"Any surprise." Topic

Napoleonic forum discussions across the web (an apparently across time an space) have become much the same. It's like a group of "intelligent design" proponents crashing scientific conferences, dominating every discussion with a loud insistence that there is only one fixed TRUTH, and that anything else is WRONG. They then present their TRUTH, regurgitating the same evidence (often not relevant to the topic at hand). The scientists who become distracted and try to present contrary evidence are dismissed with allegations of bias, falsified data, and closed-mindedness. When they challenge old conclusions based on new findings, they are condemned for their unwillingness to accept the simple TRUTH and for clinging to their fixation on an agenda to disseminate falsehood.

Most of the scientists get tired of the game, and move on to other venues where the "intelligent design" crowd is not invited. A few turn up now and then to point out the false assumptions, flawed reasoning, circular logic and obvious agenda of the "intelligent design" proponents, get accused of making personal attacks and trying to stifle the TRUTH, and then leave having had a good chuckle. The "intelligent design" crowd then laments that the scientists are immature and incapable of reasoned discourse.

Ten years? I think it's been 12, since it began when I was recovering from back surgery in '98. Forum discussions generally go pretty well, people disagreeing without too much acrimony and only the occasional spat. Then the "intelligent design" crowd shows up …

nvrsaynvr,

Look, Professor Lieven has written 600 pages on how Alexander and the Russian spent two years planning for a long war, a national war, a war of flank attacks and supply raids and avoidance of battle; of diplomatic preparations to secure the flanks and to prepare to follow up by liberating central Europe.

That was my understanding of the Lieven's work. Now I did as the Americans say 'minored in law' and no paper was ever accepted by my Professor unless I quoted either statute or legal precedent. Much as I enjoy Kevin's contribution I do feel that the answer provided did not reach a standard I would have hoped.

Shane,

Now I did go back the original question and with due apologies to cousin Armand, I have rephrased his questions in the hope that we can get back to the basis of this tread;

(1) The Russians had an intelligence advantage over the French. (Lieven details this in both his book and lecture.)
The Russians therefore knew of the overall French plan and were able to counter it. The French, laking similar intelligence on the Russians were thus placed at a disadvantage?

OPINIONS ON THIS QUESTION WOULD BE WELCOMED.

I would make the additional comment: The Russians were aware of that Napoleon was not satisfied with their adherance to the Treaty of Tilset terms that they follow the continental system. Was it reasonable for Napoleon to insist on terms that he should reasonably have know the Russians could not keep? This is, of course, a question that has been answered by Charles Esdaile 'Napoleon's Wars: An International History, 1803-1815'.

(2) The Russians, knowing that Napoleon was planning a short sharp war lasting only a couple of months were able to counter this with a Fabian strategy. In this respect Alexander and Kutuzov could be said to have played Napoleon by forcing him to follow deeper and deeper into Russia and thus abandon his original plan and fight a campaign he was ill-equiped to win.

OPINIONS ON THIS QUESTION WOULD BE WELCOMED.

I for one would welcome your opinions on these points.

Best,

Elliott

After the treaty of Tilsit there were no obvious signs – neither of France – nor Russia – to become cordial allies.

Napoleon send military advisers to the Ottoman Empire to advise them against the Russians.

Russia had own interest that would sooner or later clash against Napoleon.

They obviously foresaw a military clash sooner or later and analysed Napoleon's system of war which enabled them, not only to survive the first onslaught but to destroy the Grande Armée.

Napoleon seemingly relied only on brute force – when his main abjective, to destroy the Russian Army failed – he was helpless how to proceed.

'After the treaty of Tilsit there were no obvious signs – neither of France – nor Russia – to become cordial allies.'

Actually I'd have to say it was during and after Erfurt in 1809 and definitely after the war with Austria in 1809 where Russia did not comply with her treaty obligations with France. Not only did the Russian army not support the army of the Duchy of Warsaw, but actually interfered in the military operations of the Poles.

Did not Napoleon send advisors to the Ottoman's in 1806 when the French were still at war with Turkey? And was it not part of Russian foreign policy, no matter who ruled in Constantinople/Istanbul to aggressively pursue the possession of a warm-water port? Further, France was unwilling to let Russia have Constantinople and access to the Mediterranean, and for good reason. Russia has seldom been a reliable ally (the Poles found that out in 1809 as well as in 1944). Russian foreign policy whether under Tsar or Commissar has been one of expansion since Ivan the Great. During the Napoleonic period Alexander conducted wars against Turkey and Sweden for territorial expansion.

Sincerely,
K

'Napoleonic forum discussions across the web (an apparently across time an space) have become much the same. It's like a group of "intelligent design" proponents crashing scientific conferences, dominating every discussion with a loud insistence that there is only one fixed TRUTH, and that anything else is WRONG. They then present their TRUTH, regurgitating the same evidence (often not relevant to the topic at hand). The scientists who become distracted and try to present contrary evidence are dismissed with allegations of bias, falsified data, and closed-mindedness. When they challenge old conclusions based on new findings, they are condemned for their unwillingness to accept the simple TRUTH and for clinging to their fixation on an agenda to disseminate falsehood. Most of the scientists get tired of the game, and move on to other venues where the "intelligent design" crowd is not invited. A few turn up now and then to point out the false assumptions, flawed reasoning, circular logic and obvious agenda of the "intelligent design" proponents, get accused of making personal attacks and trying to stifle the TRUTH, and then leave having had a good chuckle. The "intelligent design" crowd then laments that the scientists are immature and incapable of reasoned discourse. Ten years? I think it's been 12, since it began when I was recovering from back surgery in '98. Forum discussions generally go pretty well, people disagreeing without too much acrimony and only the occasional spat. Then the "intelligent design" crowd shows up …'

This is one of the oddest postings I've seen on a forum in the eleven years I've participated in them. While not on the same 'personal' level as other ad hominem comments (which in themselves are historical fallacies, and being such have no value here and probably nowhere else, either) it is nevertheless meant to insult and demean. What it actually does is reflect badly on the originator.

I did find something quite interesting about postings of that nature and those that preceeded it on this thread. It may apply and certainly seems relevant. The term is called 'projecting' and one of the dictionary definitions is 'to attribute one's own ideas, feelings or characteristics to other people or to objects,' that being akin to my mind to just looking in the mirror to see the problem.

It is too bad that some cannot accept other's opinions or to accede to various points when they are obviously in error. Lowering oneself to making constant or intermittent personal attacks does nothing to enhance discourse or knowledge. In short, as I tell my students, don't be a ant (definition: one that is insignificant).

Sincerely,
Kevin

well said Kevin

It is very quiet here now…

Amen!.

Amicalement
Armand

Implied face palm!

link

Here we go again gentle reader…..

Elliott,

Don't be a . ;-)

Sincerely,
K

Two posters in this thread noted:

" I've been watching this show for a decade."

and

"Ten years? I think it's been 12, since it began when I was recovering from back surgery in '98. Forum discussions generally go pretty well, people disagreeing without too much acrimony and only the occasional spat. Then the "intelligent design" crowd shows up."

But more recently:

"Lowering oneself to making constant or intermittent personal attacks does nothing to enhance discourse or knowledge. In short, as I tell my students, don't be a ****ant (definition: one that is insignificant)." [Yet you turn around in the same sentence and do what you accuse the others of doing] after which the reply is "well said Kevin"

and most recently

"You denegrate this place with your presence."

All this enlightening discussion in a "academic" forum about Napoleonic history?

It seems that the show is modern day "Hatfield-McCoy" cyberspace feud with supporters chiming in to support their favoite characters and "boo" the opposing team.

The poster that noted "It's like a group of "intelligent design" proponents crashing scientific conferences, dominating every discussion with a loud insistence that there is only one fixed TRUTH, and that anything else is WRONG." hit the nail on the head.

But "the show must go on" I'm afraid.

Thank you gentlemen you are slowly turning me into my sister; the goth Mary Poppins!

sigh

train wreck

link

and most recently

"You denegrate this place with your presence."

All this enlightening discussion in a "academic" forum about Napoleonic history?

It's not meant to be enlightening. It ceased to be enlightening when Smith got freed from the Dawghouse. Some of us actually want to be enlightened but the essential problem with the selection of faux-academics we have here is that they are more interested in asserting their personally-undoubted superiority. They are the same types that have frequented newsgroups since they were invented, claiming to be 6' 4" former bouncers when they are rotund 5' 4" physical failures who couldn't fight their way out of a badly worn sock.

When Smith steps away from the monitor though and looks in the bathroom mirror (personal hygiene choices permitting) the truth will out, and he knows it more than anybody else.

link

if you do not like what smith has to say then hit the complain button…only way to deal with him, having an amicable conversation with him is useless.

I tried, I really tried, to get you shower back on track, and this is what happens. Shakes head and walks away.

Elliot, I am sorry also. You had a good start to get things back on track with your post of 08 Aug 2010 10:00 a.m. PST. Only one post thereafter on point. It was a noble effort. Maybe next time.

Steve

Elliott,

Yes you did and so did VW. I also answered VW, but that disengenuous posting referring to 'creation science' was out of line and quite ludicrous. Interestingly, no one came out to say something about it until I did because I am tired of that nonsense. LWF apparently came out in support of it and again we have problems.

It would be nice to stay on topic but there are too many here who I believe thrive on causing trouble and if they disagree with something that is said they go into the ad hominem mode and it degenerates from there. People are fed up, I believe, and are tired of being mocked, attacked, etc. Better if none of it happens, but I also believe that is too much to ask.

Sincerely,
Kevin

You do the inking after the dusting?

On-topic posts on this page of the thread by 138SquadronRAF, 10th Marines and Von Winterfeldt. Verbal flatulence and name calling in the remainder.

Shane wins on longest off-topic rant.

Stifle button, people. Ciao.

10th Marines:

Per your comment "LWF apparently came out in support of it and again we have problems."

My exact quote was "The poster that noted "It's like a group of "intelligent design" proponents crashing scientific conferences, dominating every discussion with a loud insistence that there is only one fixed TRUTH, and that anything else is WRONG." hit the nail on the head."

I will not argue with you because that would be akin to arguing with a brick wall and I value my time too much. You seem to have a habit of making assertions and taking material out of context. That poster made a reflection using an analogy. If you did not like his analogy that is fine, but your claim that it is one of the "oddest postings" you've ever read and insinuating it is a "source of problems" in this thread is your mere opinion laced with pronouncements.

As others noted, the "show" has been going on for 10 to 12 years. You are one of the core actors in the show. You are not in a viable position to point out blame about any "problems" in the Napoleonic History forum. You seem to think that you can pass judgments about what others post and then go back to business, posting as usual. I'll offer my mere opinion of your role in the long-running "show:" Unwarranted self importance.

'You seem to think that you can pass judgments about what others post and then go back to business, posting as usual.'

Isn't that what you're doing? You're not trying to be an arbiter or mediator, you're only adding to the nonsense.

As to historical material, you are correct. Historians and anyone else do that all the time. That's part of the point of the exercise.

'I will not argue with you because that would be akin to arguing with a brick wall…'

Again, that's what you're doing and you are also one of the 'core actors' as many others on the forum are. Take care of your side of the issues/problems before making pronouncements on others-see the definition of 'projecting.'

Sincerely,
K

"Smith does this on every thread he appears …." You have repeated this on a number of occasions.

Shane, you are .

The vast, vast majority of my posts on TMP provide information without comment. To say otherwise is a lie.

Again, Shane, you .

Steven,

You have no right to call anyone a 'liar.' Not only are you completely wrong in this case, but it is also defamatory and actionable. I'd be careful about what I call people. It will catch up to you one day.

You have provided excellent material with your postings on books on Google and elsewhere. You have also posted some very condescending material that isn't appropriate.

You have gone outside the Pale on this one and you owe Shane an apology because you are wrong. Knock off the nonsense. This posting reflects very badly on you and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kev,

To defend Shane on this particular matter, , "reflects very badly on you and you ought to be ashamed of yourself." Knock off the nonsense.

Just one man's opinion.

Steve

I know portugues and dear "Big Al" to said to some person that he is a "wimp" is not very kind and a direct insult.

PLEASE, remain as a good historian-master book searcher as you are and not involved in futil combat on the forum!.

You also could used your cinic humor, but with not direct insultation. PLEASE!.
I beg you from my heart.

Amicalement
Armand

Steven, I addressed the same point in my post of 05 Aug 2010 7:27 a.m. PST back on page 1, namely the repetition of "factually inaccurate" statements about me by the same guy. Thought I'd point that out in case you need evidence for the threatened defamation suit.

Oh, and in terms of accuracy, if Shane wrote something that is a lie, then the conclusion is that he told a lie. The conclusion that Shane is a liar does not follow from that. Proof of that assertion would require evidence of a long pattern of behavior. just sayin' …

'Thought I'd point that out in case you need evidence for the threatened defamation suit.'

Where is there a 'threatened defamation suit?' If you are referring to my statement about defamation and that such is actionable, that is merely pointing out something that can happen. I never threaten anyone.

Further, I do believe that a differentiation should be made between a mistake and a 'lie.' One is not the other and they are not equal. I would err on the side of moderation in situations such as this or any other on a forum of any kind and attribute it to a mistake as it is sometimes very difficult to communicate certain situations on the internet. If the discussions were taking place face to face I doubt seriously that situations such as these would take place.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin,

"Smith does this on every thread he appears …." is either accurate or not. Which is it?

"The vast, vast majority of my posts on TMP provide information without comment." Is either accurate or not. Which is it?

Note: Per the TMP: "# of Posts: 2,351 (as of 3 a.m. PST)."

Steve

Steve,

You do have some 'interesting' postings and they do appear often. The impression is that you do it all the time. And, unfortunately, perception is often reality and the perception that you give most of the time is that of someone making 'silly' remarks that don't go over well. You can fix this situation if you want to and make peace. Or you can let it continue. I suggest that peace be made and then let it go. If you don't it will just get messier to no purpose. That's up to you.

I don't believe calling anyone a 'liar' helps any situation. That is a deeply personal comment that gets you nowhere except on someone's spit list. You already know that as well as I do.

On the perception angle, there is a perception of me that the only reference I ever use is John Elting's Swords. That, to me, is a rather stupid viewpoint, and it would be impossible to do anyways, but there you are.

It sure would be nice to stop all this nonsense and get on with military history, wouldn't it?

By the way, you didn't answer my email to you about the other forum the other day. I was hoping you would.

Just remember, mistakes are not lies, perceptions can be seen as reality (repeat ten times until memorized…).

Sincerely,
K

Again:

Kevin,

"Smith does this on every thread he appears …." is either accurate or not. Which is it?

"The vast, vast majority of my posts on TMP provide information without comment." Is either accurate or not. Which is it?

Note: Per the TMP: "# of Posts: 2,351 (as of 3 a.m. PST)."

Steve

Steve,

I gave you my answer. And using the term 'Man-up' is also somewhat insulting so you can add that posting to the perception.

You're missing the point.

I suggest that you stop. However, you may do as you please.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin, I do hope you will be delivering a lecture to Shane on how not to fly off the handle and make multiple "mistakes" in accusing people of this that and the other. If you are serious about cleaning up on-forum behavior, you'll need to be even-handed about it. The perception I am getting of you is that you are quick to condemn actions in people who disagree with you while giving your buddies a complete pass on their own nasty comments and bad behavior. This may be a mistake on my part, but I have yet to see any chastisement of Shane, who has let fly with quite a few in this thread, or of Old Bear who seems to have just shown up on page 3 to toss around abusive comments. If you're serious about trying to clean things up, be consistent. If you're taking sides, it's disingenuous to try passing yourself off as an impartial arbiter of fairness and even-handed behavior.

You, of course, did not answer the two questions. Obfuscation is not an answer. You're missing the point.

Guys, guys, the Dutch lost the World Cup. And they stunk up the place doing so. Now get over it!