"Armies of the Napoleonic Wars (Pen & Sword)" Topic

XV Brigada

You obviously have nothing else to do. Never mind, when you get the book, that is, providing you do buy it, you'll have something to read. It won't be a long read, of course, or very detailed so I'm sure you'll enjoy it. And Dave has said it could be used as a 'quick overview', so joy all around, eh?

Lest we forget

If you do manage to find any 'new manic research' please let me know, only it seems to be missing from my copy.
Thanks in advance.

Stephen

Could you elaborate a little bit more about Esdaile's chapter on the Spanish Army? Has he rehearsed his 1988's book? Or there is new research? Does he tackle with logistics, command and control problems?

Thanks in advance

EDIT: Never mind, Stephen. I've seen you have already answered my questions in a previous post.

I must admit that I do find it strange that one person feels the need to post aproximately 37% of the posts in this thread.

Not as strange as somebody taking the time to do a head count.

Just what is your problem? I have not made a campaign to damage sales to the book. I bought it myself or haven't you realised that yet? It is you who is throwing out the teddy because you can't accept negative comments. Other authors seem to be able to do so and it is a shame you can't. Instead you start throwing out abuse. It says a lot about you. If you calm down and read my postings carefully, you will see that I still recommended the book. Perhaps you never spotted that bit or doesn't it fit in with your fantasy theory against anyone who dares say anything negative?

And people wonder what my problem with him is…

Old Bear,

Out of hibernation? I was expecting you sooner or later:-)
It took no time at all really. The number of posts is given and I did the maths in my head. I am of a generation that can do this sort of thing but it is not nearly as strange as feeling the need to comment on it.

I didn't realise you had a problem with Gazolla but you are not alone. He strikes me from his posts here and on other threads to be a trouble maker. Try just ignoring him.

Bill

XV Brigada

I don't think Old Bear was referring to me? Perhaps you have misread his post, as you seem to do with most posts, except those by your hero Mr. Hollins, of course. If he has a problem with me, I am unaware of it. And by trying to disguise your problem with calling me a trouble maker, like Mr. Hollins, because I have DARED to write a negative review or disagree with his views, is plain paranoia. I have no problems with Mr. Hollins, despite what he says and the absurd abuse and excuses he throws out. Many have commented on his attitude towards others, including those against other authors, let alone posters like me. But he has his views, I have mine. I can accept his but he, like you, for some sad reason, seem unable to accept any views unless they agree with yours. But people having different views is a fact of life. Most of us can accept it and don't throw out feeble excuses and abuse because they don't like or agree with what they hear.

41%

I'm 100% almost certain that OB didn't mean you, 'but DH' as
a matter of fact Dave has him on stifle doesn't sound like
friends to me.

Regards
James

Gen Brock,

On re-reading I suppose you are probably correct but it is not clear that is what he meant. Why do people have to bring their personality clashes here? I empathise with Hollins entirely on this one and Gazolla still seems to be a trouble maker to me. I must make more use of the stifle button:-)

Bill

Bill -

That's fine by me, you just have know idea what
you got yourself into. There are several "if not Lots" of
posters here that have issues with said person. It goes
back years Bill and all one has to do is read the past
history. Myself personally am here just to retrieve
information "new books, miniatures, equipment…" and its
just boorish to see this all the time.

I wish to have NO issues with anyone including yourself.

Best Regards
James

James,

No problem at all. I am starting to identify the groups you allude to.

Sincerely

Bill

General Brock

I think Dave has me on stifle because he doesn't like answering difficult questions, especially those that show what he says in postings contradicts what he says in his own books. Yes, much easier to pretend the question wasn't asked or that he never read it because of the stifle button. Also convenient to pretend that someone is trying to damage the sales of a Napoleonic title, rather than accept its faults and other peoples views on it. And I don't think any author worth his salt, who had written full books, and not just a single chapter, would expect everyone to like their work. We all have our own views and thankfully we can express those views. Most authors have tough skins and can take as well as give criticism.

XV Brigade

Much easier to consider someone is a trouble maker, isn't it. But glad to see you like your percentages. Do keep it up.

@Gazzola

"I think Dave has me on stifle because he doesn't like answering difficult questions"

Or maybe he has you on stifle because you are really irritating?

That's plausible.

I think Dave will always answer sensible questions, difficult or not, but what SJDonovan says is more likely.

If anyone has seen his latest contribution on Amazon, then they will appreciate the reason. If there are any genuine questions, I am sure that sensible members of this board are equally capable of posting them and I will happily answer them.

I would prefer that on this thread, we keep to the virtues of publishing a book, which is both an introduction and a review of the state of knowledge. It seems to be a project worthy of support from both its authors and dudience, given the difficulties of gettimnhg much published beyond the Waterloo related subjects these days.

SJDonovan,

Irritating? Not the adjective(s) I would have used but his 'track-record' here and on other threads makes stifling inevitable I'd say. It certainly saves the time reading his threads but makes counting them easy:-) Only 36% this morning:-)

Bill

So Mr. Hollins refuses to answer a question in which his postings contradicts what he states in one of his own books. But the person asking the question is considered irritating by Hollins and his followers. A very odd way to look at life, don't you think?
I have had many debates and discussions with people on this site, who have opposing views to mine. They were discussed and ANSWERED without any attacks or abuse. I accepted their viewpoints, they accepted mine. No problem. That's how it should be. Trying to disguise reality under the cover of grudges against one author, in a disgrace and suggests that that author is full of his own self importance. Hollins, in this case, is just one of ten authors.
My view on the title has actually been supported by one of the authors, who I believe, would have posted to this site until he saw the sort of abuse thrown at those who dare to give their opinions on titles. That is a great lost to the good members here who discuss things like gentlemen and can take accept other peoples views. And most of those throwing the abuse in this thread have contributed nothing to our knowledge of the book (or anything else for that matter) because they haven't even read it! I can well understand now why so many people leave this site. It is a shame that the lower dregs remain, which will probably cause more to leave. It should be a site one would want to recommend others come to. But that, sadly, is quickly being reduced.

So Mr. Hollins refuses to answer a question in which his postings contradicts what he states in one of his own books. But the person asking the question is considered irritating by Hollins and his followers. A very odd way to look at life, don't you think?
I have had many debates and discussions with people on this site, who have opposing views to mine. They were discussed and ANSWERED without any attacks or abuse. I accepted their viewpoints, they accepted mine. No problem. That's how it should be. Trying to disguise reality under the cover of grudges against one author, in a disgrace and suggests that that author is full of his own self importance. Hollins, in this case, is just one of ten authors.
My view on the title has actually been supported by one of the authors, who I believe, would have posted to this site until he saw the sort of abuse thrown at those who dare to give their opinions on titles. That is a great loss to the good members here who discuss things like gentlemen and can take and accept other peoples views. And most of those throwing the abuse in this thread have contributed nothing to our knowledge of the book (or anything else for that matter) because they haven't even read it! I can well understand now why so many people leave this site. It is a shame that the lower dregs remain, which will probably cause more to leave. It should be a site one would want to recommend others to come to, which I have done in the past. But that, sadly, is no longer the case.

Gotta love it when one person has spent so much time arguing with himself.

Hopefully, we can have an intelligent chat when a few people have read it.

Its good to see TMP spreading itself (Amazon book comments)

I must admit that Gazzola does make a point on the size of the book and coverage of the armies, however I worked this out as soon as the details were given, it is obvious that the book would not be indepth. I am well past the "Armies of the . . ." book buying stage or other titles that it would be impossible to cover in any detail, for me a book that size to cover one year or campaign is the sort of depth I look for nowadays, however i would never complain about a book for that reason alone, there are plenty of people out there that would enjoy and benefit from it, and it wouldn't be right for me to complain about it.
Amazon has only one left so its 'done the numbers' and I wish the publisher and all the contributors continued success.
At least Mr Walsh is performing a one man advertising campaign for the publisher, so carry on all.

That is its primary purpose – to be an introduction, either to the whole subject or for armies you might not be familiar with. In reflecting what has been unearthed in recent years, it also summarises how far that has come. The intention is to direct enthusiasts to further reading – you cannot possibly look at the whole subject in depth in one book.

Mr. Hollins and Co have just supported my review by saying that 'you cannot possibly look at the whole subject in one book',plus 'That is its primary purpose – to be an introduction'. And I have no problem with Mr Hollins agreeing that it is an introduction and I have even recommended the title. But a book this small will struggle to be a helpful introduction to 10 armies, especially when the armies described are not covered in equal length or space. We need more books like Gill's Eagles, which is the type of title that I believe Graf Bretlach said he would look for. That would really improve and progress the Napoleonic period. Not another introduction, as Mr. Hollins has now admitted it is. And I can't really understand, since he now appears to agree with my review, that he complained in the first place? But I thank him and co for supporting my review, at last. A shame they could not have done so in the first place. And yes, it will be very interesting hearing what people say about its contents, after they've actually read it, as opposed to those who complained about my review and postings without even seeing or reading the title!

Out of hibernation? I was expecting you sooner or later:-)

Indeed.

It took no time at all really. The number of posts is given and I did the maths in my head. I am of a generation that can do this sort of thing

Well done for you. It must make you so proud.

but it is not nearly as strange as feeling the need to comment on it.

So you clearly think.

I didn't realise you had a problem with Gazolla but you are not alone.

Clearly you come from a egeneration which can count in its head but can't read properly.

Why do people have to bring their personality clashes here?

Oh bless. is yours a cuddly world where everybody just counts in their head and hugs? You want to take about clashing personalities stop trying to pick fights with Gazzola. Until then ceasing your banal hypocrisy would be a plan. At least with you me you damned well know where I'm coming from (well, everybody except you apparently).

Or maybe he has you on stifle because you are really irritating?

Either way is literary cowardice.

Old Bear,

Oh dear I seem to have upset you. I am not sure how one picks a fight with somebody by ignoring them. I know exactly where you are coming from, every forum on the web has a few like you. I think you and Mr Walsh are two of a kind – trouble makers both for whom forums such as this are outlets for your inadequacies. This will be our last exchange here.

XV:

I return to read any comments about the new source and am greeted by the two posts preceeding yours. "Literary cowardice?" Incredulous. I look forward to sharing comments about AoNW on another thread.

Old Bear

I think you are right about some of the posters being unable to read the postings correctly. And if you make sensible postings or dare to offer your viewpoint, which might disagree with theirs you are considered as a trouble maker. Unbelievable! But the fact that some have decided to run away in response to your sensible posting, says it all I think. And if these are the type of people Mr Hollins wants to attract to support him, he is welcome to them. And we all know the book will still sell, no matter what is said. Those favouring the Austrians, Prussians and to some extent, the Confederation of the Rhine, will probably like what they find, considering they had quite a bit of space to work with, compared to the rest of the authors. But even Gill described his chapter, as good as it is, as an introduction because of the many armies he had to try and cover within the one chapter and not the biggest chapter. Even Alexander Mikaberidge was given just 21 pages. So it remains a puzzle as to why a celebrated author like Alexander only gets 21 pages, while Mr. Hollins, who is only an Osprey author full stop, gets 41? Are there more titles already available on the Russians than the Austrians? What I feel we need, as Napoleonic enthusiasts, is more titles like Gill's Eagles and Thunder on the Danube trilogy, not yet another overview or, as Mr. Hollins now describes it, a book with the 'primary purpose' of being an introduction'. Surely we have enough of them already?

Just realised my comment about Mr Hollins only being an Osprey author full stop, could be taken the wrong way. Apart from my academic work, I have only undertaken Napoleonic research for magazine articles, but, even so, it has generated a great respect for all authors, including Osprey authors. What I meant is that Gill and Mikaberidze (and other authors in the book) have a record of successful titles behind them, of complete and full works written by themselves, in comparison to Mr. Hollins only having a few Ospreys.

You can't beat John Gills 3 volume set on the Austrians and I am just about ready to re-read it again as it was so in depth on the whole Danube Campaign. In my view it is the best on the Austrians in 1809.

Regard
James

General Brock

Gills series is exceptional and I only hope there is more to come from the same author. And I would love other publishers to take up the challenge of producing equally good books and series covering other areas of the Napoleonic Wars.

LWF,

No I don't know what it means either.

Bill

Obsession is an illness.

Paranonia is another one, in this case when people think you have a grudge against someone, when in fact your review and comments are not directed at any one person, but at a book and the concept of the book. Sadly, I can't prevent people from thinking in such a negative way and especially in a way that is so far from the truth.

Interesting comment by someone named John Elton on the Amazon comments sections attached to my review. He suggests that the Mr. Hollins may have received the most pages because the book editor considered his was the most worthwhile contribution! If true, that would suggest a bias to one author and one army, which doesn't sound very fair to the other authors. I don't believe John Elton to be correct, and I wondered what others thought about his comment?

"John Elton" is a well-known stirrer. But you probably knew that!

I would ignore his comment. Giving it any credence only achieves the reaction he desires.

Why does Mr Walsh have to beat up his keyboard about this book here and on Amazon? Other than acting as an agent provocateur there seems little point bringing the question that seems to vex him so much to this forum, or Amazon. If he is really so concerned about lack of balance in the content, why doesn't he complain to the publishers who will be able to give him an explanation?

I had a look on Amazon UK today where there is one review by Mr Walsh and 26 comments the majority of which are exchanges between Mr Walsh and 'John Elton, a couple by Mr Hollins and one from Kevin Kiley who complains that Mr Hollin's chapter is a "waste of paper and printer's ink", which IIRC is what Elting once said about historians' writing generally. Mr Kiley also makes complaints similar to those of Mr Walsh that the book is too small to be anything other than an introduction. What a surprise! A single volume of less than 300 pages on Armies of the Napoleonic Wars is just an introduction? Who would have guessed it? Why does Mr Kiley feel the need to obtain and comment on a primer such as this?

What would be nice to see would be a review in context, as an introduction to the subject, rather than what seems to be criticism for its own sake.

Bill

XV Brigada

No, I was unaware that John Elton was a stirer, so I'm glad Arteis pointed it out. I thought it was odd that after so many coments he never made one about the actual book itself or its contents. Like so many who attacked my review, he probably hasn't even seen the book. Yet he can complain about my review with his silly imagination trying to fob it off as being aimed at one author. There are 10 authors in the book, not one, and the one mentioned in the review just happened to have the most pages, which was why it was mentioned in the first place.

I mentioned John Elton's comment because hs is suggesting that the book editor felt the other authors were not as worthwhile as Mr. Hollins, and this may have been why he was given the most pages. But, if as Arteis' says, he is a stirrer, then his comment will have no substance and should be ignored. I do hope he is right, since it would be disgraceful and certainly disrespectful to the other authors, if the book was designed around one 'worthwhile' author, especially considering the publishing track record of the other authors in comparison to Mr. Hollins.

In terms of the book itself, I would have loved to have been able to write a review saying that the title was excellent, a must-have. Sadly, that was not the case. But perhaps you favour more 'introduction' titles being published? Is that really what you want on your shelves? Because if no one complains about such failed concepts, that is exactly what we will get and what we will deserve! Failed because as you point out yourself the book can be no more than a basic introduction. Indeed, Mr. Hollins has stated this himself. You would need several volumes to do a really detailed account.

Personally, I prefere my shelves to contain books like Gills Thunder on the Danube and Eagles. Of course those new to the period might want to see more introduction type titles but there are plenty out there already, and some even have the same title with positive reviews. But my review on the Armies title has pointed out that they can find virtually the same information in many cases in 20 year old Ospreys and books already available.

But let's look to the future and hope we see less of Armies type titles and more of Gill type books. Now that would be progress, for you, me and everyone else, don't you agree?

Arteis

As I have just said to XV Brigda, I did not know that John Elton was a stirrer. So thanks for pointing that out.It explains everything. And I should have suspected as much anyway, since he never made one comment about the contents of the book itself. Just spouted out the usual 'axe to grind' garbage, along with bouts of personal abuse. He obviously wanted to have a pop at me. But it is sad that anyone reading the comments and hoping to learn more about the book, will be disappointed. Anyway, as I also said to XV Brigade, let's hope there are no more 'introduction' type titles. What we need is a series of volumes covering each army and more of Gill's types of books. They would obviously sell well and you would have thought that at least one publisher might have gone for the idea by now, instead of churning out more books aimed at novices. Still, we can but dream.

I am surprised that Kiley continues his 11 year campaign against my work, especially after he was so expertly dismantled by LWF at TMP link and Kiley's own failures to read anything beyond secondary claims, which do not reflect the original texts, have been shown up on a regular basis. Given that he lacks credibility, why does he continue as though he is some kind of authority on subjects, where as LWF notes, he lacks the ability to read the original material.

It is indeed unfortunate that we have a couple of attention-seeking Keepers of the True Flame, whose agenda is to rubbish what they do not wish to hear, rather than a sensible discussion about this book.

Dear Sirs
We are back to what is commercial. There has been published by Partizan Press a number of 200+ page books upon various armies. These have become respected but NOT commercial. They have sold in the couple of hundreds rather than thousands so the return in the time is not there.

To spend two years writing a book and received less than 10% royalties. A book retails at £30.00 GBP then the author gets £3.00 GBP and often less. With 200 books sold that is £600.00 GBP for two years work.

It is upon the reader to support the writer to improve the lack of authoritive books now published. The publishing industry is at a point of near calapse with the introduction of Kindle and the move of Google into publishing.

There are very few publishers that sell a thousand books of one title. Those that do produce "commercial" books. Others rely upon reprints of classic authorities.

Stephen

Oh dear I seem to have upset you.

Oh dear, you didn't. Don't flatter yourself.

I am not sure how one picks a fight with somebody by ignoring them.

Ask your hero, Hollins. You seem painfully lost without him.

I know exactly where you are coming from, every forum on the web has a few like you. I think you and Mr Walsh are two of a kind – trouble makers both for whom forums such as this are outlets for your inadequacies.

'Inadequacies'. Interesting notion. What, you think I've got a small Johnson and I need TMP to redefine my manhood? Or perhaps you've determined from my poor linguistic skills that my brain isn't as big as some of you Hollinsists?

This will be our last exchange here.

Like I said, literary cowardice. Run off making chicken noises because somebody chooses to stand up to you in a manner you find unpleasant or 'beneath you'. Well, now you know what being on the receiving end of Hollins and his frequent references to the 'Idiot Tendency' is like. Or perhaps you don't subscribe to the quaint old English saying of 'what's good for the goose…'?

No, of course you don't. You are firmly entrenched in a camp that advocates publicly slagging off fellow authors (this is called professional discourtesy, if you weren't aware) and condones creating sock puppets on Amazon and other places to do doctored and reprehensible reviews of rivals' work.

How superior you must be.

Summerfield

You have made some good points and I'm afraid it ties in with my negative review. Books like Gills Thunder on the Danube and Eagles will sell, which has been proven. If publishers want to publish books that will sell, make profits so that they can produce more, that is what we they need to produce, not more introduction to Armies titles. A series of volumes covering each army would, I'm sure, certainly sell, no matter who the author is. But perhaps things are so bad Publishers can't afford to risk taking the chance and end up pumping out Armies type titles instead? But if they asked Napoleonic enthusiasts, on websites like this one, I'm sure they'd realise what would sell, what won't and what enthusiasts and wargamers really want.

I think the Editor and other authors of the title should view what John Elton is suggesting on the Amazon comments section. He may be a stirrer, but he is now suggesting that Mr. Hollins and the Austrian chapter were given preference over the other authors and chapters because the editor considered that Austria contributed the most to the Napoleonic Wars! That suggests bias towards one author and one army and that the contributions of the other authors and of the armies they described, were not as worthwhile so did not deserve the same space? Perhaps Mr. Hollins, instead of launching yet another feeble attack against Mr. Kiley, the content of which had nothing to do with the Armies title, should have a quick word with John Elton, who is now doing serious damage to the books reputation, if not Mr. Hollins own reputation?

Personally, I don't see much use in word or page counting.

The number of words allocated to a particular army needn't necessarily reflect the editor's thoughts about the "importance" of this army, nor the intensity of the editor's personal feelings for the author – so what ?

And if we assumed it did – would this change the usefulness of the author's contribution ?

Dear Oliver
I agree that the realtionship between number of pages and word count is not proven. The inclusion of tables and sub-headings as used by the most useful chapters in the book increase considerably the number of pages.

I hope you are happy with the printed version of your efforts. Even for established authors, it is harder to get books published. The commercial viability of illustrated books greater than 200 pages is a classic example of this.

It is even harder to bring to the market a journal. I am the editor of the Smoothbore Ordnance Journal that has now published the first two issues.

Stephen

The allocations would reflect the involvement of a particular nation to some extent – UK and Fr were suppsoed to have 20K, then Austria with 17K etc., but as I said before, I think the decisionw as made (for the reason Stephen alludes to) to reduce the overall size and the editor decided to cut his own pieces. That makes sense (along with the size of the Confed chapter) given the easy accessibility to extra material on Uk and Fr plus P&S reprinting Gill's WETG. The book did also have a purpose in reflecting the new material unearthed in the least 20 years for the benefit of the veteran readers – there has not been much new work on the Imperial French and Uk armies, compared with the continental allies. If you wrote 50K on the Imp French and UK armies, many would still say there was nothing they did not already know.

Oliver, Stephen,

Anyway, it seems to be a one man vendetta as far as I can see. Let Walsh take it up with the publishers.

Bill

I'm surprised that no one has argued against the suggestions made by John Elton! I certainly hope this doesn't mean that the whole title was worked around one contributor? If so, I will certainly not be buying any further titles from Pen & Sword publishers.

And really, who are you trying to fool? The lists in this book DO NOT take up that much room, so DO NOT contribute to certain authors having more space. Mr. Hollins and one or two others DO HAVE more space allocated to them than some of the other authors. That is obvious to anyone looking at the book. For example, the Italian and Polish Chapters combined have half the amount of space as the Austrian chapter!

This sadly suggests that John Elton may have been correct when he suggests that Mr. Hollins and the Austrian contribution to the Napoleonic Wars, was considered more worthwhile and worth more space within this title, than other nations.

Anf if, as Mr. Hollins likes to point out, this title is an introduction and aimed at novices, then the novice will think the other nations were far less improtant than the Austrians, if the Austrian chapter was allocated so much space based on their contribution to the Napoleonic wars. This is pure bias and a very sad relfection on the whole concept of the book.

I really can't understand why an equal amount of space and word count could not be allocated to each author and chapter, if this introduction was meant to reflect ALL 10 armies and nations involved and not just the one or two? Yes, we want informatiom on the Austrians, yes, we want information on the Prussians, Yes we want information on the Confederation of the Rhine. But certainly not at the expense of the Russians, the Spanish, the Portuguese, The Polish, the Italians, the British and the French. That is just not acceptable. After all, it is an introduction, not a detailed account, so NO preference should have been made to any ONE army.

It seems that the more you hear about this title and the feeble excuses offered, the worse it becomes. I'm not even sure I should have given the book two stars now. But if we don't want the Napoleonic market to collapse all together, then publishers had better make sure we see less of this type of book and more of Gill and Mikaberidze's type of publications. That is progress. That would attract customers, new and old.