"Any surprise." Topic

I've noticed the same thing. There seems to be a tendency for certain contributors to become personally invested in not only some obscure point of history but in justifying their side. I note that the partisans of Napoleon are particularly prone to worship the ground that he seems to float above.

Which appears equally balanced by Napoleon's critics who take every single opportunity to denegrate the man. It takes two to tango and in my not inconsiderable experience, both on computers and in the flesh, the sparks fly evenly in both directions.

A pity

With un ami, Chuvak and now Steve Smith – the wrong people left the forum or are locked.

Ever get the feeling that your opinion may not be as highly regarded as you imagine it to be? Repeatedly bleating on about the 'wrong people' getting chopped isn't doing much for keeping the peace either, is it?

If you feel so bruised why not follow your hero into exile? It would be the honourable thing to do, I think.

On the bright side, compared to some of the politics I witnessed as a 16 year old boy in the world of Napoleonic re enactment (45th foot) then these forums are quite tame.

Oh, but isn't that the truth! I could tell you some stories, believe me. My time on the NA committee makes this forum look like kindergarten. I have lifelong enemies as a result of that!

I think many of us share a healthy skepticism about Napoleon, who is after all a cult figure in some circles. But I really don't see a Correlli Barnett figure among us. Perhaps that's just the side of the fence I'm on. OB could you substantiate your claim?

Shane,
You have spend far more effort talking about your arguments than actually making them. For the record here it is:

got to agree with Kevin, your list of victors and losers is incorrect for my opinion.

Looks like a ditto to me.

And here is your evidence:

The twelve actions that collectively have become known as the battle of Krasny (Krasnoe/Krazni).

1812 – Napoleon's Fatal March on Moscow
Adam Zamoyski

Quote:

Page 440
"The next stage of the retreat, the five-day march from Smolensk to Orsha, was executed in far more difficult conditions than the first, with temperatures varying from -15 degrees to -25 degrees and regular Russian forces harrying every step. It was dominated by the fighting around Krasny, with each unit having to run the gauntlet. And although the French were generally victorious, the five days of fighting around Krasny had emasculated the army of Moscow. Possibly as many as 10,000 of the best soldiers had been killed or wounded, over 20,000 (many of them civilians) had been taken prisoner and more than two hundred guns had been lost".

(Shishov) – (Bezkrovny) – (Buturlin) – (Troitskii)

Looks like numbers to me. In fact, if my addition is correct, that would be 30,000, would it not?

I think many of us share a healthy skepticism about Napoleon, who is after all a cult figure in some circles. But I really don't see a Correlli Barnett figure among us. Perhaps that's just the side of the fence I'm on. OB could you substantiate your claim?

No, I could not. It is my opinion and as such is beyond the requirements of susbtantiation (as, I would point out, is anybody's opinion when it comes to analytical judgments – I'm not implying any specialness here). However, one that instantly springs to mind is that all too frequently when the question of what Napoleon brought to the table in terms of acapabilities, the term 'propaganda' gets gragged up. This is clearly abject nonsense, because whilst Napoleon was a master at self promotion, so was Julius Caesar and he did okay on the battlefield as well. It's not hard to successfully promote oneself when one is as close to a defineable genius as I care to get.

I appreciate that for many it is a lifelong work debunking the genius assertion, based on the fact Napoleon made bad decisions as well as good ones, but I don't know about you but I generally can't go 24 hours without at least one decision or another being a bit dodgy and I'm not trying to run an empire.

What I will say is this: were I to be in a position to go to my grave with a CV like Napoleon's I'd consider my life to have been one of the top dozen or so in the history of the world, and I think that's not something that can be looked on with anything other than admiration, be you a fan or a critic.

Old Bear – So does it anger you when someone focuses on the negatives and minimizes or dismisses the positives?

when the question of what Napoleon brought to the table in terms of acapabilities, the term 'propaganda' gets gragged up.

Quick question, who came up with the phrase 'pour se trouver comme un bulletin'?

link

So anyone complaining about 'propaganda' is just as bad as the Napophile crowd, because Julius Caesar was a shameless self-promoter too? That is a level of intellectual reasoning with which I am unfamiliar;-)

You of course have no obligation to substatiate your claims, which is why I used the subjunctive. Nevertheless, I'd venture that if Steven Smith were asked to back something up, we would get 5 citations, and may another 5 aphorisms… Which is why we will miss him.

Let a hundred flower bloom is all well and good, until you look out on the lawn and find it covered with weeds…

nvsaynvr

The post was meant to illustrate the fact that it was the French Army that came up with the expression 'to lie like a bulletin'.

Over the last few years I've enjoyed J. David Markham and Cameron Riley's pod-cast:

napoleon.thepodcastnetwork.com

The problem is that both of the presenters are strong partisans for Napoleon, although some of the later programmes have included authors Alexander Mikaberidze who see the story from another point of view.

I will miss Steven Smith for the same reason.

On propaganda, there is also the infamous example of the rewriting of the official account of Marengo, apparently for the sole purpose of pumping up his image by saying "I planned it from the start to come out exactly like that."

I think what Old Bear was referring to (if I may be so bold as to suggest what's in his mind) was a tendency to minimize or deny actual accomplishment with a "that's just propaganda" or similarly "he just got lucky." I haven't seen much of the former, but have seen the latter. I don't see either as a particular problem, though I may disagree, but neither does it upset me. And Napoleon's well beyond caring one way or the other.

On the other hand, what tends to get me going is the arguments that run along the lines of "you're so biased, you need to be more objective and rational. All you do is demonize the great Emperor who brought goodness and light to all Europe, it's a pity the little people had to bring down the greatest man in all history." or the reverse. That someone idolizes a historic figure is just a personality quirk, the idea that someone with an extreme bias condemns others for being overly biased is one of those "dude, get a grip" situations.

Old Bear – So does it anger you when someone focuses on the negatives and minimizes or dismisses the positives?

'Anger'? No. Opinions are fine. I don't like intransigence and arrogance when having opinions. I accept Napoleon's faults as readily as Wellington's or Kutusov's, or Lee's or Longstreet's. But I'm wary of being overly critical of commanders who went out and walked the walk, so to speak. I prefer to examine their failings in context.

I think what Old Bear was referring to (if I may be so bold as to suggest what's in his mind) was a tendency to minimize or deny actual accomplishment with a "that's just propaganda" or similarly "he just got lucky." I haven't seen much of the former, but have seen the latter. I don't see either as a particular problem, though I may disagree, but neither does it upset me. And Napoleon's well beyond caring one way or the other.

Yes, that's probably a pretty fair summation. I accept wholeheartedly that Napoleon understood and used propaganda as a primarily, but not solely, political weapon, like may great men before him.

I tend to object most when I sense criticism that smells a whole lot like envy. It was for that reason that I used to get really narked with Hofschroer, because underneath all his studious research it really whiffs of infuriation at the fact that the Prussians weren't lining the ridge unstead of the dastardly British (with friends, of course).

So anyone complaining about 'propaganda' is just as bad as the Napophile crowd, because Julius Caesar was a shameless self-promoter too? That is a level of intellectual reasoning with which I am unfamiliar;-)

I think my answer above should cover that.

You of course have no obligation to substatiate your claims, which is why I used the subjunctive. Nevertheless, I'd venture that if Steven Smith were asked to back something up, we would get 5 citations, and may another 5 aphorisms… Which is why we will miss him.

We used to have a saying in the police…if it looks like s@$t, and smells like s&%t, chances are it's s@%t. There are a number of people inabiting these boards who appear to despise Napoleon more than words can say,including in some cases ridiculously refusing to even use his historical correct title, which in MY opinion speaks volumes. These people seem to dedicate themselves to reducing his memory and achievements wherever possible – I find this worthy of opposing and will continue to do so, but it does not mean I am blind to Napoleon's faults.

If smith had stuck to doing what he is good at (and many times I followed the useful links he supplied with interest) then that would have been fine. His trouble is that he appears to have a monumental ego and arrogance to match. That's not an approach likely to endear him to those outside his inner circle of supporters. In the end he was simply hoist with his own petard.

Yeah, it really chafes my hide when those rascals refuse to write: His Imperial and Royal Majesty Napoleon I, By the Grace of God and the Constitutions of the Republic, Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine and the Grand Duchy of Frankfurt, Mediator of the Helvetic Confederation

Acknowledging you can't substantiate your claim is, if not laudable, at least honest. Continuing to make it is boorish.

Tulard comes to the same conclusion about propaganda – and he conclueds , in case Napoleon has a genius than it is in propaganda.

I tend to object most when I sense criticism that smells a whole lot like envy. It was for that reason that I used to get really narked with Hofschroer, because underneath all his studious research it really whiffs of infuriation at the fact that the Prussians weren't lining the ridge unstead of the dastardly British (with friends, of course).

You misrepresent poor Peter ;-)

Poor Peter was no friend of the British, remember he's spent at least three books pointing out "ProfidiousAlbionClaimedTheCreditForAGreatPrussianVictoryAtWaterloo".

His implied second complaint is that the Prussians never captured the Corsian Ogre and gave him a good old Western Neck Tie Party.

No, I am not a francophile during the Napoleonic War, but I will acknowledge the Napoleon did achieve some remarkable victories and did fundimentally change France, just as Charles de Gaulle; a French leader for whom I harbour far more animosity over a number of issues, even though I can appreciate what he achieved.

Did Napoleon get lucky, yes, he considered it a prerequisite for high command after all. Where his victories solely won by luck? No. Playing against 2nd, 3rd or 4th rate opponents certainly helped. But those comments can not explain everthing.

I do see some strange arguments advanced here however, that seems to raise Napoleon to the status of a veritable demi-god where nothing was his fault or the fault of the French regime (Fouche & Talleyrand excepted); that everything can be blamed on poor subordiantes, sometimes by authors who have written books praising the depth of talent, which was considerable, on the French side. This weltanschauung I do find both disingenuous and wrong. Some deep analysis beyond beyond jingoistic flag waving would be welcomed. It mars "Once There Were Titans" and especially Bowden's "Napoleon and Austerlitz", which even Kevin Kiley finds too pro-French "This book is too pro-French. While all of us do tend to pick sides and 'root' for them so to speak, this time, for me at least, it was too much. The French, and Napoleon, weren't perfect, far from it. The Grande Armee was better trained and better led in this campaign, but there were errors made, especially by its generals, two of whom come to mind immediately, Murat and Dupont. The account needs to be more balanced, and the anti-English bias needs to go, or at least toned down some."

link

Unfortunately these kind of reactions can make myself and others go to the other extreme, which I for one regret and so threads degenerate. That is why, even if I disagree, I will try, when ever possible, to keep the discussions civil and back on track.

None of us like to be attacked but there are better ways to react than the school yard tantrum and being English to my core, the following tends to sum up my position rather well:

link

If you say Mad Hoffie's name 3 times he'll appear.
Be warned.

Mad Hoffie,
Mad Hoffie,
Mad Hoffie…..

VW has solved the problem!

Threads like this are caused by Peevish Envy!!!

So nvrsaynvr, I am not allowed to agree with my friends here on TMP? But yet you are? hmmm, now I know where you are coming from.

As for the Zamoyski quote you are yet again taking my words out of context to justify your own argument. Those numbers were not mine, they were simply Zamoyski's and part of the passage that I quoted where I was trying to refute your claim that Napoleon lost and the Russians won that battle. Nothing more, nothing less, my point was not to argue the number, I never did, my point was to argue the victor and the loser. I could not care less how many casualties were inflicted on both sides in that conflict, the fact is that Zamoyski declared the French the victors as well and many other historians of that five day phase of the campaign.

However, if you feel that it is the number of casualties that must be used to declare and justify who is the victor in a conflict then you might want to go re-read your own history books. History is full of battles where the victor actually lost more than they inflicted.

Now I ask you one more time, can we please get over it and let it die. I am over it and I think you should consider this a dead horse flogged for no good reason…

Shane

Acknowledging you can't substantiate your claim is, if not laudable, at least honest. Continuing to make it is boorish.

You are indeed a credit to the Great Smith with such a reply.

Old Bear, I admire your moral fortitude and courage to stand up to these guys.

Lol, I just realised that statement will get me more attacks such as mini-me insults and the infamous "ditto" but I do not give a damn. You are someone I can admire for standing up for the exact same reasons I do. Napoleon was a great man or more to the point as Chandler once declared, "A great bad man" but the point is as you said, he was a great man who had faults and foibles just like the rest of us. It seems too many people here just see his faults and ignore the rest.

Shane

You misrepresent poor Peter ;-)

Poor Peter was no friend of the British, remember he's spent at least three books pointing out "ProfidiousAlbionClaimedTheCreditForAGreatPrussianVictoryAtWaterloo".

@ Elliott, my apologies if my reference to the Hof was badly worded. I had not meant to cite it as an example of Anti-Napoleonism but rather in his case rabid anti-Wellingtonism and by extension Perfidious Albion in general.

I find little to disagree with in any of your points and the Bowden's reverence of all things French during the period is a bit much. For me Napoleon is impressive because he is so much larger than life. He took a country by the scruff of its neck and made it his own. How many of us have sometimes watched our various national news and thought that we could indeed do so much better given half a chance? Clearly most of us probably actually couldn't, but that makes Napoleon's accomplishments all the more worthy of attention – and yes, critique. There isn't an element of his lifetime's work that is without fault as some stage or another, yet how many others in history come close to being as interesting in so many spheres?

Is it hero worship? Yes, to a degree I think it probably is. All my heroes, few that they may be, are historical soldiers. I have no truck with worshipping modern sports stars or celebrities. War has been my lifelong interest since I first saw a box of Airfix soldiers and I doubt that will change now! However I have no idols, which I think can be the danger with some when it comes to Napoleon.

Old Bear, I admire your moral fortitude and courage to stand up to these guys.

Lol, I just realised that statement will get me more attacks such as mini-me insults and the infamous "ditto" but I do not give a damn. You are someone I can admire for standing up for the exact same reasons I do. Napoleon was a great man or more to the point as Chandler once declared, "A great bad man" but the point is as you said, he was a great man who had faults and foibles just like the rest of us. It seems too many people here just see his faults and ignore the rest.

Thanks Shane. I appreciate the comment. I'm afraid a career in law enforcement (well half a career really but who's counting?) has made me particularly ornery and up for a ruck. "A great bad man indeed" (the Big N, not me, of course!)

sorry Ian,

Now that you have communicated with me openly in public you are now more of a target. But I don't think that will discourage you from what I see in you.

Shane

Who knew that the behind the mild mannered 138thSquadronRAF lurked a rabid Napophobe as loud and obstreperous as the Napophiles? All betrayed by his use of "Bonaparte"…

I'm afraid my fashion sense prevents me from arguing about the appropriate appellation of the dead guy. Something about not taking the anorak out of the closet before Thanksgiving.

Probably one can't run a forum that outlaws opinion, so I guess we will just have to bear with constant complaint about an, for all we know, imaginary clique. It does get old.

Shane, I don't make the rules. You are free to make as much of a spectacle as Bill allows. I'm merely pointing out that for all your professions of wanting to just amicably discuss Napoleonics, you seem to do anything but. Three posts on you are still talking about talking about Napoleonics.

LOL, at least I am talking about talking about Napoleonics…unlike yourself:

nvrsaynvr 18 Aug 2010 7:46 p.m. PST
Who knew that the behind the mild mannered 138thSquadronRAF lurked a rabid Napophobe as loud and obstreperous as the Napophiles? All betrayed by his use of "Bonaparte"…

I'm afraid my fashion sense prevents me from arguing about the appropriate appellation of the dead guy. Something about not taking the anorak out of the closet before Thanksgiving.

Probably one can't run a forum that outlaws opinion, so I guess we will just have to bear with constant complaint about an, for all we know, imaginary clique. It does get old.

You might want to start smelling what you are cooking…

try to see the funny side nvr and stop being so serious. This is just becoming a tit for tat argument now and it needs to stop.

Tit for tat arguments don't stop by Tit telling Tat to stop (or vice versa), because the very act of Tit telling Tat to stop carries the argument on!

Such arguments only stop when either Tit or Tat decides himself to stop and says no more … or alternatively both Tit and Tat are made to stop when Mum comes in wielding a wooden spoon and threatening to whop the next one of them who so much as raises a peep ;-)

Right, I'll seize Arteis' baton. My opinions are known. Nothing more to say on the subject as long as I'm not personally abused.

LOL, thank you Art, loved it ;-0

btw, I want to be the "Tat", not the "Tit" okie…

p.s. Ian, are you THE Ian Barstow who designed all the RPG stuff ?

And yet another three posts…
No wonder Steven felt harassed.

OK, I have just about had enough of your accusations. You harass me about posting even though the posts are not directed at you but in response to other posters. But then accuse me of harassing you???

Guess your going to try the harassment charge on me now even though everytime I post you seem to reply as well. This argument is getting really tired, hang on, who is harassing who now? I am getting confused.

Are you now the post police officer of the TMP boards?

I am going to ask you once again, please leave me alone and drop this constant sniping at me, I am sick and tired of it. I am openly admitting to you now that I have hit the complaint button about your constant harassment after asking you countless times to desist on this thread.

Shane

.s. Ian, are you THE Ian Barstow who designed all the RPG stuff ?

Yes, afraid that's me, although I wouldn't want to take too much credfit on the design front.

And yet another three posts…
No wonder Steven felt harassed.

Okay, what three posts? All that has happened since you last tried to goad me is people saying they intend to stop. Is that your definition of harrassment? If it's your intention to look for a scrap be man enough to just say so and we'll get on with it. If not, try just backing off a bit.

I guess I chose the wrong week to stop sniffing glue…

Well done Ian, that is an impressive history of accomplishments then. Keep up all the good work.

Thanks Shane, it does the old ego good to be remembered occasionally!

guess I picked the wrong week to give up amphetamines…

Forty seven.

Forty eight

I see your 49 and raise it to 50

What color are the bricoles?
runs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you ever wonder if He is who He says He is?

Well, if He says He is Him, how am I to know He is not Him that He says He is? He-He!!!

Oh Dear, I seem to have acquired an extra four stifles since my post on this thread. Still never mind. Jack.

Jack,

Couple of points; think youself lucky compared to Steven H Smith.

The second point is to paraphares an old saying of the Russian army "Stifles come and go, but the Broad remain!"*

Elliott

The original was ', Tzars come and go, Chairmen of the Party come and go, but Souvorov remains!'

Arteis

Tit for tat arguments don't stop by Tit telling Tat to stop (or vice versa), because the very act of Tit telling Tat to stop carries the argument on!

Well, as far as I'm concerned, I love , … and tats. If fact, there was this girl in Manila once who had nice …. tatts on her … no, I'll leave that alone now!