"Outdated/Incorrect Material/Books" Topic

John,

It is interesting that your question on Marbot wasn't answered.

I've had Cronin's biography on Napoleon since it came out in 1972 in its US edition. I have never seen Cronin, at least not in the subject biography, say that he believed everything that Napoleon said. And I reread the preface and the notes today to check.

If anyone has seen Cronin say that, I'd really like to see a citation.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Mr Kiley,

I don't need to be told I am entitled to an opinion.

You really do have great difficulty with criticism don't you. I had to look up 'horse pucky'. You have a nerve telling anybody to be polite and I suggest that you find a better way of communicating. If this is 'normal' behaviour it may explain the relationship with your tutors and a great many people on this forum.

You evidently have a very high opinion of yourelf and are unreceptive to any views other than your own so that is the end of it as far as I am concerned.

Yours W Hickey

Well… Memoirs are only as valuable as there are other documentary evidence that corroborates them. If you find documents that confirms what the memorialist wrote, you can be pretty certain that his/her statements are more or less correct. But if you don't find those documents, then you must take everything with utmost caution, pointing that particular problem to your readers.

At least, that's what my PhD director told me when I went too carried on with Roguet's Memoirs (Roguet's musings fit my hypothesis, but my PhD director forced me to be cautious until I found other evidence that supported Roguet's).

Best regards

XV Brigada

How can anyone believe what you say now, after you have just stated that you had to look up 'horse pucky'. Kevin must have fell of his chair laughing!

basileus66

Yes, if you can corroborate what is mentioned in a memoir with other sources, it makes the memoir more credible. But I suppose, if you can't, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the memoir itself was wrong. Those writing accounts and histories may not have witnessed what the memoir writer had. As for non-memoir sources, you usually find that most of them offer different narratives and contain things others don't. It is always best to have and read as many accounts and memoirs as possible, concerning any aspect of an historical period.

Gazzola

You are right that it can be correct ('can' being the opperative word), but you must be cautious. For example, in many memories of French soldiers in Spain, their descriptions of the Inquisition were almost identical. The words changed, but the bottom line was the same. As several memoirs coincided in the narrative, you would be justified to guess that there is more than a grain of truth. Well, the problem is that when you dig a little bit deeper, you will find that all of them were writing exactly the same stories that had been written by French novelists and encyclopedists since 1750s! i.e. those memorialists had subsummed in their experience what they had read or been told long before they even entered Spain.

That's just one example of many. The problem with memoirs -as any cop or lawyer used to cross witnesses can tell you- is that events -even traumathic ones- trend to fade very fast from memory. In other cases, you can't even be sure that the witnesses are telling you what they actually saw, or what they heared afterwards and assumed they saw.

Moreover, sometimes historians assume that the meanings -the deep, cultural meanings- of the stories were the same back then, than today. That's another trap. You need to know exactly what the author intended when he/she wrote what she/he wrote. Who was her public. Which was his background. His ethics and her vision of how the world worked or he thought it should work. It can be frustrating, but also it's one of the parts of the historian trade that I love most: to actually try to know another human being, even if separated from him for hundreds of years. It's like to bring them back to live.

That's why memories must be treated with caution. Not that they have not value at all. That would be going too far. But you must be aware of all their shortcomings and don't take any memoir as if it was the Gospel.

Best regards

Bill,

There are two types of criticism: constructive and destructive. You apparently tend towards the latter which is evident in almost all of your postings on this forum.

You apparently like to 'dish it out' but apparently when someone strikes back in kind, you can't take that and you take immediate offense. Perhaps some reflection on your postings might help.

Most of your postings deal in comments to others that really don't contribute to the discussion. No member has all of his postings that do contribute materially to the discussion, but it appears that the overwhelming majority of yours tend to be either condescending, pejorative, or accusatory. A good portion of them are also rude.

That is why I responded in kind. If you treat others with respect you'll get it in return. Perhaps you should try that method?

K

Seems to me he is one of those Oh! "what do you call them",
'Flat-Earth-Creationists', that's it! in his own mind.

James

James,

Funny that he wouldn't answer who he meant when he made that comment, too, isn't it?

Sincerely,
Kevin

Mr Kiley,

I despise the use of low language not criticism. You might think that it's alright to use obscenities but I do not and you are right that I object to it. I have no objection to the rest of your post even though it is incorrect.

There were no obscenities used. Grow up.

K

We clearly do not share the same standards of behaviour.

Clearly its Kevin's Thread and if you don't like the
standards then don't participate in the thread than
we won't have this bantering back and forth.

James

James, Was just about to post something very similar!

shame on you XV Brigada, just say something nice about Cronin or Napoleon or Kevin and you can stay.

Mark – I'm still waiting for the list with anticipation
an abated breath, aren't you?

James

basileus66

I think we're virtually saying the same thing, concerning memoirs. Sadly, there is a level of mistrust created about them over the years, especially French ones. However, as for the writing of those writing the memoirs all being similar to what novelists have written, perhaps that would suggest they found certain aspects of Spain to still be the same?
Yes, memories fade but war is different. It can be such an horrific experience that what soldiers saw and experienced stays with them as if it happened yesterday. Soldiers in modern day wars have said the same. But, as you say, you still have to be cautious. There are still those that may have exaggerated elements or even invented them for effect. I think it is also interesting knowing about the writer and why they were writing, but sadly, I don't think that is always possible.

Kevin

You don't really expect these clowns to grow up, do you? I think the term you employed 'horse pucky' really baffled them. It was obviously way above their intelligence level. One even posted he had to look it up! Can you believe that? I hope you didn't hurt yourself falling off the chair laughing? My sides are still aching.

James, not sure about your last post or the flat earth one, are you having a go at XV Brigada? I wasn't.

Abated or baited?

this thread has gone downhill rapidly, not that it ever got very high up anyway.

Not waiting for any lists, think that has been answered, as i said before all a bit bizarre.

basileus66,

IIRC Oman found something similar in British first-hand accounts about the Peninsular War; when they hadn't actually seen something themselves but needed something to keep the story going, the first-hand writers would incorporate bits of Napier.

Regards

Not waiting for any lists, think that has been answered, as i said before all a bit bizarre.

I'm taking it seriously. I don't have loads of time for TMP at the moment, but if life slows down a bit and I do get to re-read some older Napoleonic threads where undefined claims of inaccuracy and obsolescence have been made, I'll try to remember to at least post the links here. I honestly can't see what was wrong with Kevin's question.

Regards

Mark/James,

Fair enough. There is nothing of much worth on this thread and I agree there never was. Let's be honest it was just a rather transparent ploy by Kevin to draw out Dave Hollins and anybody else who doesn't think much of Kevin's favourite books/authors into a flame. That at least is how I see it.

Cronin? Never read him. Napoleon? His record speaks for itself. Kevin? His record speaks for itself too:-)

Bill

That being the case, why are you posting on this thread and obviously wasting your time?

K

Mark

I was talking about the list of Outdated/Incorrect
Material/Books what the thread is about but you answered the
Question.

Yes that was a poke at XV as he is boring the hell out of me and
has just confirmed he is a Dave Hollin's "acolyte" not much of a
surprise.

Regards
James

James

I tend to agree with a lot of what XV Brigada and DH write (now his posts are so much better than the old days), but that doesn't make me an "acolyte" (or XV Brigada) I can also agree with things KK says but not so much recently, especially on the use of sources and research, but would support him on the staff topic.

This business about material & books, surely the best time to 'discuss them' is on the relevant thread and with the appropriate people who are making the comments.

What Kevin actually asked for was a list of titles that had been inferred but not mentioned by name in other threads as being outdated and/or incorrect, I honestly have no idea who, what or the threads that he is talking about, so my contribution here has not been very constructive.

Ok! Mark say I agree with you, but isn't this exactly what
Dave does to Kevin "baits him" and has for years and draws
others in such as XV. Maybe Kevin's sick of being Mr. Nice
guy and I for one don't blame him.

I have had my knocks with Dave here and elsewhere that's
why I am on stifle by him here.

If the problem is with DH & KK leave it that way and
everyone else stay out of it, that would include me.

Regards
James

Mark and James,

I'm sorry if I am boring and I can see why it might be this is after all a wargaming site and to be honest is my principal reason for visiting it (not just Napoleonic) though I get more from it than I contribute. I am not Dave Hollin's ‘acolyte' and have not even met the man. He certainly has my support here mainly because in my view he seems to be in command of his subject. His Ospreys which are all I have read by him are as far as one can see based on good research and his sources are pretty comprehensive and there is no reason to suppose that he ‘inflated' them or faked them and his conclusions usually have a logical trail to them.

I have not read Kevin Kiley except in a articles on the web and here and although he might be a perfectly reasonable person in the real world he is anything but reasonable here where he has never been "Mr Nice Guy" and it is not a matter of discussion with him but simply a case of ‘not invented here' and ‘you are incorrect'. This is in part because he seems to start with a conclusion and has made his mind up about a subject before he even investigates it and then sets out to prove his conclusion which is poor methodology. I am not going to reiterate my criticism of his use of sources.

The books asked for were not in my view just any old books but those unidentified directly and indirectly essentially by Dave Hollins and anybody who has followed these threads will know what they are I think. He was not I think inferring anything and knows exactly what they are. I have already said what I think his motive was.

Bill

Also what is this acolyte rubbish??

XV Brigada is able to make up his own mind – just read his posts.

Obviously some contributors run out of arguments and as a lost ditch resort are building up smoke screens by classifying acolytes

By the way I fully agree with XV Brigade about the weak methology.

That is precisely what it is – another smokescreen: you are x's mate, thus I will not address the point you raise.

Kevin

Why waste your valuable time with Hypocrite Hollins worshippers? They are just not worth it. They all accuse you of doing something they do all the time, and then have the nerve to complain that you are doing it! But I guess you have to laugh. They're not worth anything else but a laugh.

"Also what is this acolyte rubbish"

Tit for

"Flat-Earth-Creationists"

Tat!

since you need to ask.

I am afraid I used the 'Flat-Earth-Creationist' term simply as shorthand to describe all those who have made their minds up and are resistant to any new ideas. I don't represent anybody other than myself. I am not the 'mate' of anybody on this site and there is no need for any 'tit for tat'.

Bill

'By the way I fully agree with XV Brigade about the weak methology.'

Then, perhaps, you could give some examples? The usual ad hominem comments by you and a few others. Bill and Mark in particular, on topics such as this are not only not helpful, but they are obfuscations that only serve to confuse or condemn, not illuminate.

K

Gazzola wrote "Kevin, You don't really expect these clowns to grow up, do you? I think the term you employed 'horse pucky' really baffled them. It was obviously way above their intelligence level. One even posted he had to look it up! Can you believe that? I hope you didn't hurt yourself falling off the chair laughing? My sides are still aching."

Well if they ever want an example in a dictionary to explain conceited, arrogant, pompous and bigot that would be perfect.

I suppose you have never had to look a word or phrase up in your life? You were presumably born with the gift of tongues, and believe that someone who does not know a phrase is less intelligent than yourself? Hitler would have loved you and soon given you a job.

I don't know any of the parties on here and can only go on the posts and to anyone with any common sense and life experience it is clear that XV Brigade's analysis of the motives for this thread is spot on.

badwargamer

I think you need to cool down!

I apologise if I sounded arrogant, but come on, you didn't know what 'Horse pucky' meant. LOL.

It was so clear what it meant and I think you're just trying to have a pop at me by making a mountain out of a molehill. Shame on you. Go sit in the corner with Mr. Hollins.

Gazzola, "mountain out of molehill"? That is surely a case of the pot calling the kettle black! An overview book being dissed because it is an overview book, anyone?!

The sad thing on the Nap boards is that both 'sides' accuse each other of similar failings, but don't recognise the same (or just as bad) failings in their own attitudes.

By the way, while I can probably guess what "horse pucky" means from the context, one should never assume people across the world will understand local idioms.

Arteis

I have asked several people who have no interest in the Napoleonic period or wargaming and they all knew what the saying meant. To them and me, it was so obvious. But although I thought it was pretty obvious, as did many others, I guess there might be those who failed to understand Kevin's polite phrase. I can accept that, just about.

The aim was never to pull down a book, especially a Napoleonic title. I want to see more Napoleonci titles, not less. However, the petty excuses as to why we needed another overview or introduction title, just doesn't wash. They exist already, some with the same title. Perhaps, although it is hard to believe, that whoever came up with the idea was not aware of that?

What we need it more titles like Gill's Thunder on the Danube and Eagles, or rather, Eagles volume 2, covering the COR after 1809. But will we ever get them if publishers continue to offer more introduction titles? I doubt it. And if people just sit back and accept books like the Armies, and ignore its faults because it might upset people, then we don't deserve anything better.

However, the petty excuses as to why we needed another overview or introduction title, just doesn't wash. They exist already, some with the same title.

Of course they exist already! As do detailed books on nearly every topic imaginable related to Napoleonics.

But research brings up new information all the time. What use are overviews if they are only old ones based on outdated research?

New overviews have as much right to be published as more in-depth works. In fact, if overviews remain old and outdated, I think you will eventually see less in-depth single-topic books, as good overviews are probably what initially inspire the interest in the period of the people who will become our future authors.

I'm afraid I (and obviously many others here) just cannot see the point you are trying to make in your ongoing crusade against overview books in general.

…for the record….I don't know what horse pucky is. The world is a big place and not everyone can be all knowing. The bit about everyone should know wasn't the bit that showed your arrogance…it was the part about those who didn't being less intelligent.

Mountain out of a molehill….now it's me falling of my chair laughing……..pot and kettle come to mind.

Part of the purpose was to summarise the current state of knowledge, which is why many of the recent researchers and writers were brought in and despite the small reward, were happy to summarise it. It is different from the Osprey cut and shut of similar title, which obviously covers uniforms, lives of soldiers, kit and campaigns. It is thus complimentary to it as it covers the parts Ospreys do not.

In that way, like the Osprey, it can also be a useful starting point for newer enthusiasts, who do not have to wade through a lot of old overviews, which are now way out of date (to come back to the thread title). We no longer believe in the 18-0-something reaction or that Austria's commanders were all nobles or the Spanish army did nothing.

@ Badwargamer: For the record, it was the first time I had heard that expression, too … though guessing the meaning of it wasn't too hard.

Dave Hollins

If the book was as good as you say it is, then you did not have to write a Vanity Review. The book would sell itself. the fact that you did write one sugegsts you have no confidence in the book, which is basically an insult to the others who did some excellent work, considering they were limited to far less space than you were given.

Arteis

If the book was as good as Mr. Hollins says it is, then there was no need for his Vanity Review, was there? He should apologise for writing it, which is a No-No for authors. Good authors know this. They also have the ability to ignore negative reviews because they know a book will sell itself, if it is good enough.

In my opinion the book has progessed or updated us very little, which is a shame. Kevin Kiley's review is spot on.

I think the Napoleonic market would be better served if we had publishers bringing out titles like Digby Smith's excellent book Napoleon's Regiments, in that we could do with titles that cover the Russians, the Spanish and the Italians armies etc. Plus we need more books like Gill's Thunder on the Danube trilogy but covering other campaigns and an Eagles Volume 2, covering the Confederation of the Rhine after 1809.

We need exciting books that will make both enthusiasts and newcomers want to buy them. Sadly, in my opinion, apart from one or two chapters, the Armies does not do that. Had they included just five armies and given the authors of the lesser known armies more space, then I'm sure the book would have been a hit. It might have sold so well they might have considered doing a second volume on another five armies and so on.

I'm still glad I bought it due to some of the chapters it contains. And I am well aware that some people might want to stick at the introduction level. My only worry is that we will see more of the same, which will certainly damage the market. After all, how many introduction titles do people need?

Arteis

I meant to say in my last postinsg to you, I am not against introduction, overview of basic Napoleonic titles, whatever you want to call them. I am not trying to run a crusade against them. They are needed. I did buy the book, after all.

But in this book, in which 3 authors take up almost 50% of a title, it doesn't leave much room for the other 7 authors to describe their armies, does it? Sorry, but that can't be applauded in any way, despite what Mr. Hollins says. The authors should however, be applauded for their efforts considering the limitations they were under.

I would have really welcomed a title covering 5 armies, which would have given the authors an equal grounding with around 50 pages each, along with the introduction pages, notes and book lists. Imagine what the authors could have included then and I'm sure it would have been a hit. And it might have lead to a second volume containing aother 5 armies. That is the saddest thing, it is a lost opportunity.

Perhaps Mr. Holins and his clan will now let the book sell istelf and stop attacking and abusing those who dared to write negative reviews. And sadly, his reputation has fallen even further by his actions.

Arteis

I meant to say in my last postinsg to you, I am not against introduction, overview or basic Napoleonic titles, whatever you want to call them. I am not trying to run a crusade against them. They are needed. I did buy the book, after all.

But in this book, in which 3 authors take up almost 50% of a title, it doesn't leave much room for the other 7 authors to describe their armies, does it? Sorry, but that can't be applauded in any way, despite what Mr. Hollins says. The authors should however, be applauded for their efforts considering the limitations they were under.

I would have really welcomed a title covering 5 armies, which would have given the authors an equal grounding with around 50 pages each, along with the introduction pages, notes and book list pages. Imagine what the authors could have included then and I'm sure it would have been a hit. And it might have lead to a second volume containing aother 5 armies. That is the saddest thing, it is a lost opportunity.

Perhaps Mr. Holins and his clan will now let the book sell istelf and stop attacking and abusing those who dared to write negative reviews. One can but hope.

The dislike of authors who praise their own works in reviews is not new, as can be seen in an interesting article from 2002:

type in the following:

Authors who write their own five-star reviews – Telelgraph

It states clearly why they did so

I came in late on this one – but aecurtis should have got a posting of the month award !

For a balance. Here is an article of interest to yourself and your review practices.

link

An this one discussed the practice and pro's and cons in detail
link
.

Badwargamer,

Yes, but neither are the same as what David Hollins did. He did not as far as I know put up a fake review to rubbish a competitor's book and he didn't put up a complimentarey review of his own under an assumed name. I can't tell you exactly what he wrote because it was removed, which means somebody objected to Amazon (no prizes for the identity of the 'somebody' I think) but from what other people have posted here Hollins apparently made his interest crystal clear so there was no subterfuge involved and no possibility that a reader would be mislead.

Walsh on the other hand although transparent as far as identity is concerned clearly in my view set out to rubbish the book before it was published and also in my view hoped he would get a massive wave of support to censure Hollins from what he probably perceived as a significant proportion of sympathetic participants on the Nap Boards.

Although I tend to think that Hollins was ill advised to post his review on Amazon I think there are elements in the other two reviews, Kiley's in particular, that breach Amazon's rules, but are typical of what I have observed here and elsewhere.

Bill

XV Brigada

Please try getting your facts right.

Firstly, Mr. Hollins 5 star Vanity Review was removed because it broke Amazon procedures. Good authors do not write themselves 5 star reviews and he knew that. What is more depressing however, is that, for some reason, Mr. Hollins converted a comment into a review so he could award himself 5 stars. I wonder why? He should have let the book sell itself, which I'm sure it will.

Secondly, I did not rubbish the book before it came out. I voiced my worries about a forthcoming small title that was going to attempt to cover 10 armies. Sadly, buying the book and reading it only confirmed my fears. For a start, the authors were not given an equal playing field, and three authors ended up with nearly 50% of the pages, let alone the pages lost to the introduction, notes and book lists.

The authors with the limited space still did a good job, considering the limitations and some of the chapters are well worth reading, especially the Confederation of the Rhine and the Spanish chapters.

Mr. Hollins tries to make out the review was written in spite. Really? He is just one of 10 authors. To think the review was written just to get at him sadly suggests he is full of his own self-importance. He just happened to have the most pages, otherwise he would not have been mentioned at all.

But I guess people will believe what they want to believe, no matter what I say. Personally I think Mr. Hollins and his followers should move on and let the book sell itself or not, whatever the case may be. That is what good authors do. They let their work do the talking. And the book does contain some good bits.

Bill and Bad,

There used to be a section called "I am the author" where you could address issues raised. This has gone, so what else can I do. I made no secret of who I was and talked about the book – you have to give a rating to get a review publsihed and given the malicious nonsense, 5 seemed an appropriate balance. Given the limitations of the format, I think evceryone did a good job and I am finding the other sections most interesting and helpful – I never thought i would read much about the Spanish army!