"Outdated/Incorrect Material/Books" Topic

There has been much mention on the forum of either outdated or incorrect material and books. However, the books or material is usually seldom or never mentioned themselves, usually/always in the abstract.

Does anyone have a list?

K

Kevin, I'm guessing anything NOT by Dave Hollins and therefore not translated from the original ancient carpathian german dialect? :)

ANYTHING you might have researched would not be approved by Dave, of course, regardless of the source. Even if you found it in the archives of the K&K Imperial War Museum in Vienna.

My Little Golden Book of Imperialism
The How and Why Wonder Book of Racial Hygiene
Gender Roles for Very Young Children

This may help:

PDF link

Allen

There has been much mention on the forum of either outdated or incorrect material and books. However, the books or material is usually seldom or never mentioned themselves, usually/always in the abstract.

Do you mean nearly universally thought to be so or thought by some to be so or thought by me to be so?

Oman helpfully provides the first two examples:

Some people think that his 2-deep line vs 3-deep line argument is outdated and/or incorrect.

Nearly everyone thinks that his example of the superiority of line vs column – Maida – is outdated or incorrect (although it may provide evidence for the 2-deep line vs 3-deep argument…)

I feel that Maj Snort has comprehensively demolished Nafziger's theory for why the British adopted 2-deep line, but some posters here continue to rehearse his "small battalions" argument.

Which of these three types did you mean, Kevin?

Regards

This may help:

PDF PDF link

ROFL

Kevin, I'm guessing anything NOT by Dave Hollins and therefore not translated from the original ancient carpathian german dialect? :)

You know, in the end, surely all Dave Hollins, Peter H, Steven Smith et al are saying is that one needs to read all the primary sources in all the relevant languages to get a really comprehensive view of any part of the Napoleonic War, be it written in ancient Carpathian German or not?

Regards

WW,

Those are great. However, a listing of the books might be helpful, don't you think?

Sincerely,
K

WW,

'You know, in the end, surely all Dave Hollins, Peter H, Steven Smith et al are saying is that one needs to read all the primary sources in all the relevant languages to get a really comprehensive view of any part of the Napoleonic War, be it written in ancient Carpathian German or not?'

No one author can probably do that, but you never know.

Is there a listing of these documents?

The most comprehensive listing of source material that I know of in a variety of languages is Don Horward's Bibliography that came out in 1986 and there has been a lot of material since them.

The most up-to-date, though not comprehensive, list of sources is the Recommended Reading List in the Esposito/Elting Atlas that was redone in 1999 by Greenhill.

K

'ANYTHING you might have researched would not be approved by Dave, of course, regardless of the source. Even if you found it in the archives of the K&K Imperial War Museum in Vienna.'

I'm afraid, NS, that I would have to agree with you here. I'd go one step further, though. If I agreed with him on any subject, Napoleonic or no, there would be some type of counter that would negate the agreement. That has actually happened in an oblique sort of way. I reviewed his excellent Osprey on the Austrian artillery and he had it deleted from Amazon. The review was excellent-four stars out of five. Interesting, isn't it?

K

Charles Esdaile's "Fighting Napoleon", and John Tone's "The Fatal Knot", for example. They are not exactly outdated, but both authors made some serious mistakes. Tone, for example, based his analysis on the social structures of Navarrese guerrillas on the procedence of the individuals that occupied leadership positions. Since his book was published in 1994, new analysis, using sources that inform us about the rank and file that formed the guerrillas, have proved that albeit the leadership came from the Montaña -as Tone said-, the rank & file were recruited mainly from the Ribera (Lower Navarre). That has debunked Tone's theory that the success of Navarrese guerrillas was based on the structures of property of the land in the Montaña (Navarrese highlands).

Esdaile's book (published in 2005) was based in a range of sources that gave a too one-sided view about the guerrillas, which leaded Esdaile to dismiss the partisans contribution to the war in Spain. He also took a too narrow interpretation on the topic: his rationale was that as the guerrillas were tactically inferior to the French -which they were- their impact in the war was negilible. What he didn't realize is that to measure how a guerrilla warfare influences operations, other factors besides their tactical prowess must be considered (for example, how many enemy troops they were holding in rear areas; how big investment in money and resources they forced to make to the enemy, ecc).

What I mean is that every single book of history, no matter how well researched it is, will be outdated as soon as new evidences forces us to reconsider the author's conclussions.

Best regards

Bas,

Thanks for the great input. It is duly noted.

I have just received a new book by Michael Broers, Napoleon's Other War, which was just published last year. On page 53, the first line of the first paragraph reads:

'When Napoleon went to his first major command as a general, in 1796, he found the Army of the Alps-soon to be the Army of Italy-in a sorry state…'

The Army of the Alps and the Army of Italy were two separate armies in 1796 and were not joined or renamed. That information has been in print for centuries now…

Sincerely,
K

Kevin,

Just to be clear, how many and/or how big do the errors or omissions have to be before they would get on the list?

Perhaps, a positive recommended reading list, of books that aren't outdated or inaccurate might be a little easier?

Regards

WW,

I actually have no idea. I believe that each list would be about equal length. Every book has errors in it, but that shouldn't negate the entire book.

What I'm interested in are those that have been referred to on the forum and not named as I am curious whether or not any are in my library.

When I met Col Elting in 1989 I completely redid my library collection based on his comments and recommendations which is why I have never used Thiers, Jomini, Bourrienne (as examples) for reference material and have used material such as Marmont very carefully.

I actually gutted my library over the next year of half of what I had and began to rebuild. I think I've done a pretty good job, but the oblique references on the forum by some posters about unnamed books that have been proven wrong isn't very helpful and I am just curious about which books are being referred to.

Of course, anything along the lines of the excellent information that Bas submitted is great and duly noted.

Sincerely,
Kevin

You want a list of

either outdated or incorrect material and books

this should be interesting..

Would you consider your Artillery of the Napoleonic wars?

We had some discussion of errors in Nafziger's Borodino OB, see here – TMP link

Mark,

Though I consider this nothing but baiting on your part, I have no problem with discussing the errors in the text. The book, however, is not outdated if that is what you're attempting to infer.

K

K

Yes sorry, I couldn't help myself, just that its another bizarre thread to start, as a stand alone thread question its a non starter, everyone has their own opinions on this.

I'm sure you know exactly what books, material is being referred to when this has come up in different threads, and these will be different depending on the topic and the person, so maybe you are the one whose motives should be in question?

Mark,

I don't think so. First, if anyone is going to allude to material being wrong or outdated, then it would benefit everyone to name the material in question. Discussion would undoubtedly result and that is a good thing.

There has already been a few good postings to that effect, especially by Bas. And the references to George Nafziger's material is also helpful.

It isn't wise to assume that every question has a hidden or nefarious motive behind it.

K

I think I've done a pretty good job, but the oblique references on the forum by some posters about unnamed books that have been proven wrong isn't very helpful and I am just curious about which books are being referred to.

Ah, I understand. You mean the references by Dave Hollins, mainly? I took it to mean the works of Scott Bowden, Col Elting and yourself, plus the works of Petre and Chandler (to some degree); oh, and Rothenberg and Seaton directly on the Austrians. I'd guess that he would include Siborne as well, although not his primary interest. However I'm sure that Dave Hollins himself wouldn't mind being specific. IIRC he has commented on the inaccuracy of Scott Bowden directly in some threads.

Regards

WW,

Not particularly-there are plenty of unnamed sourcing to go round, I think. I'm just as guilty of it as anyone else I suppose. If all of us were more specific, as Bas was, that would be very helpful to all of us.

Sincerely,
K

This book is bang up to date: link

Kevin

Although I agree that Thiers, Jomini or Bourrienne had agendas that distorted the truth in their works, I wouldn't dismiss them out of hand. Once you know what is the agenda promoted by an author, you can use his books too. For instance, they can be used to understand how the opposition interpreted the Revolution and the Empire, both liberal (Thiers) and monarchic (Jomini or Bourrienne, whose works are representative of how the Restoration tried to depict Napoleon's Empire). That has a value on its own, even if only to serve you as a Devil's advocate that defies your own propositions, forcing you to check your ideas until they are as adjusted as possible to the historical truth.

That's why I value very high Esdaile's book on the guerrilla. Even with all its flaws, his book serves as a touchstone against which I can measure the validity of my own research. And, of course, his story has some valid points. I would be foolish to ignore them.

Best regards

Bas,

Good points. Thanks.

Sincerely,
Kevin

I find that people, who dismiss memoires, do so simply because they do not like them. They all quote Bourienne on Montebello sayimg that he heard that bones cracked like glass in a hailstorm before dismissing him. Indeed they cannot agree on him – Elting dismisses him as worthless, whinle Cronin says he only uses some memoirs including bourienne, when they are corroborated (well, apply the same standard to all works) or they "cannot possibly be wrong". It is poor technique and makes no sense.

As regards outdated, it is difficult to be specific – Seaton is obviously OOD, but others like Haythornthwaite are not likely to be replaced, although you probably could assemble all the info from various books and sites now. I expect that Chandler and Elting would be directing new versions of their works in the light of the work of the last 30 years, but we are not now likely to see them replaced.

Some books like Rothenberg can be viewed as OOD simply because the influences (or Ruling Theory) under which they were written, have now evaporated, but again, will we see a physical replacement.

All the above will contain inaccuracies, but that is not the same as some of the interesting collections of footnotes and bibliographies we have seen lately.

SJDonovan,

Very Good!

Mr Kiley,

The history book that cannot be revised, corrected or updated has not yet been written and never will.

Bill

You are correct, but that isn't the question.

Your answer is a given, and has already been stated, ad nauseum by many on the forums including myself.

However, there are books/references that have been alluded to but not named and I was interested in what those books were.

K

SJDonovan

You seem to have a thing for trolls? And you might not be alone since it appears to have pleased XV Brigada. But yes, Trolls are okay. However, they are certainly not as good as elves, especially those in Lord of the Rings. I'd side with them any day against any of your trolls.

Mr Kiley,

Well if it is a given you have your answer I think.

Bill

No, not really, at least not from what you've posted. Do you have any suggested titles or authors?

K

Kevin, it is quite clear from XV's posting that he means ALL history books ever written (which are somewhat too many to put in a list on TMP!!!).

You even said you agreed with him (it was "a given"). And I agree with you both.

Arteis,

I would have liked some solid input instead of what he did answer. It doesn't lead to further discussion, unfortunately.

K

But it specifically answers your question:

Q: "There has been much mention on the forum of either outdated or incorrect material and books. However, the books or material is usually seldom or never mentioned themselves, usually/always in the abstract. Does anyone have a list?"

A. "The history book that cannot be revised, corrected or updated has not yet been written and never will." In other words, EVERY book is or will be outdated or contain incorrect material.

These are of course too many to list. So, no, we don't have a list.

There are of course many other threads on TMP which do drill down to comments about specific books. You yourself have identified outdated or incorrect material in other authors' works, and likewise they have done so to yours. The problem is how these comments are delivered on the one hand, and how they are accepted on the other. They should be merely par for the course, given politely and accepted gracefully for assessment, as part of the ongoing historical research process.

Kevin,

your problem is not that many books are to a certain extent wrong and outdated, your problem is how to handle these issues. Your requested list of books would only be a tool, which is IMHO completely useless without proper methodology.

In many fields of hard science it is quite simple: you do not use books to support important conclusions but you use peer-reviewed papers and often you can reproduce or confirm primary data with your own experiments :-).

This nice situation of course does not exists in most fields of historiography, where you usually have to work with a fragmentary data set. However, many SOPs of hard science can still be used when writing a work that covers aspects of history. Your problem IMHO is not that you use books, it is how you use them.

Kevin,

I don't know what specific books you mean so I can't give you any solid input. Perhaps you'd like to mail me a complimentary copy of one of yours and I will happily look at the historiography for you:-)

Bill

This is silly.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Mr. Hollins made an interesting point about memoirs, that they should not be dismissed so easily. I agree completely, and saying that, I would very much like to hear his views on Marbot's memoirs? Or is it going to be a case of only specific memoirs that should not be dismissed, perhaps those which agree with certain viewpoints on certain Napoleonic characters? Just a thought, not a bait, so Hollins fans please remain calm.

John,

Here's what Col Elting said about Marbot, which I thought interesting:

'These famous memoirs are an inextricable misture of invaluable and colorful stories of army life-and of howling cock and bull inventions. Marbot saw much service. He was aide-de-camp to Bernadotte, Lannes, Augereau, and Massena, and commanded a cavalry regiment in 1812-1813. Even some of his biggest whackers muct have a small basis of truth-few Frenchmen have challenged them-possible because they, too, had wonderful old-soldier stories to tell.'

Vincent Cronin said this about Bourrienne and his memoirs:

'Louis-Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne was the same age as Napoleon, with whom he attended Brienne and the Ecole Militaire. Then he left the army to become a diplomat. He studied languages in Germany and married a German girl. In 1797 Napoleon appointed him his secretary. But Bourrienne had what Napoleon called 'a magpie's eye' and began to embezzle. When Napoleon gave Hortense a Paris house as a wedding present, Bourrienne paid half a million francs for the house but charged it to Napoleon as one million. He passed on news of Napoleon's doings to an interested party for 25,000 francs a month. Napoleon had to dismiss him in 1802, but sent him in 1804 to Hamburg as charge d'affaires. Here Bourrienne carried on a profitable trade in forged passports and illegal exactions. A special investgation commission found, in 1810, that Bourrienne had embezzled 2 million francs. Napoleon removed Bourrienne from his post and ordered him to repay back half the sum.'

'At the fall of France Bourrienne hurried to Talleyrand, who, on 1 April 1814, had him appointed Minister of Post, whle the Provisional Government cancelled the order whereby he must repay a million francs. Later Bourrienne became Minister of State. But he continued to speculate, lost his job, and in order to escape his creditors, fled to Brussels. A publisher named Ladvocat persuaded him to write his Memoirs as a way of paying his debts, brought him to Paris and installed him in a small room. But Bourrienne wrote nothing. All he did was to make notes on which, later, the first two volumes were based. As for the eight other volumes, they were ghosted by Maxime de Villemarest, a failed diplomat turned journalist, an indefatigible 'ghoster' of memoirs-he even worked up the notes of Mademoiselle Avrillon, Josephine's chambermaid-and an admirer of Talleyrand, whose Life he was also to write. In 1834 Bourrienne died in a lunatic asylum.'

'So the Memoirs which appeared under Bourrienne's name between 1828 and 1830 and for which he was paid 6,000 francs were hardly more than a travesty of Napoleon's life cooked up for Louis XVIII's reading public, the tone of them set by a bitter personal enemy, whose mind was already becoming unhinged. This became quite plain in 1830, when a group of men headed by Comte Boulay de La Meurthe pointed out the main factual mistakes in a book of 720 pages: Bourrienne et ses erreurs. It would never have got past the French sensors, and was published in Brussels.'

'The most ironical falsehood in Bourrienne's Memoirs is the statement that Napoleon had no friends and cared nothing for friendship. The truth is that Napoleon went to great pains to hush up the scandal of Bourrienne's embezzlements, and it was precisely out of loyalty to a boyhood friend that he did not publicly disgrace Bourrienne, first in 1802, then in 1810.'

'In Bourrienne's Memoirs it is said that when he went to Egypt Napoleon had already decided to make himself ruler of France, and was merely biding his time. This of course tallied with the legend already put out by the Bourbons that Napoleon was an upstart driven from first to last by ambition for supreme power. The statement in Bourrienne is belied by all contemporary evidence, but has done more to bedevil interpretation of Napoleon's character than almost any other single error.'

Also interesting are Cronin's comments on Marmont:

'Another who betrayed Napoleon is Marshal Marmont. In writing his Memoirs, which were published in 1856, four years after his death, Marmont tried to justify his treachery in the only way open to him: by presenting Napoleon as a despot, who at all costs had to be overthrown. He gives us few new details, only generalized abuse. For example, under the year 1812 he depicts Napoleon as 'blase, indifferent to everything, believing in facts only when they agree with his passions, interests, and whims, satanically proud and utterly scorning all men.' His view of Napoleon has always been treated with suspicion, for by the time he came to write his memoirs, Marmont's name had passed into the French language as a synonym for 'traitor', much like Quisling's in World War II.'

Interesting material from two Napoleonic scholars who obviously did their homework.

Sincerely,
Kevin

And now tell us how Elting and Cronin discuss their general treatment of memoirslike Bourienne's.

This is of course the same Cronin, who tells us that he believes everything N said, without any corroboration – hardly the mark of a scholar, more an apologist.

Marmont will also tell you how the news of N's victory at Aboukir preceded his return in 1799.

You

mean Interesting material from two Napoleonic scholars

whose opinions and conclusions you obviously agree with…. I would rather read Marmont, Bourrienne, Marbot, Thiers etc and come to my own conclusions on what is good or bad, they certainly shouldn't be ignored.

"your problem is not that many books are to a certain extent wrong and outdated, your problem is how to handle these issues. Your requested list of books would only be a tool, which is IMHO completely useless without proper methodology."

Exactly

Kevin,

>Interesting material from two Napoleonic scholars who obviously did their homework.<

How do you know they did "their homework".

From the point of view of methodology you are very weak in my view where assessment of the worth of sources is concerned. From what I have seen of your approach here your acceptance of information seems to me to be based largely on whether they agree with your preconceptions or not. One of the core principals of historical methodology is constant challenging of sources and the search for confirmation from as many others as possible, including those that one might consider unreliable. You also accept secondary source much too readily in my view.

Kevin

Great posting Kevin. I think people need to be aware of why some memoirs were written or rather, possibly written by others, before listening to the rubbish thrown out by Hollins and his followers. Although Elting had it spot on when he suggested there were probably elements of truth within many memoirs, you do have to be careful with Bourrienne, since it appeared he didn't actually write them himself. And it is sadly so clear why Mr, Hollins dislikes Cronin. It is simply because he said something positive about Napoleon. And that, sadly, is all it takes to push you to the 'other' side, as far as Mr, Hollins is concerned. But his jealousy of other, better authors, is becoming tiring now and far too obvious. He actually believes that if he doesn't like an author no one else should like them! Unbelievable! That is an insult to every Napoleonic enthusiast, including his followers.

To give an example of very bad methology

Duffy wrote a second edition about the Prussian Army of the 7YW – in his introduction he clearly states that the old first edition was full of errors and that he had to revise his conception a lot.

So it would be approbriate using the 2nd edition of Duffy to make up ones opinion.

Still people like 10th Marines, for example – continue to quote Duffy (forgetting to mention that they quote the faulty first edition – because it suits their whim).

Another example, 10th Marines quotes DeScheel and when asking about the quote where to find it, he admits that he has it not at hand but uses Toussard!!!

So it isw really down how to handle sources as Ulenspiegel wrote.

Bandit,

Silly? Yes indeed and getting sillier by the moment I'm afraid.

Bill

VW,

You are, as usual, incorrect. I have the second edition of Duffy (I have both as a matter of fact) and I have quoted from that edition, as you have been told more than once on the forums.

I have both DeScheel and Tousard and quote from both when and if necessary when discussing period artillery.

Your 'analysis' and comments are faulty. Perhaps you should pay more attention?

K

'your problem is not that many books are to a certain extent wrong and outdated, your problem is how to handle these issues. Your requested list of books would only be a tool, which is IMHO completely useless without proper methodology.'

I'll take your comments at face value and assume they are not pejorative or accusatory in nature. However, at least one poster took them as accusatory.

The question I posed isn't about methodology at all. You have misinterpreted what I thought was a very simple question-that being, with some referneces being referred to without naming the source material, comments are being made to their inherent inaccuracies. Is that better posed?

K

'From the point of view of methodology you are very weak in my view where assessment of the worth of sources is concerned. From what I have seen of your approach here your acceptance of information seems to me to be based largely on whether they agree with your preconceptions or not. One of the core principals of historical methodology is constant challenging of sources and the search for confirmation from as many others as possible, including those that one might consider unreliable. You also accept secondary source much too readily in my view.'

Horse pucky.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but what you have written or accused me of is nonsense. I usually use for research purposes, both primary and secondary material, which is what most people do use. All you're doing here is making a pejorative accusation that adds nothing to the discussion as well as potentially alienating people.

Why are you doing this? Is it merely baiting or you wish to pick a fight? Neither is proper and it reflects badly on yourself.

K

KFK wrote: "However, at least one poster took them as accusatory."

If critism of your discussion style per se is perjorative, an obvious and constructive solution is to change your discussion style.

Of course, less demanding, less ego damaging, but also
less rewarding is the use of the stifle function. :-)

Or, on the other hand, moderate your 'fury' and attempt to be polite.

You can 'correct' someone else or offer opinions without being either rude or pejorative. After all, its only an opinion.

K