"Surprise Christmas Present......." Topic

Roly,

You really need to knock it off. You don't have to stand between anyone-this is a one-sided abusive argument, one in which I'm not participating. So, I would really appreciate it if you would stop talking about an 'ongoing personal dispute' that I am not participating in. It is not an accurate representation of what is going on and I do believe that you know and understand that.

I may from time to time interject a posting to correct a flaw in some of the postings, but I am not participating in a 'personal dispute.' If you actually believe that I am, then perhaps you should take a very careful read and please let me know where I am, in your opinion.

Further, I have not responded to any of the insults, inuendos, and inaccurate accusations that have come my way because of the alleged 'personal dispute.' I believe that should speak for itself, but I guess not by your last posting.

Sincerely,
Kevin

I keep coming back in the hope that things will improve but they never do and I see that this thread has now turned into a childish 'get Hollins' exercise.

No, it has nothing to do with trying to "get" hollins. It has to do with fighting back against his arrogant behaviour of superiority over us and his constant attacks on Kevin's credibility. Hollin's cannot seem to control himself and until he does we will continue to fight back.

.

It is always the same old names that appear and is rather like observing the Three Stooges with each feeding of the others' lines.

Now all you are doing is adding to the issue with your own insulting behaviour…I thought this was what you were trying to stamp out? You don't seem to understand that we are trying to stop hollin's from acting as he does and use means that you might not agree with. However, you in turn are using the exact same ploy to fight against us…can you not see that?

.

I have no idea how they behave in the real world but here their ill-mannered obstinacy and mocking repartee are a bloody disgrace.

I behave very normally in the real world thank you. My friends here on TMP can attest to that. I am no less normal than you I would hazard to guess in my relations with others in a social context and just as you do, I get incensed by people like hollins who cannot tolerate other points of view.

and if you have not noticed, Kevin NEVER retorts to anyone in an insulting manner. He is a perfect gentleman all of the time and I learned to respect that several years ago when I also argued with Kev. No matter how angry or upset I got he remained cool and non confrontational with me. I learned a great deal from him and respected that. I regard him as a friend and would fight under him or with him against anyone who treats him like hollins does.

Basically, I have a great deal of respect for Kevin and zero respect for hollins based on the way I have seen how they both deal with others.

Calling those who argue with him the "idiot tendency" is typical of hollins manner. How can you respect someone like that?

10th Marines (Kevin): I have indeed noted in recent times your usually gentlemanly behaviour, and also your credit-worthy resistance to engaging in personal attacks wherever possible.

But, nevertheless, the whole gamut of Gribeauval / bricole / staff / Marengo etc etc debates stem from a "personal dispute" between the two of you, with a very long history. Bringing up any of those subjects usually turns quickly into silly debates between yourself and/or your supporters versus Hollins and/or his supporters, which are viewed with ridicule by many other TMPers.

If Dave reckons he can't work cooperatively with you, I'm saying he lacks the skill to encourage this. I feel he could start by looking at his own derogatory and demeaning attitude towards you and anyone who supports you (his so-called "[Idiot] Tendency").

But half the blame also has to fall on you for your (as many have pointed out before) defensive and unyeilding bunker mentality to anything that smacks of your possibly having to change any conclusion due to new evidence. At times I've seen you stonewall some new evidence that even to my untrained eye is rather compelling and needs to be at least considered dispassionately.

Anyway, yes, I will 'knock it off' now. I have to remind myself that this is an absolute waste of time (even though with being unemployed I have plenty of that to spare for now!). My own tirades against both yours and Dave's behaviour are probably just adding fuel to the derision with which the Napoleonic boards are viewed by many.

Arteis
(known in real-life as Roly, but here, to save confusion, I prefer to be known the same as my nickname, 'Arteis')

PS: By the way (and vaguely returning ot the original discussion), the remaining 10% of the derision I would say stems from the Hofschroer et al versus all-comers dispute, and I accept you, Kevin, play only a very minor role (if any) in that one. And he is miles worse than Dave Hollins, too!

Dear Defiant,

Of course I regret upsetting you but I don't see anything insulting in what I wrote and I view the collective behaviour exactly as I described. I am sorry about that but there it is.

I think perhaps that you see this from the perspective of sombody on the inside, so to speak, and rather differently from an observer at 'ringside'. This is definitely not a one-sided abusive argument at all from where I sit.

I am afraid we will probably continue to see things rather differently but that's OK and I certainly don't intend to fall out with you over it.

Bill

Roly,

If presented evidence is credible and supported, I have no trouble accepting it. If it does not, and I base that on my own research in both primary and secondary source material, then I won't. Why should anyone accept information that is incorrect just because it is labeled 'new?' 'New' does not mean accurate or correct and a lot of 'new' evidence that shows up from time to time is either opinion or an idea that isn't supporting by evidence. I'm a school-trained historian and I need to be convinced by evidence, not swayed by opinion. History is not correct just because a majority opinion states that it is.

And once again, your comments on my behavior are incorrect. And to frame that in any other way is wrong.

Sincerely,
Kevin

'New' does not mean accurate or correct and a lot of 'new' evidence that shows up from time to time is either opinion or an idea that isn't supporting by evidence.

Correct. But some isn't.

I've seen some references brought up here on TMP, particularly to foreign texts, that would seem to be 'credible and supported' enough to possibly counter previous conclusions.

OK, maybe after dispassionately looking at these, some can no doubt still be disregarded for other reasons. But new and real evidence does sometimes turn up, especially as the Internet expands our linguistic horizons. And this new evidence can sometimes change conclusions that had been based on a previous smaller pool of evidence. But you have to be open to it.

That new evidence also has to be presented in such a way it doesn't cause people to back into their corners, which is where I think Dave Hollins fails.

Arteis (who has just recalled he said he would "knock it off")

No, on an issue of this type you shouldn't 'knock it off' as you make valid points.

And, yes, some information is good and valid that does contradict older opinions.

However, some is also hailed as 'new' when it really isn't and has been in print for some time. Lieven's book is a good example of that-there is much in there hailed as new, but material in the book, such as Austrian interference with the Poles in 1809, Alexander deciding on war in 1810, the Drissa plan, the Russian spy network in Paris, all have been published before, although not in as great detail as Lieven did.

Perhaps 'new' is in the eye of the reader.

Sincerely,
K

Bill, no worries, I have no beef personally with you either. My angst is against hollins who will never change his attitude I fear. I am no angel in this, I am one of the worst offenders I know. However, I i do not back down from an argument either or will bow down to someone like hollins. If you go back through the history of hollins personal attacks both here and on amazons over the past decade you would see what that guy is capable of.

Down here, if you see yourself as a taller poppy than everyone else you get cut down. That is how aussies in general view the world, we do not like those who see themselves as better than us and so will bring them back down to earth where possible. We do not believe in classes down here which is part of our "national character" you could say. Kiwi's are similar also. If you stick your nose in the air and try to put on a show of superiority and denigrate others your going to get my attention. I do not apologize for it.

Dear Defiant,

Good. That's sorted then. Yes I know what Aussies are like but the class thing in UK is a bit of a caricature these days and what we have instead is a sliding scale of personal wealth from very rich to very poor. Just like anywhere else really. Class only really exists in the minds of leftist politicians for whom it is an important leg of their platform. People are encouraged to be envious of those who earn more money than they do particularly if they are very wealthy, unless they are professional soccer players for whom it is OK to earn even more than top bankers.

I think it is it is worth reading Roly's post of 16 Feb 2011 6:39 p.m. PST because I too have exactly the same impression of the Hollin/Kiley Gribeauval/bricole/staff/Marengo disputes. I am afraid that credible evidence is frequently not accepted if it is 'not invented here' and 'incorrect' all too often means 'not in any of my books'. History is revisionist in nature which does not necessarily mean a dangerous departure from a perceived historical orthodoxy and it requires a continually critical and investigative approach otherwise it is just repetition.

Anyway I have almost forgotten what this thread was about in the first place although I do know it was none of the above.

Bill

Kevin has it right. Ignore Hollins. He is just using this thread for yet another sad attack on Kevin. It is an insult really to all the members who attend this site. Pretending to want to improve our knowledge while really using it as a vehicle to attack another author. Most people have forgotten about Hollins' war so he is obviously trying to reignite it, which is why he keeps repeating at every opportunity. Sad really, very sad.
And was Hollins really a lawyer anyway, or was he a lawyer's clerk? If he wasn't a lawyer, it might suggest he wanted to be one and is now using this thread to try and act like one and win his arguments, even though all the evidence goes against him, everytime he posts.
If he could just stick to posting and answering questions on Austrian matters, he might regain some of that well earned reputation and respect, he has now well and truly lost.

Can anyone summed up the Hollins-Kiley Dispute for me? It's about the impact of Gribeauval system in artillery throughout Europe, isn't it?

Thanks in advance.

Dear basileus66,

No! Pleased do not open that jar of worms otherwise we will have a thread here on multiple subjects going to page 24 and beyond. If you must can I suggest opening a new thread?

Bill

It is a myth to avoid the addressing of the historical matter. In late 99, I got on the Net and had just submitted Marengo to Osprey, so I talked about what was coming up there. it upset the Protectors of the Conventional Wisdom and ocne Cam 70 was published, I found all my books and ideas being attacked for "not using the right sources". Regularly, some third hand work was quoted at me as some kind of "proof" of my incompetence. Of course, I fought back and a few others, who had been on the receiving end of similar treatment, notably PH, joined in. it has gone one across various boards, but things heated up a few years later as I was doing the work on NV72 on the Austrian artillery. Not for the first time, it was obvious that the received wisdom was wrong. I voiced this view and of course, got more received wisdom back – then Steve Smith (late of this parish) reviewed NV72 pointing out that the 1757 drawings showed the bricole in Austrian use 18 months before Gribeauval even arrived. It seemed like a simple example to demonstrate the nonsense in the conventional wisdom. I had also just read an interesting article in a Nautical Archaeology mag about the alleged discovery of the Queen Anne's Revenge – Blackbeard's famous pirate ship. It predicted what would happen in terms of the challenge to the Ruling Theory – Kevin claimed the drawings were adjusted, but his cause was not helped by the arrival en masse of the Idiot Tendency, whose ridiculous behaviour was designed to smokescreen a series of key problems in their sacred works and their current proponent, Kevin. it has bene this behaviour, which as Arteis notes, has brought the Nap boards into disrepute. You cannot have a sensible discussion without this lot messing it up.

Those of us doing new work are in a difficult situation – some just walk away and let their book do the talking, but I think many enthusiasts (certainly those who have bought my books) are interested to know what is coming up. Inevitably, it means lengthy battles across various boards, not last as Kevin has insisted in just repeating the same old material as though he has not seen a word of the challenge to it. however, it is ultimately a smokescreen, which has been greatly magnified by the Tendency.

There is, as Kevin says, no feud. Calling it a dispute is simplistic, but highlights the fluid nature of the Rev/Nap period at the moment as lots of new work is being done all over the place. Look on the other boards and all is quiet – why? Because aside from minutiae, little is actually in dispute. That kind of navel gazing actually makes them look rather anoraky in the eys of the wider public. there are disputes here, because going through the bicentennials, the sacred cows are being slaughtered and life is not so simple.

Gribeauval has been the focus of much of the recent "disputing" – precisley because it is a classic case of RT, yet scratch the surface and even the basic material is wrong! I realise many enthusiasts may feel a bit excluded as they lack the detail, but I think many are interested in what comes up and I hope, they will see that they can illuminate some dark corner with a simple question.

I don't understand Roly's objection to detailed arguments – look at the question from JC at Eureka about Austrian Jaeger. We discussed and debated the points, pulling up info and in the end, probably got as close as we can to the design for a nice range of figures, which many will enjoy buying and painting.

Some people just can't help digging themselves into a deeper hole can they, Mr. Hollins. A shame you can't walk away and let your work, or rather, your past work, do the talking.

Dave,

I hope you do not mind me asking but who are the idiot tendency? I have been inclined since first reading this lengthy thread to give up the Napoleonic period and study something else. I have read about Peter Hofschroer is he one of them (the idiot tendency)as it seems he as been banned from this site is Steve Smith one as he as also been banned from this site.Any info you can supply would be gratefully recieved and may convince me to carry on with Napoleonics.

i simply mean a few people, who make no contribution to any discussion at all, spend all theior time abusing others and then whinging if they get a response. It is a category they can place themselves into. they seem to think it is clever and somehow gets them in the limelight.

I am sure Imperiale will be discouraged by their behaviour -it gets plenty of others down too and it is the reason why many authors and others with information do not post. I would say ignore them and read the more interesting threads. It is a multi-faceted period and new information is coming up all the time.

Gentlemen,

John Walsh's last two posts are typical of the behaviour I complained about in my post of 16 Feb 2011 5:01 p.m. PST. They are rude, inflammatory and entirely unnecessary, designed only to bait Mr Hollins into a response. Trolling is I think banned on TMP.

Bill

That is what the Stifle button is there for – I would suggest that Imperiale presses a few Stifle buttons and that way, he can see the useful parts of any thread.

XV Brigada: Who is John Walsh? I wish posters would stop using people's real names when they choose to use different nicknames on TMP. It means only the "in crowd" can follow the discussions with ease.

Arteis

hollins favourite word – "myth"

everything he does not agree with is a myth

p.s. hollins does enough to bait and insight retorts for all of us but is very good at twisting it to sound like he is the hurt party. Very cunning.

I don't understand Roly's objection to detailed arguments – look at the question from JC at Eureka about Austrian Jaeger.

Dave, I don't object to detailed discussions at all. But I do object to discussions where presenting such detail to those who disagree with it, or responding to such detail that is disagreed with, is done in puerile or derogatory manner.

… his cause was not helped by the arrival en masse of the Idiot Tendency, whose ridiculous behaviour was designed to smokescreen a series of key problems in their sacred works and their current proponent, Kevin. it has bene this behaviour, which as Arteis notes, has brought the Nap boards into disrepute.

I agree with you to a point, Dave, that certain coat-hangers (of BOTH sides) do inflame things and so contribute to this derision.

However, I think you have downplayed your own contribution to this derision. I suggest that to most TMPers, the coat-hangers are only supplementary to the main players in this – namely yourself and Kevin.

You often read from those who view the Naps board with derision that they do so because of "the big egos of authors" (or other similar such statements), which are clearly aimed at the main proponents rather than the hangers-on.

Arteis (who clearly has failed to "knock it off")

I still do not know who the idiot tendency are can any one give me some clues? Do they post on a regular basis are they to be trusted as a newcomer to the period any help would be gratefully accepted.

Arteis,

I have asked you nicely-please leave me out of your analogies of 'main players.' I'm not involved in the one-sided argument, so, again, please leave me out of it.

I have ignored the insults, incorrect information, and name-calling and have not responded. I do that because it is useless to do so. You keep bringing me into the 'argument' when I have not been involved. Don't you understand that is the wrong thing to do?

Sincerely,
Kevin

I'm not involved in the one-sided argument, so, again, please leave me out of it.

Sorry, Kevin, whether you like it or not, you are regarded by many on TMP as one of the two main players. It is not a tag you can shrug off unilaterally! Ask any TMPer who ridicules the Napoleonics board what the problem is, and I bet they'll throw up something along the lines of the "ongoing DH/KK dispute", or will quote one or other of yours and Dave's ongoing disputes – probably "bricole".

I have ignored the insults, incorrect information, and name-calling and have not responded.

I agree you have done well to not respond to insults and name-calling. And I salute you for that. I only wish the other party would stop doing the insults and name-calling.

But I don't think you have done so well in not responding to what you define as "incorrect information".

For a start, I don't think you should not respond to what you feel is incorrect!

Actually, I think you often *do* respond to what you feel is "incorrect information". However, too often I have read you saying something like "that simply is not correct". This is very frustrating when the item in question actually looks very credible, and especially when this 'incorrect' item is itself based on primary evidence (from primary evidence found in another language, for example). It would be much better if you pointed to primary evidence as to why something might be "incorrect".

But, as I said, I do indeed credit you with your much more gentlemanly and restrained behaviour.

XV Brigada

I am merely voicing my opinion on Mr. Hollins, based on his one man war and lack of concentrating on Austrian matters, which used to be his angle in the past. Meanwhile, you seem quick enough to jump to his defence all the time. If you look at the postings you will see clearly that Mr. Hollins is the rude member because he refuses to answer difficult questions, under the usual rain of miserable excuses and a desperation for others not to read such postings. Not a good way of showing confidence in his own knowledge, is it? I have nothing against Mr. Hollins, and I would just love to see him back to his old self, concentrating on Austrian matters, and helping others out with Austrian matters, as he kindly did in the past, instead of using this site to continually waste everyone's time repeating the same old attacks against the same person. Kevin has acted like a gentleman throughout his sad attacks and has moved on. If you are honest with yourself, you will agree that there is no real reason why Mr. Hollins cannot do the same. A true gentleman would have certainly done so by now.

Actually, thinking about what I just said about countering "incorrect" information that is based on primary evidence with primary evidence that supports your own view as to why it is "incorrect", points out one of the problems with history. Sometimes there actually ISN'T a correct answer, because it is all about points of view.

So what you sometimes end up with are two entirely credible pieces of primary evidence that support opposing views. I've seen that happen in police investigations, and I've seen it happen here with historical discussions.

I've just looked at the thread about Austrian jaegars, which Dave alluded to in the last paragraph of his 17 Feb 2011 7:55 a.m. PST posting. Here is the thread in question:

TMP link

I haven't read the whole thread in detail (the subject matter is a bit dry for me!). But from a quick scan this looks indeed to be a well-conducted Napoleonic discussion, compared to many others here. In my quick glance through, I couldn't see any name-calling, myth-accusations etc. And you all appeared to come cooperatively to a conclusion suitable to the OP.

If only the same standards could be applied to your discussions with certain other [nameless] parties.

What some people here are failing to understand is that hollins uses key words to make his points that enhance his agendas against others. Whether he does this consciously or unconsciously I am not sure but I tend to think he knows what he is doing given his lawyer background.

One key word that comes to mind that he constantly uses, and you can go through the history of his posts, is the word, "myth". This one single word has a major impact on those it is used against. It instantly tells those that have an opinion based on their understanding of a certain historical event or reality that they are wrong because hollins says they are. He does this with that one single word.

This instantly incites a negative response in those that deeply believe what they have come to understand through their own learning of the period. Hollins instantly dismisses what others feel is historical fact whether they might be right or wrong. Hollins knows how to choose his words and carefully manipulate you into an adversarial stance and respond accordingly. He is trained to act this way to get you off guard and say something he can use against you.

Arteis, I commend you for trying to sit on the fence and be the voice of reason but it is useless and I think you know it. Hollins left this forum for 2-3 years and asked Bill to close his account because he was feeling picked on but it is his own fault, he cannot seem to relate to us in an amicable way and just present facts as he sees them. He has to add to his facts the belittlement of others who oppose his view. He relies on people like you to provide him with leverage to do what he does and continues to do here now that he is back.

You might want to know that we respond to him because that is what he wants. He enjoys it because all lawyers enjoy a good argument. Its the fuel that keeps him going. When Kevin does not agree with someone he says, "that is incorrect". When hollins does not agree with someone he denigrates their credibility just like a lawyer does simply because he is trained to do so. If you decided to fight against his behaviour here as we have done he will turn on you like a viper, trust me.

I haven't read the whole thread in detail (the subject matter is a bit dry for me!). But from a quick scan this looks indeed to be a well-conducted Napoleonic discussion, compared to many others here. In my quick glance through, I couldn't see any name-calling, myth-accusations etc. And you all appeared to come cooperatively to a conclusion suitable to the OP.

That is true but for several reasons:

1 – The topic was Austrian focused.
2 – The main contributors were from the hollins crew
3 – none of the contributors from the "other side" entered the discussion.
4 – Discussion therefore did not turn into debate as facts are questioned and they probably did not need to be.

However, if the thread was about French legere etc could you adamantly say that if the other side answered the questions posed by the OP that hollins and others may not have entered the thread and cried, "myth" ?

1 – The topic was Austrian focused.
2 – The main contributors were from the hollins crew
3 – none of the contributors from the "other side" entered the discussion.
4 – Discussion therefore did not turn into debate as facts are questioned and they probably did not need to be.

Absolutely agree, Defiant. Which swings me right back to my original point that lawyers' training is not the be-all-and-end-all. It would take great skill on Dave's (and everyone elses') parts to run a discussion as amicably if it involved the "other side". And not a lawyer's skill, but the skill to take part in cooperative learning with those you strongly disagree with.

'I only wish the other party would stop doing the insults and name-calling.'

Arteis,

That's the issue, pure and simple. And it needs to stop.

Sincerely,
Kevin

When Kevin does not agree with someone he says, "that is incorrect". When hollins does not agree with someone he denigrates their credibility …

Which is the nub of why their arguments go on and on and on and on. Kevin claims something is incorrect, often merely as a bald statement of fact or with only secondary evidence to back him up. Dave claims he has made it up, it is a myth etc etc. Neither are techniques that will lead to cooperative learning.

Anyway, I'm outta here. Could someone please (metaphorically) kick me in the seat of my pants if I turn up on this thread again?!

Arteis, I have just been reading a thread about Marlborough on the 18th century board of about 40 posts, where one of the posters congratulated everyone on giving their opinions of Marlborough without the rancour of th Nap boards. I am sure these are the people, who talk about big egos etc.

Thing is, all they did was to present various episodes from his career, which supported the positive/negative view they had of him (often with a nationalistic background). I know a bit about the period from reading about Eugen of Savoy, but really, all I know about Marlborough was what I learned at school in the mid-70s, but I knew quite a lot of what they were on about. I even thought one angle had been overlooked! One poster then noted that Eugen was invisible amidst the rather nationalist clamour for Marlborough. In other words, a few Dutch authors aside, there has been no new work or even radical new approach for at least 30 years!

As I have said before and you will see in the new P&S Armies book, the whole Nap subject has undergone a huge transformation from the prevailing wisdom of the time when Chandler, Elting and Rothenberg were writing (or Quarrie for rules). It was a time of great change in everything from state government to how the average soldier was recruited.

So, this is not a battle of egos – that is just stupid. You will see the same things in areas like David Rohl's challenge to Egyptian Chronology (we are both UCL grads, so maybe it is something they instil in us). The Keepers of that True Flame think Rohl and his books are only good for burning. Even in a moderated quarterly journal like the IJNA, you could read the "rancour" between the two sides over Blackbeard's QAR. It is very easy for the Marlburians to get smug and talk about egos – but what is new down their way? Blenheim passed almost without mention – Waterloo won't!

The Internet has given a forum for exchanges of views instantly when 15 years ago, you had to wait two months for the next instalment in First Empire or 3 for the JSAHR. The questions which arise can addresssed by comparing evidence, putting up and knocking down arguments, but the difference is the end aim. The Eureka Jaeger was done in this way, but we were all open minded and trying to get to the answer. What we have elsewhere is the Keepers of the true Flame just trying to shout down anything not in their sacred books. Don't think they are putting up primary evidence – they are repeating the recived wisdom, which is why it is the correct and effective technique to put up the primary material, not least as it ahs either been ignored or more often distorted (viz Bourcet above). So much of it is Anglophone and French authors pushing their own agendas over generations and it never ceases to amaze me that when you look at original material, it says something rather different from what it is claimed to say. Marengo and Gribeauval have just been unbelievable!

Of course, anyone can have an opinion – but that is all they have on the 18th century board.

You are vbeing unfair in accusing me of insults and abuse – I refer to the Tendency, as naming names will just make things worse, (Imperiale will find theor names on my Stifle list on my Profile, accessed by pressing my name on here). It is not an ad hominem attack or personal insult to point out that some people are not telling the truth about where theor material comes from. I have also had the experience from Day 1 of having my work trashed and even strange tales spoken of me by someone not on this board, not because I am incompetent, but simply because I am finding things they do not wish to hear. Now, I don't have to do this – and many authors will tell you that they do not post on forums, because of some of the rancour, which is a real shame. It has been worse for PH – okay, he has overdone it, but you to wonder why these campaigns go on and on and on with the same old material being trooted out. Well, the answer is simply to silence you in the hope that your ideas and work will disappear. It does nothing to forward our understandong of the period, but I for one am not going to be silenced nor sit idly by and let my work be trashed. Intelligent debate is good – you can refine ideas, see where you are right/wrong, look at new areas – but after what I have had, don't be too surprised if i get short sometimes.

I have only just seen the recent comments. Why shouldn't I tackle someone's credibility on the evidence – it has regularly bene the case that many "facts" put forward by Kevin on the subject of artillery in particular have turned out to be the recent opinions of some author. Check the original french material and you will find it says something quite different.

Indeed, we do have a case of making things up – read the 1762 report (in English on the NSF) and then read Kevin's account of it. If you can explain how reading the former would produce the latter, you will have proven me wrong, but I am still waiting.

So, of course, credibility is a key factor.

Just saying something is "incorrect" is meaningless, especially when you have not read the original material.

Mr Walsh,

No, you are not voicing an opinion you are trolling. Why do you feel it necessary to bait people? Do you not feel that it might be better to do as you claim Mr Kiley does, and move on? I detest bullies and will always defend anybody on the receiving end of the kind of behaviour I have seen here. The rest of your post is 'smoke and mirrors' and you know it is. I following Arteis, you can have this thread all to yourself.

Dave,

Unfortunately there is no stifle list on your profile, I'll probably never know who the idiot tendency are supposed to be which is a shame as I will not be able to trust any posts on the Napoleonic board for fear it is one of the idiot tendency.

Mr. Hollins last post suggests he has not read or seen the many discussions and debates that have taken place on this site. Topics have been debated and discussed, agreed with and disagreed with, without any personal attacks by one poster against another. More importantly, posters did not use topics to continually bring up something from the past or use them just as a means of attacking another poster. Mr. Hollins is the only poster I am aware of that claims all his postings are to better the period and for our benefit. If only that was his true aim. Perhaps his future postings could attempt to prove it. That would be very welcome by everyone, I'm sure.

Sorry, I thought everyone could see it, but perhaps it is only visible to the profile holder. I don't want to get into naming names as it only inflames things, so it might beb better to look over the last couple of pages to see who is shouting abuse at me and whose comments I have not addressed (although others have). Peter H and Steve Smith aren't – both have been on the receiving end of the Tendency's bile and didn't react well to it. For that reason, I just stifle them.

Mr. Hollins talks about abuse thrown at him yet ignores the fact he has the arrogance to tell people not to listen to others, especially those who disagree with him or dare to offer anything negative about his past Osprey titles or postings. And has he forgotten the abuse he has aimed at other authors like Kevin Kiley and Andrew Roberts? Or does he think it shouldn't count when he is doing the abusing? Says a lot about the man.

Perhaps Mr. Hollins has decided to move on after all, since I have just noticed that there have been a few basic Austrian questions been asked from the 17th onwards, and Mr. Hollins has made some postings concerning them, and has only posted information relating to the Austrian question. What a refreshing change. Some people do learn after all. Please may it continue.

Peter H and Steve Smith aren't – both have been on the receiving end of the Tendency's bile and didn't react well to it. For that reason, I just stifle them.

You have got to be kidding me???

hollins has twisted the entire drama here to show that these two had merely reacted poorly to abuse?? Are you blind to the fact that both of these individuals cast the first stones in most of the confrontations???

I am quite stunned now

Out of curiosity who is Steve Smith? I know who Peter H is.

Is it possible to end this discussion as it leads to nowhere?

No. I t wont stop until it reaches 666 posts, then hoofed one himself will rise up and drag the doomed poster straight down to the hot place.
For surely this is the devils own thread.

And despite Old Bear's attempts to weasel out of it, the tone of his initial post in question definitely came across as bullying (as have other posts he has made in a similar vein on other threads).

Arteis,

That's rather rude and contemptuous of you, for a fellow who likes to appear as denigrating such behaviour in others. Instead of writing a huge piece attempting to describe the situation I will refer you to Mark Antony's reply regarding Agrippa in the movie Cleopatra. "I object to Agrippa at all times".

It might illuminate you to know that the script writer considered Agrippa to be the bully, not Antony.

For surely this is the devils own thread

for sure it is,,,

Big black shape with eyes of fire
Telling people their desire
Satan's sitting there, he's smiling
Watches those flames get higher and higher
Oh no, no, please God help me

Who is Steven Smith?, the great man, the walking library, the ex-TMPer TMP link

@ Dave Hollins

Thanks for reading the Marlborough thread.

It has been a tradition stoutly maintained among 18th Century wargamers to avoid rancor going back to foundational authors Brigadier Peter Young and Lt Col J.P.Lawford from the early 1970's. It is something that they know about and it has been encouraged repeatedly in that genre. It is not a particular habit in Napoleonics, but there in the 18C, it is.

"giving their opinions of Marlborough without the rancour of th Nap boards. I am sure these are the people, who talk about big egos etc." DH

That was me. I have not ever said anything about anyone's ego. I am actually very pleased to have an opportunity to tell you how much I have enjoyed your postings here, and have found them very instructive, too many times to count. I have partly collected your books, and will continue. When you were away for a long time, I missed your contributions.

Further, I also have a book by Kevin Kiley, and a couple by Peter Hofschroer, and have read two by Hamilton-Williams from the library. Also I have a stack of the different Nap magazines, you sometimes mention.

All of these, plus the boards, rancorous or no, have been illuminating and instructive, and I welcome all their contributions as well as your own. All of it helps me sort through my own understanding. I hope I don't come off as smug. I don't really think the Sun King was that radiant.

"In other words, a few Dutch authors aside, there has been no new work or even radical new approach for at least 30 years!" DH

Two developments in the 18th century world you may have missed are a)the Pike and Shot Society looking into a later date for the abandonment of the pike than the Received Wisdom would have it, and b)the work coming from the American historians Steven Saunders Webb and Francis Jennings about early American colonial times.

They talk about 1676: Bacon's Rebellion, King Philip's War, the covenant with the Iroquois, etc when King Charles was on the throne, then James, before William. They have info about Marlborough we don't usually hear, in these parts.

They approach from a different angle than the wargamers of Marlburian times are accustomed to hearing about from the military historians. They take a dim view of him, and explain why. Some of their work was being started 30 years ago, even 35. "Lord Churchill's Coup" for example.

It is not exactly a good fit with the interests of wargamers but does come up in understanding D of M's character better. The more open we are to their point of view the more likely we will understand the portions where they may have a point. If anything Jennings in particular is one of the most rancorous historians I've seen outside of Black Athena--but he is 17C, not 18C.

I am curious about the angle that you said you thought we missed, in that discussion.

Hi Mekelnborg

I'll get the seat of my pants kicked for coming back into this discussion, but I just want to say what a great posting.

I wonder if the difference between the 18th century and Napoleonics boards is encapsulated in one word in your second paragraph – namely, 'wargamers'?

It appears to me that 18th century boards on TMP are mainly inhabited by wargamers.

However, the Napoleonics boards, for whatever reason, attract a wider crowd including authors and historians.

My submission is that perhaps when a period is discussed at an author or historian level, then the rancour sets in. For wargamers, it is just a hobby, where even if you disagree about something, you just laugh about it over a wine as you push your troops around the table. Whereas for authors and historians it seems the stakes are higher, and gentle ribbing is certainly not the order of the day.

This is only my theory, mind. So take it or leave it as you wish!

Cheers

'Arteis' (who has enjoyed an absolutely fun Napoleonic wargame today using the wonderful 'Black Powder' rules)

That is true to some extent – albeit it would reflect the lack of work on the Marlburian period. Authors and researchers come here, because it is possible to discuss the broad drift of the subject and score a few points – the moderation on the Nap series has sent it into a forum, where points are very technical and of no interest to most people, while they do allow the repetition of the Received Wisdom, while apparently blocking any challenge to it. It doies also enable authors to get closer to the readers, which is beneficial for both.

I would agree that the "rancour" is stronger where there seems to be more at stake – Blackbeard's QAR involves a lot of money and a museum, together with several programmes on Discovery etc., all pushing a "certain" case, which falls apart under examination in the IJNA. Likewise, Rohl has blown apart the consensus on Egypt with his "New chronology".

It is no bad thing, if the deniers fight back and sceptics raise points against the new work (albeit it is interesting that it follows the climate change debate in that they try to undermine specifioc points, while ignoring the wider background). It helps the new wave refine their ideas and can even expand them. I was attacked for a throwaway remark about how Gribeauval copied L's guns. The result has been that many more people have become involved, such that the Received Wisdom on G and its supposed foundations have been utterly shredded. That is going to involve rancour and as I said, this period has undergone a complete transformation in the past 30 years (since Quarrie's nice wargaming book).

It was unfair to pull one remark on one thread out, but you do hear comments in similar vein often coming from followers of other periods about rancour here compared with their gentlemanly boards. I noted the remark about Eugen, who remains as invisble as he was 30 years ago, but even if he were to surface to challenge some of the received wisdom, it is unlikely to be as fundamental as debates in the Nap period. I did suggest a couple of MAAs on the Imperial Armies 1683 to 1740 recently and was basically told not to bother – the MAA on Marlborough's Army is 30 years old, the equivalent of Seaton's title on the Austrian Army of the Nap Wars (which is only useful for the Ottenfeld prints).

The point, which went unmentioned, was that (at least from my schooling!) Marlborough's rise and fall was closely related to the relationship between his wife. Sarah, and Queen Anne.