'Looking at this with a fact-based approach, it really does not look like the French have much claim to some great new innovation of 1792 in the area of light infantry tactics – unless using massive clouds of troops so raw that they don't really know how to form counts as an "innovation".'
As the French started to reform their infantry ca 1760 and ran experiments in the field using the new tactics in the 1770s at Metz and in Normandy, the French tactical developments took place long before 1792.
‘"So, if I understand you right, the Prussians had regulations for coordinating light and line infantry, but didn't use them"
And for the Russians, according 10th Marines
. having had regulations for co-ordinating light and line infantry for over 20 years – regulations which they used to good effect against Persians, Turks, Swedes, Poles and various Native peoples – the Russians then stopped using them.'
What is your definition of coordinating regular line and regular light infantry? I believe you're either missing the point here or you don't understand the problem/situation and the development of new infantry tactics post-1763.
'I think it would be only fair to ask 10th Marines : please provide the full text of the original documents from whch you offer quotes, and in the original languages.'
If I have the material I would be more than happy to. However, your manner here tends to negate the desire to both post and discuss.
‘It appears that you have no familiarity with any original source material, but are relying on repeating the work of various secondary (or tertiary?) sources that you have accessed in translation and offered here out of context. This is a generally poor method of historical enquiry in my opinion. I believe that the members here want and deserve better information and better methods of investigation and discussion.'
You're not the moderator and are not in charge of this forum. You might want to get off your high horse and knock of the rhetoric. You have no idea what I have in my library or the material I work with in my research. All you are doing in your string of postings is offering insult and not continuing the discussion in historical terms. That is the reason that I usually don't reply to you but at this point it's getting very old and you need to stop your nonsense and at least attempt to discuss the issues in a productive and not an adversarial manner.
‘One hopes that you would know how to communicate better in a internationalized context, and using modern communication tools. If you do not, it is either gross laziness, or a willful desire to score "points" instead of communicating useful information. I think we can all expect better of each other here, do you not agree?'
More insult, insinuating that I'm lazy and the silly comment about ‘scoring points.' Why don't you stay on topic and actually engage in a conversation instead of a flurry of personal comments?
‘I know only about the Russians. Let's review the bidding
.
1. 10th Marines posted two out of context comments about the Russsian light infantry : Duhesme and Surtees.
When we look at the contexts, we find (i) Duhesme never saw or fought the Russians, (ii) Surtees once saw them disembarking from landing ships and never again, (iii) both were writing about 1799 in Holland, which is (iv) before the Napoelonic era proper and (v) involved exactly two half-strength battalions of Russian jägers, and that (vI) the Russians themselves were not too pleased with these jägers : they were disbanded and the commander sent to oversee the ash and trash detail for the navy on some Finnish rock – so hardly a "typical" unit even for 1799.
2. 10th Marines proffered the alleged Radetzky out of context quote about "the Austrians and the Russians".
But actually this traces to an English language work by Rothenburg published in 1982. In the original Rothenburg text, which was footnoted to an Army of Bohemia internal document of September 1813, there is only the indentification "we", with not a clue as to who this "we" is. 10th Marines doesn't have the original document, so he can provide no explanation, identification or context.
3. Next we have the rather strange statement that "The problem the British, Russians, Austrians, and Prussians had with the new French tactical system is that as of 1792 no one, except for the French, had attempted to integrate regular light infantry with regular line infantry in formation on the battlefield."
This ignores decades of Russian light infantry experience fighting the Prussians, Persians, Turks, Swedes, Poles and various Native peoples. The formal Russian doctrine dates from 1761, and perhaps earier. To illustrate the point, I proffered the regulations put into effect 1783-1786, complete in the original language with the illustrations – clearly showing typical line and light infantry integration and with evolutions bearing a strong resemblmance to Davout's instructions of almost 30 years (!) later.
4. Then we have "The issue is integrating the tactical operations of the light troops, or line troops if that is the case, in open or skirmish order with those of the troops in line. As late as 1808 the Prussians, Russians, and Austrians couldn't or wouldn't do this."
When pressed for some source support for this rather absurd assertion, we are told by 10th Marines "I found the material on the Russians from the two volume work Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars by Alexander Zhmodikov and Yurii Zhmodikov." This is a modern secondary source in the English language with the usual Latin alphabet. There is no Cyrillic alphabet problem with posting information from it, despite 10th Marines rather confused/confusing assertion that he "can't post anything in Russian because my keyboard does not have a Cyrillic option".
NSN and I both looked through the book. We can't find this "material".'
Then you need to look more carefully. And since you have stated that you ‘know only the Russians' why are you commenting on the others and the accuracy of quotations about them?
‘In summary, 10th Marines has repeatedly shown no interest in sharing information that is useful and relevant with typical and normal source quotation and context. We cannot determine where his sources' words and ideas stop and where his own personal ideas and conclusions start. When measured by the usual standards of usual historical investigation and discussion, his contributions here with regard to the Russians are useless.'
Of course they are. You disagree with them and by your definition they have to be ‘useless.'
‘I will leave it to others to determine if his "material" regarding the Prussians and Austrians is equally devoid of accurate and relevant source support. Reading over the coments of other members, it would appear that indeed this is the case.
Please note, there is not a single personal remark in this post. I am commenting only on the nature and value of the material posted by 10th Marines. I am writing about his posts and his methods of source utilization. I am not writing about him, his character, his personality, his motives, his honesty or his intelligence.'
Oh, but you are and have in the past. You really ought to watch what you say.
‘I would eagerly make the identical comments in person if I were to meet 10th Marines.'
Perhaps. And you might not like the reaction, though. It's easy to say the things you do say from behind the safety of a keyboard.
‘What Rothenburg (1982) claimed that v. Radetz wrote was : "operations en tirailleure can only be conducted in a very limited manner because we do not understand this kind of fighting." All the other versions, which all trace their footnotes back to Rothenburg, are just other authors paraphasing (with greater or lesser fidelity) or misquoting Rothenburg. Whether v. Radetz wrote in German or French (for the benefit of the Russians), he did not write what Rothenburg quotes – this is a translation. Further, it is also a rather strange and really quite poor translation, more a kind of bastardized Franglais than actual English : -- it includes a key phrase that purports to be in French, rather odd for an English translation : "operations en tirailleure"
-- "operations" and "tirailleure" are not correct French : these should be "opérations" and "tirailleur"-- "operations en tirailleur" (even correctly spelled) is not the name of any set of military evolutions in French-- the various authors who purport to offer Radetzky via Rothenburg (Kiley, Muir, Holmes, Gates, etc., etc.) sometimes take it upon themselves to re-write the quote. Here we find more mangled French : "mainere de tirailleur" (which should be "manière" and again does not correspond to any actual French usage even when corrected!)'
I am sure all this paraphrasing, strange translating, inventing French military phrases and concepts, misquoting and so on is a great convenience for these anglophone authors in making their "points". Here is an example from Kiley (2007):
Radetzky according to Rothenburg :"operations en tirailleure can only be conducted in a very limited manner because we do not understand this kind of fighting."
Radetzsky according to Kiley : "
Radetzky observed that neither the Austrians nor the Russians understood fighting in open order and believed that skirmishers could be used in a very small, limited way. The conclusion that was reached was that the Austrians were not the equal of the French when fighting in open order."
Do you think that Radetzky could even recognize this version as even related to the original ?
Interesting but superfluous question. It is both meaningless and nonsense.
‘We still have absolutely no idea what v. Radetz actually wrote. These various anglophone authors themselves also have no idea (save Rothenburg). I would not want to write a book, and offer some quote as evidence without ever having seen the quoted document myself. I think that would be really poor historical method that would render the result quite useless.'
Check Rothenberg and his source material. The two quotes he uses from Radetzky are taken from the Kriegsarchive in Vienna as listed in the footnotes. I have no reason to doubt Rothenberg. Are you saying that he is unreliable.
The text from Titans that you have quoted from page 37 is from Rothenberg and Gates as a backup reference. It is not a quote, it is a paraphrase and there is no ‘invention'
As you put it (yet another insult). Do you always use this type of ‘methodology' with material you disagree with?
‘10th Marines : Good to see you here again.'
I can just imagine.
From you we have:
"The issue is integrating the tactical operations of the light troops, or line troops if that is the case, in open or skirmish order with those of the troops in line. As late as 1808 the Prussians, Russians, and Austrians couldn't or wouldn't do this."
"I found the material on the Russians from the two volume work Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars by Alexander Zhmodikov and Yurii Zhmodikov."
‘I have the book and can't find anything like what you claim is there. Neither did NSN.
Can you please provide a full quotation (the whole text of the relevant section, including any footnotes) from the book of the "material" you claim is there.
Otherwise, we will have to conclude that your ideas are yours alone – ideas that you just made up and not based even on a secondary source. No harm in that, of course. It is just a difference.'
What NSN finds or thinks is completely irrelevant to me.
If you have the books (there are two volumes, not one) it is quite easy to find the material as it permeates the text. And you mention part of it below which is both interesting and curious. And, no, the ideas are not ‘made up' (another pejorative and insulting remark). So, this is either a ‘baiting' posting or you're having trouble finding a great deal of material in two slim volumes.
If I had given you the quotations from the book you would have undoubtedly gone back to your mantra of ‘out of context' which makes the issue redundant.
‘The same issues were debated in the Russian army. Barclay was for lower numbers and more careful regulation, Kutuzov and Bagration were for larger numbers and a slightly more loose deployment. Vitgenshteyn seems to have liked to use opolchenie marksmen in a slightly loose formation, but used his jägers more per Barclay.'
I mentioned at least part of that in my reference to the Zhmodikov's books. Then you said you couldn't find it when it permeates the text on the Russian infantry tactics. What game are you playing?
‘Stating that you did not offer quotes out of context is incorrect and you should fix that error. I would not be surprised if what you have offered us about other nationalities is equally defective and equally misleading. This is an example of your errors undermining your credibility. That is very bad. I am sure that you expect more of yourself, and that you would wish to be seen as credible, and not as a biased and ill-informed cheerleader.
That you have not corrected your errors when they are pointed out to you indicates to me that you intend to mislead. That is also very bad, as I expected more of you.'
You are assuming facts not in evidence and the last sentence is an insult and is incorrect. You should correct that and not use that pejorative manner or intent.
‘The translation of the alleged quote from Radetzky was first published here :
Napoleon's Greatest Adversaries: The Archduke Charles and the Austrian Army by Gunther Rothenberg (1982)'
And the quote is ‘alleged' why?
‘The alleged quote has then appeared or been referenced in various expanded forms in these four books, which either cite each other or the 1982 book by Rothenburg. It is in this process of creative re-quoting of Rothenburg that the Russians become specifically named.'
I don't have, and have never used the 1982 edition of Rothenberg's Napoleon's Great Adversary. I have the 1995 edition.
‘These books are in the English language. None credit a translator. Thus we can conclude the Rothenburg, Gates, Muir, Holmes and Kiley are "belonging to an English-speaking population".'
There is no requirement to ‘credit a translator.'
‘In the original translation offered by Rothenburg the Russians were not even named: "operations en tirailleure[sic] can only be conducted in a very limited manner because we do not understand this kind of fighting." The identification of "we" in the original Radetzky document is not provided by Rothenburg. Rothenburg was himself writing about only the Austrians.'
No, you are incorrect here again. Rothenberg quoted Radetzky twice in the book. See below.
‘This can be compared to the later sexed-up expansions and inventive applications of the alleged quote, such as this drum-beating pro-French myth-spinning drivel from, for example, Kiley: "Radetzky observed that neither the Austrians nor the Russians understood fighting in open order and believed that skirmishers could be used in a very small, limited way. The conclusion that was reached was that the Austrians were not the equal of the French when fighting in open order."'
This is not a quote from any work, but a paraphrase of the material and it is correct using the citations given in the book-Rothenberg and Gates-not Muir.
‘You offered the quote here with reference to the Russians. You cited Muir here, whose re-casting of the alleged quote includes the Russians. But the Russians were not included in the first version, by Rothenburg, which Muir gives as his source.
Your failure to understand and provide the context for the quote that you offered here could not be more plain. The Russians were not even named in the original publication of the quote. Their inclusion was a later addition. If you had made even the most passing effort to offer the quote in context, you would have realized this. But, like the other two quotes you provided about the Russians, you offered the Radetzky "quote" out of context.
You offered three total quotes about the Russians. All three were very clearly out of context. Your repeated protests that you do not post out of context quotes are thus incorrect and you should fix that error.'
I don't believe that I cited Muir. And there are two Radetzky quotes to deal with, not one. One deals with the Austrians only and the other with the Austrians and the Russians. See below.
‘Three quotes from you about Russians :
1. Duhesme : writng about the one half-strength jäger regiment in the descent on Holland in 1799 (which Duhesme had never seen) : offered here by you as informative about the general performance of Russian light infantry in the Napoleonic Wars
2. Surtees : writng about the one half-strength jäger regiment in the descent on Holland in 1799 (which Surtees had seen exactly once, marching past him after their landing) : offered here by you as informative about the general performance of Russian light infantry in the Napoleonic Wars
3. Radetzky (attributed) : quoted in translation by Rothenburg in a work about the Austrians, the original text does not name the Russians : offered here by you as informative about the general performance of Russian light infantry in the Napoleonic Wars
Thus you have quoted out of context three times, out a total of three comments about the Russians – 100% out of context. That is very bad – it is an error that you should fix.'
And what is ‘out of context'? The three quotes were illustrative of a situation at a specific time and indicative of a larger problem. And that problem is illustrated quite well in the Zhmodikovs' two volumes to which you have already been referred. Nothing that I presented misrepresented anything-they were all ‘arrows in the quiver' for discussion and food for thought. You seem to have a problem taking things at face value-here's a little free advice: don't judge others by your own low standards of behavior.
‘You are responding on a off-topic point with negative discussion of another member here. That's conduct that will not earn you the high level of esteem that I am sure you wish to have among the members here. I am also sure you will apologize and retract your insulting and perhaps defaming words.'
I merely responded in kind. And it wasn't defamation as it was correct in the way VW acts on the forum. As you once said, it's my opinion and I am entitled to it. If you don't like it that is too bad, but you engage in that behavior towards me in almost every posting you undertake, using pejorative terms to describe me or my writing (the use of the term ‘drivel' is most illustrative) and you demand and condescend most readily. I would advise you to stop, but then I might as well talk to a rock on that matter, should I not, for all the good it will do.
‘Instead, could you please respond to the very serious error that you have made of using the three listed sources out of context with regard to the Russian light infantry?'
I have not committed a ‘serious error.' Using quotations is to paint a picture of a situation. The ones that I posted were from several different perspectives over the entire period. If you disagree, then offer opposing evidence and then refrain from personal comments about me which you tend to pepper your postings. It's getting old and quite tiresome. It also shows you to be nekulturny which I find quite distasteful.
‘I am fully prepared, for instance, to be shown that Radetzky did indeed refer to the Russians, and that Rothenburg's use of the quote was too narrow. Could you please provide the original Radetzky text in the original language? The onus is on you to do this, since you offered the quote here.'
Here is Radetzky from Rothenberg's Napoleon's Great Adversary: ‘The able Radetzky, probably the best young general to come out of these wars, observed ruefully that ‘operations en tirailleure can only be conducted in a very limited manner because we do not understand this kind of fighting.'' (pages 145-146)
On pages 234-235 of the same volume: ‘As Radetzky observed in September, ‘fighting en tirailleure should be done only in very restricted fashion because neither the Russians nor we have mastered the maniere de tirailler.'
So, Rothenberg has quoted Radetzky twice in the book, not once, and on two separate occasions. Perhaps you were confused with the two quotes or were not aware of them?
‘In my opinion, when a non-primary source (in this instance a tertiary source, Muir, with a footnote to a secondary source, Rothenburg) is used to advance an argument, and another member of the forum (me this time) requests the underlying primary evidence, then the party offering the non-primary source (that would be you) is obliged to honour that request. This is a duty that the person using the non-primary source has, and a duty to which they [should] be held to account.'
First, I didn't use Muir. I have either used the 1995 edition of Rothenberg's Napoleon's Great Adversary in a direct quote or have paraphrased it. So, on that count, you are incorrect.
Second, if I had the original I would have used it.
It seems to me that you are not interesting in either historical argument or historical inquiry, but merely to hinder, obfuscate, and insult. If that's what you're going to do please leave me out of your nonsense. I'm tired of the insults, misrepresentations, and inaccurate accusations.
K