"French Staff" Topic

Dear Arteis,

In historical terms 'definitive' implies that there is nothing left to learn or know about a particular subject which is unlikely. When I mastered in Historical Research in 1973 it went without saying that no historical work was exempt from improvement or correction. I haven't noticed any change since then:-) I haven't read Elting on Jomini but I am certain that there is nothing he wrote which cannot be improved upon.

Bill

The start of the essay notes that history is a useful intellectual exercise because many things are not "definitively" determenined, especially where thought processes are involved.

Definitive has however been misused tomean "the best" or "one I like the most".

Keraunos,

thanks for the paper. My problem with the author's conclusions is, that he confuses a tool(staff) with the ability to use this tool. One becomes not a good handcraftsman by buying tools, talent ususally is a result of hard training and practise.

The author states in the conclusion:

"The bottom line is that the failure was the result of each marshals inability to control his force once set in motion. This lack of ability cannot be blamed on either the marshals or on Napoleon. What occurred in 1813 an intellectual leap in the conduct of warfare."

The allies were confronted with more severe problems, they mastered them or at least successfully muddled through.

"It (this warfare)required men with a broader vision that could detach themselves from lower level command. As such subordinate commanders were forced to conduct separate, yet simultaneous campaigns involving tactical engagements to accomplish strategic objectives. This was a type of warfare that none of Napoleon's marshals were prepared to fight."

Why were they not prepared? The addition of (more) staff would compensate for some deficiencies but does not give the army commander the basic intellectual ability to perform the role of an army commander. BTW many of the critical errors like the lack of cavalry screen, which contributed in the author's opionion to the defeats, are NOT staff related.

Thanks, XV Brigada. As someone with absolutely no historian training, nor even any university training of any sort at all, I wondered if the word "definitive" was used in academia as some officially-afforded designation.

But I would have thought that if the word does mean "there is nothing left to learn", as XV says, then no-one can really apply it to any historical research at all, as there is *always* the chance of some new evidence being turned up.

However, a Google search shows thousands of results of using the word "definitive" in book titles, descriptions and reviews. So there is also obviously a common usage that probably means (as Dave has suggested) "the best" or "the one I like most".

"The one I like most" or "the best" can only be opinion, not fact. And therefore stating some work is "definitive" scores absolutely no points against any person you may be debating against, as his opinion can just as validly be that it is "not the best" and "not one I like".

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definitions of the term 'definitive':

1-serving to provide a final solution or to end a situation, as in a definitive victory.

2-authoritative and apparently exhaustive, as in a definitive edition.

3-
a.serving to define or specify precisely, as in definitive laws.
b.serving as a perfect example (quintessential) as in a definitive bourgeois

4-fully differentiated or developed, as in a definitive organ.

In the historian's case or in the description of a historical work, definition 2 would apply. Another definnition would or could be the best available. It does not mean that it is the last word on a subject as better more complete works could be written later. However, I have read definitive works, such as Jack Gill's on the confederation of the Rhine in the 1809 campaign (With Eagles to Glory), John Elting's organizational study of the Grande Armee (Swords Around A Throne) and quite possible Mike Leggiere's ongoing study of the 1814 campaign. The first volume which has been published is excellent and I have no doubt the follow-on volumes will be of the same quality. That is what definitive means, historically.

K

But who SAYS those are definitive works? I'm not saying they are not definitive, but I want to know how they got given that status. Is there a process for a work to be defined as definitive?

If a work is defined as definitive, does that mean all historians accept it is definitive, or only some but not necessarily all?

If I (assuming I was a qualified historian) genuinely believe a certain work is definitive, but every other historian disagrees, can I still call it definitive because that is absolutely honestly what I believe? If I can't do that, then how many historians have to also view the work as definitive for me to be allowed to call it definitive? Who sets that number, and counts them?

What I'm trying to get at is that the term "definitive" is actually very loose, and does not prove anything in a debate other than the fact that you yourself think it is definitive. Your opponent could just as equally and validly say that for him it is not definitive at all.

If that is so, then counter the points made. If it isn't a definitive work, then research will point that out. So far, that hasn't happened, now has it?

If you don't agree with the points on Jomini, all of which are fact, especially that he wasn't a chief of staff in the Gneisenau class (and in fact was a failure as a chief of staff) then prove otherwise.

If you can't do that, then the article and book will have to stand. And definitive is a term that is used to describe such works historically.

Is it a judgment call? Sure it is, just like a historian's conclusions on a subject after assembling facts is a judgment call. So, instead of engaging in semantics, which you are seemingly trying to reduce the discussion to, contradict what has been written about Jomini by Col Elting. If you cannot, then the point is moot.

K

Dear Arteis,

>But I would have thought that if the word does mean "there is nothing left to learn", as XV says, then no-one can really apply it to any historical research at all, as there is *always* the chance of some new evidence being turned up.<

Exactly! But I think you misunderstood me. I tend to under punctuate when typing which can alter meaning out of all recognition if I am not careful. 'Definitive' isn't an academic term as far as historical works are concerned at all. At least I don't think it is and I don't recognise it as such. What I am saying probably not very well is that the term is misused for history for the very reason you give. It sounds like a contradiction but history never stands still because there is always almost certainly something new to be learned. History is revisionist, a word that has been given a 'dirty' meaning but it is actually entirely appropriate as far as history is concerned because if it wasn't then we don't need any more history books. Why repeat what has already been written?

Histories are never ever 'definitive'.

Bill

Bill:

Definitive is typically used as a marketing term (by publishers, booksellers, and some reviewers).

It is also used to add authority to a source. Such labeling is often used to persuade.

If a source is well-researched, well-supported, well-argued, well-written, and lucid then just say so.

For an historical work to be considered "definitive" in a field--you would require agreement from a majority of scholars in that field (and a decade or more later it might not maintain such status given new research). If you ignore marketing claims and people labeling in order to persuade you will find few claims of definitive histories. I would prefer knowing if a source (or portions thereof) was considered reliable.

If you annotated a bibliography and claimed a work was definitive your history prof would nail you for making an assertion.

the word definitve is used to stiffle furhter research or deviation form the the "definitve" study.

Example – Elting is regarded as definitive study about the French Napoleonic Army.

In case anybody comes to a different conclusion than Elting – he must be wrong.

This attitude of course is an excuse to discuss a subject because on can hide always behind the opinion of the definitve study – and brush away any other research.

So – Arteis is most correct – who decides what is definitive and not??

It seems 10th Marines is the world wide chief judge on that.

Thanks XV and LWF – that all seems to make sense.

Kevin, I am asking about this not because of the subject matter itself (I don't know the first iota about this guy Jomini).

Instead, it is because I see your way of trying to close this debate, by stating Elting's view is definitive, as a flawed method that will undoubtably be quickly pounced on by Dave Hollins or one of his hangers-on. With respect, you saying Elting is definitive on Jomini is not an argument in itself, as the fact something is definitive or not can't be proven.

And even if this 'definitiveness' (!) could be proven, surely then the onus is on you to prove it if you claim it, not on anyone else to disprove it?

I am only trying to be helpful. As you know, I am absolutely against the methods Dave uses, but I think that such a flawed argument as this just opens you up to potential scorn from him and his hangers-on.

For the record, I absolutely love Elting's work – his Swords around the Throne is one of the few actual Napoleonic history books I own (as apart from uniform guides, Ospreys and coffee table books).

Ulenspiegel

the point he was making, and I accept he was probably a staff officer himself, was that the leap in command from one corp to many corp requires an increase in the staff to manage those assets – and that staff was not present in these campaigns

In Oudinots case, he lost all communicaiton with the other two corp advancing on berlin because there were no simple lateral roads and there was no body of staff to send off to and fro to keep contact – the result, three separate battles against a single opponent.

In Dennewitz case, Ney avoided the first problem by sticking to a single line of advance, but when the time came for him to distribute those commands as required – specifically sending Oudinot to support Reynier where he was needed and not to support Ney where he was not needed but ordered- Ney had no staff to tell him that Reynier need help nor staff to alert Ney to the opportunity on Reynier's flank to win the battle.

So all Ney knew was his own engagement (and Ney being Ney, he fought the battle as a corp commander first anyway and requested Oudinot come to assist him in so doing).

Its too simplistic to say that in the end this was Oudinots fault for obeying an order despite knowing it was incorrect – the order itself was only given because of staff failure in keeping Ney fully informed.

hence the conclusion that while the factors you mention would have helped, without a staff to enable accurate on the day information to keep the commander informed, and staff to convey orders to the generals, it was impossible for the commanders to exercise command.

that's the essence of the paper.

whether it is convincing is another matter, but its an argument I find persuasive.

On your specific qestion of why he asserts that none of the marshalls were prepared to fight that type of battle – it is contained in the detail paper. the type of battle was one in which the marshall had to stand above their indvidual corp command responsibilites, and exercise overall control over each sub commander over the battlefield.

the marshalls were not prepared to fight this style of battle because they had a simultaneous responsibility to command their own corp – a job they knew how to do – and they had none of the increased staff which are required to support a multi corp command.

battles in this period were commanded by regular reports from men closer to the action and by regular communciation between the levels of command.
if you have not got the staff to maintain that regular communcation channel, you end up focussing only on the battle before your eyes – as we see in each case cited in the paper.

VW,

Here's what I wrote:

'However, I have read definitive works, such as Jack Gill's on the confederation of the Rhine in the 1809 campaign (With Eagles to Glory), John Elting's organizational study of the Grande Armee (Swords Around A Throne) and quite possible Mike Leggiere's ongoing study of the 1814 campaign.'

Here's what you wrote:

'the word definitve is used to stiffle furhter research or deviation form the the "definitve" study.
Example – Elting is regarded as definitive study about the French Napoleonic Army.
In case anybody comes to a different conclusion than Elting – he must be wrong.'

If you're attempting to 'quote' or paraphrase what I wrote, you're not only mistaken you are taking what I said completely out of context. Your posting is not only incorrect in content, but in intent.

Now why would you do that?

K

Dear LWF,

Yes it is. Publishers are not always very discriminating when it comes to what I have seen described as 'popular non-fiction' which is one term used to describe the kind of history book we see on the shelves of bookshops as opposed to 'academic' history, another definition which is less that definitive :-) :-). I used to read an awful lot of reviews in the press and professional journals that also claimed that a particular book was 'well-researched'. Then you think to yourself 'what are the qualifications of this reviewer and how does he know'? You check it out and find the answer is often that they are one of those professional critics who earn a living from it but has no qualification to comment on very much more than the quality of the paper and binding.

Bill

Keraunos,

the author of your paper brings in my opinion more arguments that the training/character/talent of Ney was the deciding factor, not the lack of staff.

A) Would some additional staff officers have saved Ney? Was his location in the battle a result of small staff, i.e. Ney tried to get the information, which additional staff officers could have provided, with his own eys, i.e. his location in the battle was a result of a lack of tools.

OR

B) Ney did lead in the style of a divison/corps commander, because that was the thing he truly understood. Therefore, a position behind his corps would have led to a different result (clear French victory) even with his small staff.

The author of the paper claims A but gives more evidence for B, especially in his conclusion :-))

One usually finds more support fo B in literature, this is of course not a perfect proof :-)

Do you know, how many staff officers existes in the allied armies?

It depends on how you define "staff" – figures for the General Staff are available, but it is often harder to work out how many Adjutant staff there were. I presume ney arrived with 3 adjutants, not actual staff officers.

You also cannot discount frictions within the staff – Radetzky has an especially poor record, trying to undermine Zach in 1800 and according to some, having such a poor relationship with Schwarzenberg that Sch dealt directly with Langenau, the OPS chief (which may be what Petre is on about as the structure is very modern).

If Ney turns up with three "chums" as Adjutants, was the relationship with the staff of his new command that stable. A key advantage for the French was that they spent so long working together in a way that the Allies did not. Once those close relationships broke for some reason, the system and the personal failings appeared. I did note how ever that the essay emphasised that N's whole intelligence operation had failed.

As regards "definitive", it is an abused term for publishers and those, who wish to close down debate. In some ways, a book would be definitive, simply because nothing has come after it (say With Eagles to Glory). Rothenberg was for a while, but so much material has come out since 94 that it is a primer now. You could argue that Campaigns of N and the Atlas are definitive overarching summaries of N's cartrers in woprds and maps respectively, simply because we are unlikely to see such works again. It can rightly applied to a really good book on a subject, but can only truly definitive if there is not likely to be any more to be said.

Incidentally, I don't have "hangers on" – that some people share my view of Kevin's overreliance on Elting and think there is original work to be done is simply a coincidence of view.

As all any historian/author is doing for the period is scraping the surface, there will always be more to find out. The issue is finding it.

That being said, the 'quest' for 'new' material, especially in the academic venue, is close to manic. Having seen it at first hand it is at first amusing, then annoying, and finally troubling.

K

Ulenspiegel,

I agree with you on the subject of the paper by Major Keefe. It was actually pretty good, though some of the sources are not ones I would use in a paper or anywhere else, such as Jomini, Bourrienne, Thiers, Thiebault, Britt, Delderfield, and the reference by Hatthornewaite that is listed, The Napoleonic Source Book. Vachee's work I would use with great caution as it isn't correct on French staff operations in 1806 and is more a work that glorifies Napoleon to the denigration of his subordinates and staff.

K

U- Vachee has the same opinion as Petre of Berthier.

Dear Mr Kiley,

Why do you find the quest for new material amusing, annoying and troubling? Do you not believe this to be the role of a historian? If not what is it?

What do you mean by "the academic venue"? Universities?

Bill

Dear von Winterfeld and Mr Hollins,

How does the term 'definitive' stifle debate? I cannot see how it can work. I doubt many people would take it literally.

Bill

The material quoted about Jomini suggests a writer with insufficient control over his emotions to be entirely trusted.
What was the business at which Jomini 'failed', and what was the nature of the failure?

I agree, XV, that the term 'definitive' can't used to stifle debate entirely.

But it certainly has been used as a way to try to *win* a debate by saying certain sources are definitive, so therefore cannot be incorrect.

And I also agree with your puzzlement over Kevin's angst about finding 'new' evidence. Surely that is what historical research is all about? Maybe his concern is more about sometimes the *purpose* of finding this new evidence, if it is purposely and selectively done with an agenda to overturn the status quo, no matter what?

It is the attempt to use definitive to stifle debate – x says this, x is definitive, end of, because it is definitive. It does not stop anything, but it is designed more to impress the novice reader, who possibly at least knows of the author of the work.

Kevin's only angst is that his sacred (secondary English language) works are being shown to be wrong. Worst still, as in the case of Alder, there seems to be an awful lot of extending an original source, which when checked actually says something rather more limited or is itself opinion/propaganda.

I was watching a repeat of a BBC Horizon programme last night, wihch was looking at science and the battle over climate change. The presenter was saying that those, who dispute the work on it, whether they are sceptical or outright deniers, have a terrible tendency to go data mining and thereby to ignore the large body of primary evidence standing against them. That applies to the Keepers of the True Flame too, not least as they lack the linguistic skills to raed what has become available over the last 20 years.

angst: a feeling of anxiety, apprehension, or insecurity.

Did you fellas learn a new word today? And are you using this as a pejorative?

One of the prevailing 'threads' on this forum is the quest or finding of 'new' material. The problem is, a good chunk of it isn't new. This goes right along with the use of the mocking 'Keepers of the True Flame' and the 'Idiot Tendency.' So, I guess you're in good company.

K

Dear Mr Hollins,

A minor point but The Royal Logistic Corps is not part of the staff of the British army and G4 staff posts in the British army are not necessarily filled by officers from the RLC.

Bill

Sorry, Kevin, I used the word 'angst' merely as a means of covering in one word your description of being "amused, then annoyed, and finally troubled".

I did not mean it be perjorative, and perhaps in hindsight it is not an accurate replacement for your phrase anyway. If you took it as a perjorative, I apologise, as it is definitely not the way I meant it.

I hope you'll re-read my post, replacing the word 'angst' (and probably also my word 'concern') with your original phrase, which should then give you the actual non-perjorative meaning I intended.

Again, apologies if you took offence.

I can't speak for Dave, however …

Kevin's only angst is that his sacred (secondary English language) works are being shown to be wrong.

I agree.

XV, Okay, but it confirms the point that being a logician doth not a CoS make – indeed, someone else does it!

Angst is a German word in origin – that is why Kevin is having problems with it. The information now being published may not be new – in that it already exists in printed form in most cases. The question thius arises; Why have some people ignored it? (See the climate change programme note above)

VW, I don't see anything wrong with that. I would suggest that most history books have aspects that are proven wrong as new evidence comes to light. As XV has pointed out, it is just part of the historical research process, and without it there would be no need to ever research or write more history books.

Having said that, I am sure any author feels an ownership of what he has written. So it would be perfectly understandable that there might be some angst* at finding that part of what he has written is no longer correct, for whatever reason.

Where the problem lies is if the author can't overcome his 'angst' to look dispassionately at any new evidence, and instead tries to stop all 'incoming' to protect his work.

It would be easier to overcome much of that 'angst' if authors engaged with each other in a cooperative learning approach, rather than the current adversorial model we see here on the TMP Napoleonics boards.

* I no longer like the word 'angst' that I introduced into this discussion … but I can't think of any better word. I do NOT mean it in any perjorative way.

Angst is a German word in origin – that is why Kevin is having problems with it.

Oh, Dave, come on?!

Kevin Kiley wrote:"Ulenspiegel, I agree with you on the subject of the paper by Major Keefe. It was actually pretty good, though some of the sources are not ones I would use in a paper."

Here I disagree. The major issue of the paper is, that it is methodologically weak, as the presented evidence contradicts the conclusions of the author. Whether the sorces are good becomes then a secondary problem.

For me it looks that the author wanted do some oroginal research – the basic idea of the paper looks IMHO good – but was not used to it or he was under pressure to present positive results ("novel insights") and brushed over the obvious contradictions in the discussion.

The information now being published may not be new – in that it already exists in printed form in most cases. The question thius arises; Why have some people ignored it?

Numerous reasons could apply, no doubt. They didn't come across it, or they don't speak the language to know about it, or it was not available at the time, or they had time restraints for research, or they didn't see its importance, or they had enough conflicting evidence to doubt that particular piece, or they forgot about it, or they didn't have the technical skills to decipher its meaning … or maybe even they had an agenda and were being purposefully selective.

Possibly apart from the last, nothing at all to be embarrassed about. Historians are human – and I doubt you yourself have never done any of those things, Dave.

" the presented evidence contradicts the conclusions of the author"

we will have to disagree on that, Ulenspiegel – perhaps its our approach to a written argument, but to me the paper quite clearly argues that it was a lack of staff that was the primary issue, and other factors are either secondary, only significant because of hte lack of staff, or irrelevant (such as some the 'usual' inaccurate arguments put up about any failure of a Marshall when they fail).

clearly, you view the reverse – which is, I suspect, where we have to leave it, since this is not my dog fight, and my intervention was simply to set out the arguemnt you and Khevenhuller werre debating but which neither had actually set out clearly for a reader passing by – which of course assumes such a reader bothered carrying on after the pointless sidetrack on the semantics of 'definitive'.

Keraunos, Dav Hollins,

at Dennewitz the French corps commander Reynier was able to communicate his correct assessment of the tactical situation and correct suggestons how to win the battle to Oudinot, so Ney in a better location would have got the same information, no need of more staff for Ney IMHO.

Dear Mr Hollins,

I only know about the RLC because a member of my extended family is in it. It is an early 1990s amalgamation of a number of corps, and this may interest you, including the Catering Corps:-) Its soldiers provide numerous functions, including maintenance, transport, IED disposal and a lot more besides.

My knowledge of the British General Staff is slight but I am fairly sure that a CoS is not responsible for logistics per se except in his capacity as head of the staff in his particular headquarters. I am also fairly sure that modern staffs are rather different from Napoleon's but Richard Holmes wrote on this very subject in respect of the Franco-Prussian War over 30 years ago. I am afraid I can't remember the title.

BTW by all means challenge Mr Kiley even if his reaction is not what you'd want but poking fun – angst and its German origin for example – is not the solution.

Bill

Arteis,

I think we all understood that what you meant by Mr Kiley's 'angst' was 'his concerns'. My concern is that semantics seem to have obscured the question why he finds the 'quest for new material amusing, annoying and troubling.'

Bill

XV- We can be informal round here – it doesn't make you one of my "hangers on"! The myth (perpetuated by the likes of Holmes) is that Moltke's staff system developed from N's. Sedan was actually the triumph of the Germanic systems over the old 18th century systems, but (in answer to Arteis), that is conveniently overlooked.

My point about Angst is that Kevin has claimed to be able to read German and lists a large numbers of German books in his biobliography. To an "average enthusiast" like Arteis, it would thus seem that he has read them and simply reached a different interpretation from myself and others. I presume that is part of what he means by cooperative learning. Unfortunately, given what those German books say, even the easily accessible parts have either been ignored or were inaccessible from the start. I think it is importrant when looking at a work to consider first what the author was actually capable of reading. Angst was an easy way of expressing that.

More widely in answer to Arteis, no author would be concerned by new information coming up after publication – the point of going in hard on the Guard at Marengo was to smoke out anything else, because there is a decent chance you will miss something along the way. Certainly, minor details and side issues not directly on topic will often be wrong, because they have been taken from a secondary work as you cannot research everything. Like, linguistic and access contraints exist and the likes of Chandler and Elting were writing platform books as the first modern books on the subject. We also all make mistakes.

However, that is very different from ignoring material, especially when written in French. I have been stunned to find that so much received wisdom is just third hand nonsense when reading original material. However, the worst has been the avoidance of the tricky stuff. Was I maybe the first since Hennebert to read his book with the 1762 report in it? It is a fundamental piece of work. it has been there for 100 years, yet for all the things written about it, no-one else seems to have read it. Why?

There has been quite a lot of cooperative learning – Terry was key to writing Marengo; I helped out DD&S. The process has often been, like the Eureka Jaeger thread rather adversarial, but it is more effective. You can see it here with the discussion of Keefe's article at various levels of fact and interpretation. You cannot engage in cooperative learning with people, who will not deviate from their sacred books. You can only challenge what they claim either in its source or interpretation.

Bill,

Here's what I wrote:

'That being said, the 'quest' for 'new' material, especially in the academic venue, is close to manic. Having seen it at first hand it is at first amusing, then annoying, and finally troubling.'

Here is what you wrote which is a misquote:

'My concern is that semantics seem to have obscured the question why he finds the 'quest for new material amusing, annoying and troubling.'

Perhaps if you're going to comment on something I have said, you would at the very least get it correct. It's quite obvious to me that you have no idea what I was trying to say.

K

Alright, Dave, but with all the mix of real names and nicknames here it is all a little unnatural for me which is a reflection of my generation I expect.

And no, I am not your or anybody else's 'hanger on'.

As I remember Holmes distinguishes between the old fashioned staff of the French in 1870 and that of the Prussians. I also don't think he says that one was a development of the the other. I will have to look out his book and see.

Bill

Kevin,

I have been told I am being too formal.

I wasn't quoting you but paraphrasing what you said. It was a restatement of a piece of text and not a direct quote. You will also find it in my post of 19 Feb 11 2.05 PST. I see no difference in meaning between your statement about the quest for information that "Having seen it at first hand it is at first amusing, then annoying, and finally troubling.", and my restatement "'he finds the quest for new material amusing, annoying and troubling.'"

Anyway you are right I don't understand what you were trying to say so could you please explain why you find the quest for new material 'amusing, annoying and troubling' and what you mean by "the academic venue"?

Bill

Kevin,

As you have time to initiate a thread on outdated or incorrect material and books I was wondering if you were going to get round to answering my question above?

Bill

'Kevin's only angst is that his sacred (secondary English language) works are being shown to be wrong.'

Which works and where are they wrong. It is seldom that an entire work is proven wrong.

K

True, Kevin. I hardly think that a whole work would ever be proven wrong, lock, stock and barrel.

I guess an issue could be the level of what might be proven wrong over time. Were they just minor details or sidetracks? Or was it the platform on which the author based his overall conclusions?

Note I am only talking in generalisations here to support my supposition that all history books over time have aspects that are proven wrong as new evidence emerges. I am *not* talking about any specific books, so please don't ask me to list them! That is for the person who made the original remark to do, if he so wishes!

I doubt very much that VW will answer at all.

K

Actually Dale that was a work in progress picture. I've paints the base black since though I may redo it, I think a brown would be warmer.

You can see the finished article prior to varnishing here.

link

Gentlemen,

I wonder if it is possible to keep the question of books that need updating to the relevant thread started by Kevin elsewhere. I also wonder if Kevin could explain here about his concerns about the search for new information.

I am in London tomorrow on a quest for new information unrelated to any of this so there is plenty of time.

Bill

Dave Hollins (apparently) said:

Dave Hollins 20 Feb 2011 4:22 p.m. PST

Actually Dale that was a work in progress picture. I've paints the base black since though I may redo it, I think a brown would be warmer.

You can see the finished article prior to varnishing here.

link

Oooh, Dave, that is the most useful post of yours I've seen in ages ;-)

Must be a bug. I actually mentioned the exaggerated claims of Alder (disproved by checking the original cited French source), the nonsensical stuff written about Marengo and the many books written in the latter half of the 20th century under the now discredited Ruling Theory that the French were very modern and it was nice of the Allies to turn up for a good thrashing every so often. Then of course, there are the several works written, which simply ignore the key material – such as all those, who did not actually read the 1762 report.

I hope you found this useful!

'That being said, the 'quest' for 'new' material, especially in the academic venue, is close to manic. Having seen it at first hand it is at first amusing, then annoying, and finally troubling.'

Bill,

You ought to be patient. I usually answer postings when I get around to it. Your insistence tends to put me off answering you at all. There is no requirement to answer a posting here and you tend to be both condescending and denigrating in your postings at times, both tendencies I really don't appreciate. Further, your 'paraphrasing' of what I wrote distorted the intent of what I said, which is also annoying. Perhaps if you changed your tone somewhat you might be answered in a more timely manner. In short, you should moderate your fury. Lastly, your cavalier answer, which was actually no answer at all, to my question did nothing to advance the level of discussion, which was disappointing.

When I earned my advanced degree in military history I noticed a distinct intolerance among some of the instructors, all of which had doctorates in history, to accept other points of view. I also found that they had to publish to sometimes maintain their positions and when doing my thesis the emphasis was on something 'new.' I had two thesis advisors, the first one being not too knowledgeable to my mind and we had some interesting discussions. When I got my second advisor, he was more open to ideas and didn't actually insist on 'new' material. All in my cohort were amazed at the commicated idea from some of the instructors that to pursue a PHD in history was futile for us-it also meant more competition for them, which was the point.

Military history is not a popular discipline in US colleges. John Lynn wrote an interesting paper on that subject some years ago. His excellent Bayonets of the Republic has unfortunately degenerated into his not-so-good Battle-and I have great respect and admiration for John Lynn and read all of his material-the work he did on the French army of the late 17th and early 18th century is indeed definitive. That more than his paper speaks volumes of the study of miliary history at the undergraduate level over here. New 'angles' and viewpoints of what military history are being sought in order to justify both jobs and tenure and most academic historians shy away from the actual marching and killing that lies at the heart of military history and that is also denigrated as 'drum and trumpet' history. Terms such as 'purple prose' for articulate and colorful writing are also part of the denigration process, as is the tendency to footnote every phrase, clause and sentence. The writing of history does not have to be boring to be effective and accurate.

That mindset, with the almost manic quest for 'new' material (most of which is not new at all-Lieven's book is a good example) is to my mind hurting not only the writing of military history but the study of it.

It appears to be the same here, though not on a so 'intellectual' level as in academia. 'New' material has proven older works wrong-really, where? 'Reading the original source material' has proven other sources incorrect and no longer of value-really, which 'original source material?' For example, Ken Alder and Howard Rosen have done excellent work, and it hasn't been proven 'wrong' that I have seen anywhere. Some people may not like what they have said, but if there is 'proving' to be done the same amount of work needs to be done and published-and that hasn't been done. There has been quite a bit of argument on French artillery and Gribeauval, for example, but his contributions have not been negated by anyone-here on the forums or anywhere else.

What is happening to my mind is that some academics and authors have to make a name for themselves that they do it by first denigrating prior works even if the scholarship is excellent in order to push forward their agenda. It happens here, in academia, and on other forums and venues, and it happens whether or not the 'new' material is accurate. And it isn't the material that is 'new' it is the opinions expressed, and many of them are incorrect in fact and logic. And they are not backed up by either solid research or published source material. The old Marengo consular Guard argument is proof of that-the assertion that the unit was destroyed was disproven on the forums years ago and information on that is easily available in du Cugnac/Lanza, for example.

That's what I've seen over the past eleven years of reading postings, participating on Napoleonic forums, and getting an advanced degree in military history.

Please feel free to comment.

K