"Anatomy of a lie" Topic

"The idea of a Russian source downplaying an ass-whipping at any level is not original"

Such comments by 10 Marines are contra productive – certainly the Russian Army did not got their ass whipped at Eylau.
It was more or less a stalemate.
A battalion of the Old Guard "annihilating" a Russian column of 5000 Russian Soldiers – rediculous.

Remember it could have been just 4 Russian soldiers … "une colonne de quatre ou six mille Russes"!!

Maybe claiming they were 'exterminated' was on the basis that they were right there – then they weren't any more.

'A battalion of the Old Guard "annihilating" a Russian column of 5000 Russian Soldiers – rediculous.'

It's not any more ridiculous than the two-battalion Old Guard assault at Plancentoit in Belgium in 1815 where the two battalions, against fourteen Prussian battalions, throwing those battalions out of the village and defending it until they broke out at the end of the battle.

Or, take the example of the Young Guard at Essling under Rapp and Mouton attacking and defeating Rosenberg's IV Corps unsupported by anyone.

And, you're not paying attention to the Eylau issue-Dorseene was not the only one in the action with his battalion, Bruyere's cavalry brigade attacked the column from another direction and Guard artillery supported them both.

I would call all of these actions an 'ass-whipping.' Perhaps you're not familiar with the term or experience?

Sincerely,
K

Chuvak,

You haven't changed my mind nor have you 'proven' your point. Your reluctance to contact James Arnold is interesting as that is where you appear to have questions. It seems to me that you're more interested in obfuscation, derision, and mockery than any serious attempt at historical inquiry. In short, much of what you say is just plain wrong and cannot be taken seriously or used in actual research. You remind me of the anti-Federalists during the debate on the adoption of the US Constitution-they weren't 'for' anything, but merely against and when the issue went away, so did they.

In many cases, such as the staff rank of adjutant-commandant, you are in ignorance of the significance of the different between staff and line and that the French actually had created a de facto staff corps in 1790. The proscribed uniform of an adjutant commandant was also quite different than those of the line.

Sincerely,
K

On our behalf (being James R Arnold and myself), I would like to note some things on this topic already posted on another forum.

When we examined the "incident" (often referred to as the "lost column"), we had two possible Russian formations:

- the column of Somov (Zapolsky being further to the south having met and repulsed Augereau's command), and

- the command of Prinz Karl zu Mecklinberg

At Eylau, Prinz Karl commanded the Moscow Grenadiers, the Old-Ingermanland Musketeers and the Archangelogorod Muskteers with their eighteen cannon. Prinz Karl wrote that these units were the elements of his command at Eylau on the second day (the 8th to us, he uses the old style of dates).

Somov units at Eylau were all musketeer regiments (naturally with their grenadier component) Navagin, Polotsk, Tengin, Tobol and Tula Musketeer Regiments,

Given that many regiments had fought the previous day (including Prinz Karl's Moscow Grenadiers), the "observed" strenght of eithe Prinz Karl's command or Somov's command match this size (with a bit a 'windage' for observer accuracy – if "4,000 or 6,000" one would expect the force to be no more than four thousand – I believe I have seen the version from one witness stating three thousand).

We decided the 'column' was that of Prinz Karl because:

- the position of his command (area of the Russian main battery),

- his tactical approach on his front (numerous bayonet attacks)

- the existence of grenadier troops within his command (his own Moscow Grenadiers), though this was not decisive, and

- the ability of Bruyère's troopers to reach them (positioned as they were on the north side of Eylau).

Perhaps naturally, Prinz Karl does not say any of his units were cut up – this account is just one element of his career in his own hand, so bad news is missing.

We (Jim and I) had considerable discussions on this point (including the reliability of Jomini – I think my strong questioning of at Swiss officer is sufficiently well know – yet he was an eye witness whose observations are supported by others in this instance; see below) and we came to the conclusions as included in the book.

It may very well be that, in the end, the action was just with a small part of Prinz Karl's command on one of their counter-attacks and it may well be that smaller part went further than desired (for any number of reasons, including the flurry of snow) and once the noticed the cemetery, town and enemy troops they realized this and simply retreated as best they could, in the circumstances. This view is supported, in part, by Bertrand who says the Russians stopped on seeing the French.

We decided against this view.

The "official accounts" of Bennigsen and his mention of Prinz Karl (along with the grenadiers of Moscow) and the account of the 'Térmoin Oculaire' (being Napoléon and Bertrand) appear to mesh with each other.

Given the casualties of the entire battle, the extent of the destruction of Prinz Karl's command can be debated. Still, from that point forward, the Russians applied little pressure against the French in and around Eylau.

I would also add, many different French wrote about Russian columns of grenadiers in various parts of the field (Ney is counter-attacked by six Russian grenadier battalions) and observers on the Russian side often mention the French guard attacking numerous times. There is no perfect reconciliation.

We added an appendix covering the "Battle of the Maps" including something on the "German" eyewitness account was dictated by Napoléon. It was "translated from the German" which does not mean it was by a German.

As events transpired, the account with the maps was first published in Berlin under Clarke's direction and it German and French side – both simply say by an eyewitness, The Paris edition was delayed as the plans were lost in transmittal resulting in a delay. The Paris edition was only issued in French and this is where the "translated from the German" arises. Some hints of the delays can be seen in Napoléon's letters to Cambacérès. I believe some of this was covered on this thread.

That is an aside, as on this tread it was stated early on that Napoléon dictated the "eyewitness account".

Bertrand described the incident (this was recorded by Las Casas); then, there are the other witnesses of varying detail and quality include Castillon, Coignet, Jomini (I am skeptical of this fellow's history, yet this time it is viewed as a witness, together with the others) and Laffitte as related by Parquin as well as the unattributed one by Bonneval. Barras was away from the front for awhile, carrying a wounded friend to the aid tent.

The journal of operations of Bruyére's brigade covers the action, though from an execution angle, without a deep perspective of its rôle in a plan.

As described above, the extent of aggression from the Russian side can be debated, yet the Russian troops in the area did advance.

Taken together, we believe an action took place. One can debate the degree of the elements working like a Swiss watch, though.

I am sure I have left out some other witnesses (I recall a civilian witness somewhere, for example).

Again, in such matters there is no perfect reconciliation. – R

So in other words it can't be proved or disproved beyond the shadow of a doubt and can lead to debate with no possible conclusion. Only what is most apparent to date, unless new eyewitness accounts are discovered. End of discussion in my mind.

Ralph,

Thanks for stopping by !
:-)

"Prinz Karl wrote"
Can you indicate where this would be found ?

You note "with their eighteen cannon".
Can you say why you would conclude that these units moved their guns with them in the advance?
Would you say that this was usual for the Russians when advancing at Eylau ?

Thanks again,
Chuvak

"can't be proved or disproved beyond the shadow of a doubt and can lead to debate with no possible conclusion."

Well, no.
A person could have their own conclusions, their summary, their judgement, their own synthesis of the sources.

But also yes.
There is room for debate, doubt, error, interpretation, etc.

This is why bombastic statements like "You might also find out about the 'quick bayonet work' that one of the Old Guard battalions got in at Eylau in 1807, led by Dorsenne, as they annihilated a Russian column of grenadiers." tossed out as if they were perfectly and assuredy true can really be quite misleading.

As Ralph as reviewed for us, the sources indicate that some Russian column (size perhaps about 9 battalions) retreated after a confrontation with a combined force of a battalion of Guard grenadiers, Daumesnil's Guard escort squadron and a brigade of 6 squadrons of Bruyères line cavalry, aided by artillery fire from the Guard artillery. These "core" elements seem to be generally not contradicted by any of the sources.

Outisde the "core" elements, there is no consensus and plenty of room for debate and personal opinions.

Chuvak

I agree with 'debate' but not 'personal opinions' as they hold no weight in history, it is or it isn't, fact or fiction and seeing how this is the history section, I would think we deal in proven fact.

Regards
James

Chuvak,

I appreciate your polite answer. Sadly though, this is such a rare thing here.

Oh… I agree with you, von Winterfeldt. I also enjoy discussions on the level Chuvak is bringing forward, and, like him, I'm an impartial guy. Many people here are not.

I'm a moderator on another forum (General Brock knows me from there) and… Wait, I'm hijacking the thread again.

Sorry guys. My apologies.

Please, continue this great debate. I've already learned so much.

Hey Dude

Perhaps I should first say that we kept the word "column" yet in the meaning of "command" and not some nine-battalion column with one battalion behind the other (as for the two reserve columns before the start of the battle – Zapolsky and Somov)

Prinz Karl did not state a formation, though we thought that described by both Bennigsen and Prinz Eugen (a friend of Karl – see Wilson for their socializing) would be reasonable. He does not describe the allocation of the cannon, either. It is clear they are separate from the main battery.

Prinz Karl said his command had 18 cannon. I do not remember where I said he took the cannon forward. (As most discussion of unit movements are silent on the light pieces, unless otherwise stated they would have been with the units. For a better understanding of what I mean by this, see the report of Kazatchkovsky on the Braunsberg engagement included by Bennigsen in his memoires: when advancing, only the battalions are mentioned, only when cannon may be lost are they separately described. This is true for other armies and wars – even, say, the British and Hessians in America during the 1776 war – Burgoyne's campaign and Cornwallis's exploits in the South excepted.)

It may well be Karl's bayonet clearings were made in the same manner as described by Bennigsen for Ostermann-Tolstoy's counter-attacks on the Russian left (the battalions in the second line-of-battle were in battalion columns and they moved forward past the first line-of-battle, with its battalions formed in line). Prinz Karl does not say.

It may be that the entire force went forward (even with artillery). Since this was done "many times" it may have been once with some, another time with all, and the next time with some other allocation.

This lack of tactical knowledge caused us to leave that aspect more vague as well as leaving the word "column" in the text.

According to the summary for the brigade of Bruyère, six cannon are captured which could suggest Karl's cannon were more forward, though the details here are vague as well. We left that aspect out, as I recall.

Note, if the method of using the second line-of-battle units only to push forward was used, those battalions (perhaps three, if one takes the basic two forward and one back formation as ordered by Bennigsen and described by Prinz Eugen), then those battalion columns would have been very isolated indeed and vulnerable to an infantry treat (supported by artillery) followed by a cavalry charge from the flank.

All of this is speculation and, thus, was left out.

Yet, because of all of this and as we identified Prinz Karl, we were silent on numbers.

In a similar manner, we left out anything being done by the Russian Jagers. They were in the area, yet we did not know how – if at all – they were cooperating. I presume the Jagers on this part of the field acted along the same lines as that described by Otroshchenko for the 7th Jagers toward the Russian right.

Karl's paper was obtained from Schwerin and his scribble was kindly deciphered (it is terrible) by Kurt-Michael Herzog, a retired German army officer.

Enjoy. – R

Ralph,

"Karl's paper was obtained from Schwerin and his scribble was kindly deciphered"
It is then unpublished, yes ?

"I do not remember where I said he took the cannon forward"
You didn't, actually. This might have been inferred by your menion of them in your first post. I thought to ask you to clarify.

It might be well to say "thank you" for all that you left out of your book. Many authors will fill in more detail than their sources give them, causing no end of confusion later.

Chuvak

Yes, unpublished. -R

Thank you ! I thought I was losing my mind trying to find it.
:-)

With kindest regards,
Chuvak

For more information see a thread at:

link

Someone on the other forum was questioning the losses of the grenadiers at Eylau, so I thought i'd have a look, so far I have -

Grenadiers
1 officiers killed & 19 soldats
2 officers wounded & ?? soldats

Chasseurs
0 officiers killed & 17 soldats
3 officiers wounded & ?? soldats

funny how similar topics are running on both forums.

Well, I will likely be chastised on at least two fora for posting anything – factuality being apparently an insufficent defense against charges of immature, agenda-driven posting.
However, one will note the garde officer casualties were (i) very light (one was actually an accident the night before) and (ii) not in the 2e bataillon du 2e grenadiers à pied.

tué
lieutenant en 2e Labarrière :: 2e compagnie du 2e bataillon du 1er grenadiers
--- né à Lautrec, sergent au 2e bataillon de volontaires de Deux-Sèvres le 6 juillet 1792, campagnes des Pyrénées Occidentales 1793-95, sous-lieutenant le 1 janvier 1794, campagne de 1796 en Vendée, campagnes d'Italie 1797-1800, amalgamé à la 63e demi-brigade de bataille en 1797, fait lieutenant sur le champ de bataille de Novi en 1799, reçut un sabre d'honeur au blocus de Gênes pour avoir assailli l'ennemi dans le village de St.-Martin accompagné d'un seul sergent [Perrin – voir Fastes I-115], campagne de Portugal en 1801-1802, officier de la Légion d'honneur, passé lieutenant en 2e au 1er grenadiers à pied de la garde en 1805
link
I am sad that I could not find his given name. His name, and his bravery, should be recorded and remembered.

blessés
chef de bataillon Louis Lonchamp (1770 – 1832) :: commandant le 1er bataillon du 1er grenadiers
capitaine Marie-Joseph-Bernard Rogery (1775 – ?) :: commandant la 3e compagnie du 1er bataillon du 1er grenadiers
lieutenant en 1er Ennemond Rozet (1766 – 1832) :: 1ere compagnie du 1er bataillon du 1er chasseurs
lieutenant en 2e Jacques-Joseph Chanfroid (1766 – ?) :: 4e compagnie de 2e bataillon du 2e chasseurs
chirurgien-major provisoire Claude-Jean-Baptiste Cothenet (1768 – 1841) :: état-major du 1er chasseurs
--- he had his right leg fractured when a caisson was rolled over him the night before the battle

Chuvak

Don't be sad!

Labarrière, Jean-Jacques-Guillaume-Joseph (2e btn, 2e cie)

This is him in full

LABARRIÈRE Jean-Jacques-Guillaume-Joseph, né le 10 mars 1769 à Lautrec (Tarn), engagé volontaire entré au service le 6 juillet 1792 comme sergent au 2eme bataillon du Tarn, sergent-major le 28 octobre 1792 puis sous-lieutenant le 20 janvier 1794, servant à l'armée des Pyrénées Occidentales (1792-1795), incorporé avec son grade dans la demi-brigade des Deux-Sèvres le 21 mars 1795 puis dans la 63ème demi-brigade d'infanterie de ligne le 21 décembre 1796, faisant campagne aux années de l'Ouest (1795) et d'Italie (1796-1800), lieutenant à la 63ème de ligne le 15 août 1799, se distinguant au cours du blocus de Gênes, à l'affaire du village de San Martine le 28 mai 1800 où, accompagné d'un seul sergent, il tua ou désarma plusieurs Autrichiens, blessé aux cuisses au cours de cette action d'éclat, récompensé par l'obtention d'un sabre d'honneur avec brevet du 26 février 1803, lieutenant au 63eme régiment d'infanterie de ligne à l'organisation du 24 septembre 1803, membre de la Légion d'honneur à la même date, officier de la Légion d'honneur le 14 juin 1804, admis avec le grade de lieutenant en second dans le corps des grenadiers à pied de la Garde impériale par décret du 1er mai 1806, arrivé au corps le 1er juin 1806, sert en 1807 à 2ème compagnie du 2eme bataillon du 1er régiment de grenadiers à pied, fait campagne à la Grande Année, tué à la bataille d'Eylau le 8 février 1807.

Base Léonore
Cote LH/1412/30
Nom LABARRIERE
Prénoms Guillaume
Sexe M
Date de naissance 1769/03/10
Lieu de naissance Tarn ; Lautrec
Lieu conservation dossier Archives nationales ; site de Paris

Document not scanned yet

Thanks for the others not got round to finding them yet.

And while you are in one of your rare mature non agenda driven moods, have you located the officier lieutenant Gryon of the 2e carabiniers wounded at Waterloo († 1 juillet 1815)I can't seem to find him, think maybe a spelling issue, I did try Cryon.

he is also in Fastes vol V p.512 don't you use my index?

Yes, of course I used your index. I have hot-links to it in about 30 folders!
:-)
…. must have missed it …. getting old.
===================

Ugh! not so easy.

I looked in the État-Militaire An XII [about September 1803 data] – no carabinier à cheval or cuirassier offciers that are close. So he was likely commissioned 1804 or later. Thus an estimated birth year of about 1785 should be pretty close.

I think it is OK as "Gryon" – a reasonable Vaudois name and place :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryon

But if it is mangled or "localized", and was supposed to be French, then it could be one of the following ….

Grignon
-- Nom surtout porté dans la Sarthe et les départements voisins. Difficile de se prononcer avec certitude. Il peut s'agir, comme pour le breton Grignou, du surnom d'un homme grognon. Mais, en ancien français, un grignon est une moustache. Autre solution : un toponyme, Grignon étant le nom de communes en Bourgogne et en Savoie et celui de plusieurs hameaux, par exemple à Souvigné-sur-Sarthe.
I did find the name spelled "Gryon" in French Savoy – in the middle ages.

Grillon
-- Un nom qui renvoie au grillon (latin grillus), et qui porte selon les régions un suffixe différent : -et (la forme grillet était la plus courante au Moyen Âge), -ot ou bien sûr -on. On pense généralement qu'il s'agit d'un sobriquet désignant une personne gaie, qui chante tout le temps. Le nom Grillot est porté en Saône-et-Loire et en Franche-Comté, on trouve les Grillet surtout dans la Loire et la Saône-et-Loire, et les Grillon dans le Loiret.
I did find the name spelled "Gryon" in the Pays de la Loire – in the late 1600's.

Of course, it could also be the handwriting – with an original such a "Guyon".

Do I get more time in the DH for this? Is it too hostile to the memory of the glory of Napoléon and the French ? Shall I be vilified as a lunatic on other fora ? It is like with Stalin : one never knows what the loyalty test will be, and what the correct answer should be.
For example, if it is a Swiss name – is that "good" or "bad" ? Do I shed bright light on the joy and hope that Napoléon brought to all of Europe such that they flocked to his colors ? Or do I besmirch the fame of the great French cavalry by suggesting a possible foreigner among them ?
One wrong step …. and "poof" … I am condemned.

Remember, fact-based posts are not acceptable, as I have found out. You should have asked about him with more sympathy :
"A victim of the treason of XXXX"
"Killed by overwhelming numbers of incompetent hordes"
"Died gloriously with "Vive l'Empereur!" on his lips"
or similar.

Chuvak

Vol 2 of the following work contains short histories of the grenadier regts existing in 1817. Unfortunately, for Moscow only states present at Eylau 27-28(os):

Ïèñàðåâ, Àëåêñàíäð Àëåêñàíäðîâè÷ (1780-1848). Âîåííûå ïèñüìà è çàìѣ÷àí³ÿ, íàèáîëѣå îòíîñÿù³åñÿ ê íåçàáâåíîìó 1812 ãîäó è ïîñëѣäóþùèì, ïèñàííûå ãåíåðàë-ìà³îðîì Ïèñàðåâûì. 2 vols. Moskva:  òèï. Ñ. Ñåëèâàíîâñêàãî, 1817. ×. 1.: xvi, iv, 494, iv ñ.: òàáë., ôðîíò; ×. 2.: iii, 464, [7] ñ.

link

link

I don't think Colonel Elting, or any other "reliable" author wrote that. We probably shouldn't read it. And you should go confess and then go to the DH for a while for even suggesting it.

Also, it is clearly not in English, and was written a long time ago. So, it is really impossible for it to be "reliable".

TMP link

======================

Also fit for burning, before reading :

Императорская российская гвардия, 1700-1878 : Хронол. таблицы
Сост. г.-л. бар. Вячеслав Штейнгейль
Санкт-Петербург : тип. Канцелярии С.-ПБ. градоначальника, 1878
PDF link
[very convenient – but assuredly not "reliable"]

История Лейб-гвардии Измайловского полка [1730 – 22 сент. – 1880]
Сост. кап. Н. Зноско-Боровский 1-й
Санкт-Петербург : тип. П.Е. Лобанова, 1882
PDF link

Историческое обозрение лейб-гвардии Измайловского полка : 1730-1850
Санкт-Петербург : Тип. Гл. упр. путей сообщ. и публич. зданий, [1851]
PDF link

Chuvak

Scrivener's error!: should read: "… present at Eylau "Ianvara 26-27"(os)", p 115 of vol 2.

Burn, Baby! Burn!

<;^}

Stay Thirsty, My Friends.

@Chuvak

"Well, I will likely be chastised on at least two fora for posting anything "

Well that is the tactic of the ignorants who cannot cope to discuss on the same high level of knowledge like you.

I may add you are only chastised in case you are cricital to the French army or Napoleon.
Unfortunalty you seemingly have the notion just to present your findings based on solid reasearch and truth hurts …

I applaud your contributions – so don't wory you don't walk alone – as for songs I would not go for

The Dog House Gang : The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire – instead to Simon and Garfunkel :
Sounds of Silence

;-))

"Well that is the tactic of the ignorants who cannot cope to discuss on the same high level of knowledge like you."

People come to a wargaming/miniatures board and discuss much more detailed history than most wargamers need. After all, for most gamers (but not all) Napoleonics is merely a context for a game, not a passion in itself.

Having said that, however, the added detail can be very interesting, and is indeed of value to those gamers who do also have more than just a gaming interest in Napoleonics.

But what gamers do not appreciate is when the people giving this added detail then turn it into an ongoing "academic" crusade against different factions. The Victrix Old Guard thread that Chuvak alluded to is in example of this, where an ongoing bone of contention that has no context to the original discussion is dredged up out of the blue.

If that makes us "ignorants", well so be it …

Well that is the tactic of the ignorants who cannot cope to discuss on the same high level of knowledge like you.

It must be so wonderful to be of a superior breed. Is it in the genes, I wonder?

Let's not be silly. Nobody ever suggested that if you don't have an opinion on what the Guard did at Eylau, or don't care, you are unworthy of this hobby.

What is a problem is when you try to argue on an academic level, don't present sourcing, logic, or translation and instead rely on arguments of authority and tradition, then when your opponents march out all sorts of interesting archival material, you squawk about "condescension".

Now, of course, I'm talking about a handful of people, but mostly Kevin Kiley. Let's see. He claims Chuvak doesn't know Jomini's rank, then when Chuvak demonstrated a thorough knowledge of French ranks and titles, he accuses Chuvak of being ignorant of the difference between staff and field assignments. He cites Arnold's bibliography as proof of his argument. When Chuvak actually reads the these French sources and points out they are silent on the question at hand, he tells Chuvak he should go talk to Arnold. The closest he's come to supporting his assertion that an Old Guard battalion annihilated 4-6,000 Russian grenadiers is Jomini, whom he dismisses as a historian without the slightest sense of irony.

Chuvak has taken the high road, but it gets to be a grind. It is very difficult to refrain from exclaiming, "- – you are an insufferable ignoramus!" and instead say Kevin, you constantly make ignorant, illogical, bombastic, unsupported posts, constantly change the subject when bested, and never acknowlege other's points. And because it's difficult, we end up with people in the dog house – people who are generous and strong contributors.

If you don't enjoy the arguments, fine, nobody says you have to participate. You can always go pile on poor Mr. Pitts if you want unanimity ;-)

But how many of you are Napoleonic miniaturists or gamers? Or should we call "ignorant" those who can't paint a figure or play a wargame to a suitable level?

Arteis and Old Bear, have a re-read of the post you're talking about, what's being termed "a tactic of the ignorant" is the tactic of chastising people on multiple web forums for holding well-supported and reasoned viewpoints that differ from one's own viewpoints – and in fact, the intended target is not, to my knowledge, a gamer at all so most all of us are off the hook on this one. Note also that this is the second usage of ignorant in this thread, this time being launched from the opposing side.

Expect either counterfire of increasing intensity or strategic withdrawal and increased skirmishing on the periphery.

Well, maybe Chuvak can enlighten us as to which two fora he was talking about, and who exactly it was that was chastising him, when he said: "Well, I will likely be chastised on at least two fora for posting anything – factuality being apparently an insufficent defense against charges of immature, agenda-driven posting".

I took this to mean the couple of fora (more now!) that are critical of our board being taken over by academic discussions that turn into sarcastic or name-calling continuations of a long-running dispute that has nothing to do with gaming (in other words, 'immature, agenda-driven posting').

But if Chuvak's rather obtuse posting was referring to something else, maybe I've taken that wrong. Probably a good example of how even the most academic of discussions can be misconstrued if the messages are not clear!

Still doesn't excuse ANYONE calling anyone else 'ignorant' though just because they don't measure up to their academic standards.

Arteis, what Vendome said. When one side bothers to google up French and Russian sources, read them, post well reasoned conclusions based on them, and the other side replies with vehemently expressed opinions, someone is demonstrating ignorance. It's as simple as that.

If you cannot recall "chastisement" perhaps you should reread the thread. There is a parallel discussion on the Napoleon Series at the moment…

Well, maybe the Napoleon Series is the place for such academic discussions. I think that is its actual purpose, as I recall.

TMP is a gaming board.

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: …."

French cuirassiers in 1815 – 757 hits since 6 Apr 2010

Young guard hornists? – 67 hits since 12 Apr 2010

Oudinot's Division, 1806 – 508 hits since 28 Mar 2010

The battle around Paris 1815. – 369 hits since 9 Apr 2010

No chance to stop the invasion on land? – 415 hits since 5 Apr 2010

Davout Command at the gates of Paris. – 346 hits since 9 Apr 2010

French medical service – 419 hits since 31 Mar 2010

Badajoz and the british bayonnetes. – 248 hits since 9 Apr 2010

SWISS REGIMENT DURING THE HUNDRED DAYS – 419 hits since 3 Apr 2010

Nafzoger OOBs… – 7,020 hits since 21 Feb 2010

Amphibious wagons? – 374 hits since 1 Oct 2009

Books Available For Download On The Internet – 11,400 hits since 18 Nov 2007

QED

There appears to be an interest on TMP for 'academic' topics.

Hits, schmits …

Are many of them the the same people coming back, or do they indicate a lot of individuals?

How many are mere curiosity caused by titles or subjects? The one about amphibious wagons, for instance, raised my curiousity to post a question wondering if they were pulled by sea-horses, so I'm one of the 347 hits!

Are any of those threads ones where people drag out the old debate anyway, or are some polite and erudite discussions about other things (sorry, I'm not going to read all the posts on those named threads to find out!)?

It is the constant hauling out of that old debate, and the name-calling and sarcasm that go with it, that turns so many of us gamers off (though, ironically, such posts probably have more hits because of the 'train-wreck' appeal).

Finally, what does your post "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: …."
mean? Again, being so obtuse, it could be taken a number of ways, including one that implies a certain elitism?!

QED

<;^}

… which means?

Holder de bolder.

QED!

… which means?

typically smith has chimed in to ridicule and ark up another poster for his own amusement. Be careful matey, the DH beckons…

Thank you, Shane. Warning taken on board. Much as I would like to post a rejoinder to Steven, I will desist, as I can see myself sliding off into the very behaviour I'm decrying!!!

Roly

See Roly, he wanted to post some retort of ridicule back at me but thought better of it. He is learning his lesson.

Mr. Devries,

Your continued harassement of me and so many others here on TMP needs to end. I can not believe you are allowed to get away with it over and over.

Try to contribute something useful – you might even find it rewarding.

Please stop this harassement NOW.

Big Al

Well that is the tactic of the ignorants who cannot cope to discuss on the same high level of knowledge like you.

von winterfeldt, I have no axe to grind with you and do not wish to, your posts are usually very enlightening and wel lthought out. However, the above post does frustrate me, have you overlooked what Chuvak said earlier?

Are you having a French-challenged moment ?

No offense aimed at Chuvak, he is human like the rest of us but this kind of comment reeks of sarcasm even if only a minor infringement that is well below the level one would see from someone maintaining the moral high ground don't you think?

Shane

Your continued harassement of me and so many others here on TMP needs to end. I can not believe you are allowed to get away with it over and over.

oh, that is rich coming from you!!!

smith, who is harassing you? I am merely pointing out that you continually attack by ridicule and insult those you seem to dislike. Your harassment of others over the years including me knows no bounds. If you cannot take what you dish out then ?

or better yet, post something useful?

Again,

Please stop this harassement NOW.

Big Al

Guys, please, don't took this too personal.

All threads of history are interesting to those who like it and I think that the vast majority of the forum members are readers..

So, those who choose to write here, had the moral obligation to show their best good manners, not only history knowledge.

Think about the young generation who read those personal atacks.
What they are going to do in the forum when they choose to write here?.

Anyone had the right to said what they want on a history forum. You can agree or desagree with him, but please, not in a so agressive and personal way.

Two friends of mine that began to post here some days ago , had left the forum because they had suffered agressive comments about their threads.
They were very good historians and I'm sure they would can show very good points of vews here. But we lost them because of the innecesary agression.

So, please, I call you to reflexion.

Amicalement
Armand