that answers every question! Even with infinite time and resources such a thing wouldd be difficult to produce for a team let alone one man. But have you considered publishing the odd article outlining some of your findings on say a corrective of Breitenfield, Spanish or even Swedish tactics? The vehicle for such offerings could be as various as learned societies or the hobby press. The latter comprising such outfits as PSS or Rich's Renwars society. None of these pay of course but an alternative could be submitting something to the Wargames glossies or Military Illustrated or The Armourer. It is not as satisfying as writing a book but it might offer the opportunity to crystalise/organise some thoughts and provide a test for interpretations ahead of the masterwork. Forgive me if I seem to be preaching, far from it, and I am all too aware of the demands of family and work but such a route could help ease the way in a larger enterprise. There is also a selfish element on my part as I should like to read in more depth some of your work (based on other posts for example on Guthrie) on the errors in anglophone understandings of Breitenfeld & Lutzen. Personally I am baffled as to why anyone would use the Swedish Brigade, in some spects it strikes me as being as wasteful as the 'old' ideas about tercio deployment, but there again my reading is confined to anglophone material. One reason I shied off looking into the 30YW in more detail some years back was my own lack of linguistic skills. I can survive in French, eat & drink in German and get round Mexico by bus but none of the are equal to the task of C17th sources in the original! Thanks for the review and informative posts. |
Gonzo Brios | 01 Sep 2010 7:39 p.m. PST |
Daniel S. First of all, an interesting review, thanks for your work. I think this book just offer an overall view of army tactics in this period. Like Gush or Guthrie books is just a compendium so don't feel disappointed if it's not very exhaustive or detailed. There are a lot of books that are focused in only one army or a delimited age. For example, if you're looking for information about Spanish Tercios, I highly recommended you "Tercios de España: La infanteria legendaria" by F.Martinez Lainez and J.M.Sanchez de Toca. I have to admit that generally is difficult found good hispanist working out of Spain. Perhaps you should read John H. Elliot works, his book about Count-Duke of Olivares is a perfect picture of the Spanish Golden Age. Cheers! Gonzo swordofsahagun.blogspot.com |