"how low can an author go to sell a book" Topic

151 !

This book is going to be massive with everyone checking it out !

Must be one of the top topics over on Amazon by now.

Ok..after taking the mick out of the rabid anti Hollins campaign. I propose to give a sensible suggestion. As someone whe regularly mediates between parties I suggest the following. It is a two part simple peace process.

1)Mr Hollins apologises for giving a 5 star review, even though he will probably feel this is unecessary as he feels it was justified to balance the other biased reviews.

2)Kevin whatever his name was and Gazzer remove their blatanly biased and anti Hollins reviews and leave a level playing feeled for genuine customers to review. They may not want to and may feel that there reviews are justified, but I think that it is clear they are biased.

This will take courage and loss of face on both sides. One side could say, I will if he will, but it will take a real man to do the above without waiting for the other to do their part.

Or this thread could carry on for ever. Either is fine for me….and their will always be another one along anytime soon.

Just my suggestion.

@ Peterborough WGC

I'm glad to hear it. And remember it is the tackler's responsibility to return the tacklee to the ground. I'd hate for you to get sin-binned.

Excellent suggestion, Badwargamer. Let us see which of them are man enough. I have my doubts … I've been down this road before.

I agree-it is an excellent suggestion and I will be more than happy to do it if Mr. Hollins stops his ad hominem attacks and stops accusing me of making up material and bibliographies, all of which accusations are incorrect.

All of that material must be withdrawn and an apology offered in order to carry out the agreement. If the agreement works I'd be more than happy to apologize, though I have not addressed Mr. Hollins in years.

I tried this once before on another forum, suggesting it myself, but it didn't work-offering to Mr. Hollins that we both shake hands, so to speak, and carry on, even attempting to work together if need be. I am more than willing to give it another try, under the conditions above.

I have not attacked Mr. Hollins, but I did point out his historical errors in the book, which I have done before. I did the same with the author of the French and British chapters in the book. My review was honest, and if Mr. Hollins hadn't advertised the book in question himself, I wouldn't have taken notice of it.

Sincerely,
K

Probably the best thing, Kevin, would be if you totally refrained from pointing out Dave's errors, and he totally refrained from pointing out yours. Just make your own cases, and forget about pulling down those of others.

We all know what each of you think are the other's errors, anyway (ad infinitum). So there is no value at all in either of you pointing out the other's mistakes, as all it does is keeps the long-standing feud running.

Anyway, good call, Kevin. Now it is over to you and Gazzola to cancel your reviews, and also Dave to do his bit, as Badwargamer has suggested so far as this particular issue is concerned. Pulling your review unilaterally, without placing conditions on Dave doing his bit, would really show your commitment.

Arteis,

The best thing for everybody is to not get personal, attacking or not. That is my objection. I could care less if there is agreement on whatever issue is at hand. Any issue should be able to be discussed without resorting to personal comments or attacks-and respect is an issue.

There are plenty of historians that I do respect and don't agree with on certain points, and the same the other way round-but personal attacks are not part of the process. And all of us make errors from time to time.

That's one of the major problems here-there are too many personal attacks, and accusations from different members against other members that are just not accurate at all as well as insulting-and all of them are unnecessary. That has to stop. If it doesn't, it is just going to get worse for nothing good as an end game. And Mr. Hollins isn't the only one guilty of that here.

By the way, if anyone needs to talk to me off-line, my home email is Boulart198@yahoo.com

Sincerely,
K

'Pulling your review unilaterally, without placing conditions on Dave doing his bit, would really show your commitment.'

And the only result of that would be the review would be gone. This should be a quid pro quo game as there has been too much said about me on this forum that is inaccurate and insulting and I'd like that to stop with a rendered apology.

I'm more than willing to meet anyone half-way, but the nonsense and inaccurate accusations need to stop.

Sincerely,
K

I don't thonk I have anything to apologise for.

The first hatchet job was simply vitriol designed to fulfil some inadequacy of its author, whose aim in part was simply to stop people reading the book. There is a particular problem here as Osprey have a similar product under a similar name – I suspect the reviewer's intention was to confuse people into buying the Osprey (which obviously includes some of my own work) thinking it was the superior of two works on the same topics. I thus wrote a commentary – which either Walsh or Kiley saw fit to complain about – which talked about what the book covered to remove that confusion, while saying who I was. readers can make up on their own minds then – if these two revealed theior own agendas, maybe readers would get a balanceed view too! I would ask you all to consider how you would feel to see your work trashed on the Net – not because the revioewers know anything about the subject, but merely tho massage their own pathetioc hatreds. A lot of people worked hard to bring the hobby a book, which serves both as an introduction to the subjects and summarises the current state of knowledge. That does not make the book immune from criticism, but it should bring a rational thought or two rather than deranged bile.

Nobodt really complained about the text – merely the 5 stars. Well, you have to award something and given the
confsuin with the osprey book and the nasty intent of Mr. Walsh, it was simply a balance. I said who I was – readers can draw their own conclusions.

This was of course followed by Kiley's round of spite – listing everyone else as noted authors carries an obvious implication, but taking lessons from him on "historical error" is like listening to Ghaddafi on the subject of democratic protest. It is perhaps no coincidence that the two subjects he specifically addresssed in my chapter were in his own book – on artilelry and a rather bizarre rant (irrelevant to the subject) about staffs (n2 on p.210). I would not work with Kiley on anything – I don't work with people, who fell the need to run deranged campaigns on Amazon and the fora for ten years against work they do not like (he even managed a rant against a rival book on artillery, which he also trashed without mentioning his own interest on Amazon). I do not work with people, who lie about their material, make up key information, invent bibliographies to puff their own status and pass off third hanbd claims as though they are fact, without checking the primary material (or even material in English in thgeor own book!). I know you will say this is my view – but check the facts and then read LWF's post on 28/02 at TMP link

Kiley is well known for taking material out of context – most infamously, citing Don Graves' opinions about Gribeauval (which he has now recanted) as though theyw ere those of de Scheel. In the case of his "peace offer", it came after 5 years of this behaviour, when his own book on artilelry was due to come out. The deal was simply intended to silence my criticism of his poor methodology and exposure of the lies he was putting in print, simply to distort the record. he does not answer questions – although he resorts to some indirect responses, so it is hard to know exactly what he is doing anyway. Every criticism of his woeful efforts is met with the response that it is "ad hominem" to avoid answering those questions.

Itw as only when he trashed DD&s on artillery without mentioing his own interest with the usual half-baked claptrap that I was so incensed as to revioew his book – off he went, whinging to amazon about perosnal attacks. it seems that like many bully boys, he can hand it out, but not take it.

So, please do not be fooled by his act – I have had ten years of this nonsense, but I am not going to let the nutters prevail with their agenda of twisting history and trashing my work, let alone apologise for anything.

If you think I am wrong, ask yourself how you would like it.

Well that went pretty much as expected.I have the same problems with drunks and 13 year old kids. But at least I can sleep easy knowing I tried to keep the peace…….so now it's back to the looney world of Napoleonic 'experts'. Enjoy……

PS Nobody has offered to buy me a pint :-(

Yep. Totally agree, Badwargamer. "It wasn't me, it was him." "No, it was him, he keeps picking on me." Blah, blah, blah.

As I said, I've been here before, trying to mediate, but these guys are impossible. All they've done is convinced me to never buy a Hollins, Kiley, Hofschroer or (if there is such a thing) Walsh book on principle.

Badwargamer,

I have no doubt at all that your suggestion is meant with the best of intentions but involving Mr Kiley in this thread is not a good move. I also think you expect too much of Mr Hollins. He seems to have been on the receiving end over a long period, from one person in particular and his mutual admiration society who are rude ignorant people and as far as I can see don't actually contribute very much. If I were Mr Hollins I think I would also be inclined to tell Mr Kiley to shove it.

Bill

Arteis – you are doing again. You are equating the protagonists as though I should make concessions to someone, who has waged a ten year campaign. Meeting halfway is a nonsense – if people wish to query my work, I will discuss it. Kiley runs away like a coward and refuses to answer – it is pretty serious stuff to mislead your readership (and shows considerable contempt for them) by making things up and presenting materials though it is original work.

As I have said, would you prefer that we all did that, just to keep the peace, and so that we can remain frozen in a timewarp now 30 years old. You are basically telling myself and others not to bother. I tend to think enthusiasts would like tom know what the "news" is.

I will answer Kevin's points:

"And the Austrian chapter fails in two areas-on the Austrian general staff and in the artillery section."
I have read and listed the relevant material (more detail in NV72 on the artilelry). You cannot read German, as your failure to use Germanic material in your own output shows. What therefore is your authority to make this claim.

"The staff section in the Austrian chapter is both confusing and error-ridden."

On what basis do you say that? You cannot read German.

"The role of an army chief of staff is not presented correctly"

It was taken from the NATO description.

"and if close attention is paid to how the Austrian general staff developed during the period, it is quite obvious that they were behind that of the French general staff as organized and run by Marshal Berthier and the Prussian general staff as organized by first Scharnhorst and then Geneisenau."

Read Elting, Napoleon himself, Vachee and Jomini – they all say Berthier had no part in the operational planning and intelligence gathering, while simply do the admin like an 18th century CoS. you may also find Duffy: Instrument p.381 helpful on its origins. the Prussians did not begin theor changes until after 1806 and it was the Austrian staff, which directed Leipzig (as German historian, horsetzky notes). However, the point of the book was to compare what was happening in the various armies and I am quite happy to discuss it further with Oliver, who wrote the Prussian chapter, and peter H. as they have read the relevant material. I have presented the Austrian material as I hope readers will find it new and interesting.

"The chief of staff's major function in an army is to run the staff. The staff's function is to relieve the commander of all detailed work allowing him to command the army."

Yes, it is, but that is why the Allies won and Napoleon ran out of energy.

"If the Austrian general staff, which was not innovative in any way during the period and generally inefficient, was actually organized and run as it is portrayed in the chapter here then it is no wonder that the Austrians had as many command and staff problems as they had in the field, especially in 1809 when, while organized on the French model in corps d'armee, the subordinate divisions did not have their own staffs and the burden of their administrative work, as well as that of the corps as a whole, was thrown on the corps staffs."

See the staff thread with LWF's comments for information about hwo this is a complete distotion of what the French actually did.

"Further problems about the Austrian staffs is that they were not organized in staff sections on the French model until 1801 (as outlined in the French staff manual of 1800) which meant that there was not a proper division of staff work among the staff officers and that staff work was slow and inefficient, which in turn would slow down field operations, as it did in the first half of the campaign of 1809 when the Austrian offensive was defeated in and around Ratisbon."

This was also addressed in the thread concerend at some length. the french system faield at Leipzig and was totally overthrown by the Prussians at Sedan.

"An excellent snapshot of the Austrian staff organization and its inherent problems is outlined very well in Gunther Rothenberg's Napoleon's Great Adversary as well as his The Army of Francis Joseph. Rothenberg is still the English language authority on the Austrian army of the period and it appears he will remain so for the indefinite future."

Well, that is your opinion – the rest of us think the world has moved on in the last 30 years.

"The artillery section is also error-ridden"

Coming from someone, who made up his bibliography and key elements in the text, while; failing to do any primary research, this is an interesting judgement.

"the most ridiculous, and unsupported, error being the oft-repeated denigration of the new French field artillery system developed by Gribeauval in the 1760s which surpassed the older Austrian Lichtenstein system in both design and employment."

Strange then that N used Austrian guns in preference to G guns in the high campaigns and copied the L design in the Year XI. Again, given the fabrications in your own work, notably making up the 1762 report and making claims, whbich do not stand up, you are not really in a position to comment on this.

"Further, the characterization of Gribeauval as a `siege engineer' is incorrect (there was no such thing as a `siege engineer-you had engineers and you had artillerymen), Gribeauval being a graduate of the French artillery school at La Fere. Unfortunately, it appears that no primary source material was used for either Gribeauval or his artillery system in the comparisons in the text"

This from someone, who claims G invented the bricole and hausse sight, built full size Prussian and Austrian guns and commanded the Austrian artillery, all of which are false. pleas eproduce the evidence that Gribeauval imagined some mobile artillery and tested these weapons or commanded the Austrian artiellry etc.

"and the reference to the recent work, Napoleonic Artillery, is to a volume on artillery that is error-ridden in itself and is not a reliable reference for the French artillery arm."

So say the author of hatchet job on it. Their work is documented and draws on much original material.

So, kevinm, are you going to answert some questions now? please tell us about your expertise with Austrian and French sources – given that you made many things up or copied claims from Alder et al.

Repeat a lie enough times and people will believe it, said Goebells. he wasn't wrong, although maybe he should have said "repeat a lie in a review". As John Elton noted at Amazon, no-one asked to work on this book or indeed tghe recent Encyclopaedia.

Arteis, please, no more of this "equating" – ask Kevin a few questions and then check his sources.

XV Brigada. I agree. I did think that it would be interesting if Mr Hollins apologised for just the 5 stars bit, even though in my humble opinion he has no need to as he did not use a fake id and did state his involvement in the book and he has explained his perfectly reasonable reason for trying to offset the hatchet job reviews.

If he had then I think there would be no chance whatsoever of the other parties withdrawing their reviews as they see nothing wrong in them.

I understand why he won't just though it would be interesting to see that if he did then would the others put up or shut up!

Of course the other side might have done their suggested part and show that we have all misjudged them.

So it was an attempt at peacekepping but was also a test to confirm my suspicions. As for me I'll buy whatever books I like the look of and ignore reviews as good reviews are often biased as are bad ones.

Now back to that 'fun' activity…wargaming. :-)

@SJD, while I may be safe from the bin, I think a couple of posters here, however hard done by, could do with a period of cooling off.

badwargamer

I agree that Mr. Hollins should apologise, especially to the other authors of the book and to Amazon, never mind everyone here. His 5 star review was really a comment but you can't give comments 5 stars, so he turned it into a Vanity Review. There was no real need to do so and he knows it. It suggests the good work of the other authors would not sell the book.

My review is not against Mr. Hollins. He is just one of ten authors. He just happened to have the most pages, while others were extremely limited. Had all the authors been given an equal playing field, that would have certainly improved the book. Better still, had they just included 5 armies, that probably would have made a much better book, considering the excellent efforts made by those with so few pages to work with. And I'm sure it would have lead to a second volume.

Gazzola, you have learned to use paragraphs. How about learning not to repeat the same post over and over again on several threads, with only minimal changes.

Also, I think we are all tired of the term you are so proud of: "Vanity Review" (your capitalisation). Hopefully it will end up in the dust-bin like other tired and self-important terms such as "mythology" and "Idiot Tendency". Nothing is quite so tedious as someone trying desperately to repeat and repeat an expression that he thinks is so very clever.

@ Dave. Sorry, I do "equate" and will continue equating you and Kevin.

A feud is not about who is right and who is wrong (for the record, I actually believe you are more correct in most cases, but that is by the by). A feud is about who is continuing it. And you both are doing that, so I therefore "equate" you both.

The feud will go away if you let it. But you won't. Nor will Kevin. And nor will the respective hangers-on.

If Kevin's research is as much a dog as you say it is, he'll be isolated and left behind much quicker without your constant and repetitive harping on (which I suggest does as much damage to your reputation as it does to his).

Isn't "John Elton" a Hofschroer alias?

How can 10th Marine comment onanything about the Austrian army, he is totaly ignorant about it.
He prooves with his review rather his irgnorance and bad will than anything else.

Oh dear, and this thread was going so well…

I am going to the pub this evening, and wonder if anyone on this thread would care to join me?

No?

Well thank for that.

Pat

Arteis,

That seems to me to be a bit of a simplification.
The problem is that Hollins it seems to me, and we have no reason to disbelieve him, spends time and effort on research in European archives, libraries and elsewhere during the course of which he turns up some information. He comes to conclusions about it and puts it puts it in the public domain in one form or another.

Kiley's reaction from the other side of the Atlantic is almost without exception that as it does not appear in some book or other whose author he favours over all others, it is wrong. When his sources are challenged he takes it as a personal slight and an attack on his favourite author/s because he has some kind of relationship with them and kicks-off on a tangent.

Hollin's reaction is it seems a mix of incredulity initially followed by irritation as Kiley maintains his position even though it is clear that his sources are second and third hand, their origin is unclear and he has nothing new to contribute. This escalates to Kiley and his hangers on writing gratuitously destructive reviews any place they can find an audience who will probably not realise that the reviews they are reading are a team effort rather than the objective comments of two different people which do not address the material anyway and apparently have the sole purpose of undermining Hollins' at every opportunity.

If I were Hollins I would be angry.

Bill

Are these people from Liechtenstein? It seems that most of the serious troublemakers had Liechtenstein listed as their homeland. Just wondering if there is another crop of Liechtensteiners popping up here.

I'm actually surprised that the Dawghaus is still empty. There's at least two contenders here looking for some time in the cooler. Pass the popcorn, will ya? I'm getting hungry!

So Wolf Spiders don't eat wolves and Kerry Katona's back on the pies, eh? This thread gets more and more informative.

Arteis,

You are a very interesting fellow. A proposal was made, to which I readily agreed to, and I am still in the 'wrong.' I just can't figure it out. You make a request which I agree with and then when I do, you still condemn me for whatever reason.

I guess I get it. Perhaps you should change the subject because you diatribes are getting very old as are your condemnations, along with Bill, LWF, VW and whomever else. Haven't you better things to do?

Sincerely,
K

@ XV Brigada: That is a good summing up of the case against Kevin, and I agree with you entirely.

But there is a similar case against Hollins and co, where they too gang up against Kiley in pack attacks. I do believe their research may (in general) be more thorough than Kiley's because of their greater access to material in other languages, but that does not give them moral high ground and their way of putting it across only drives Kiley and his circle into a corner. Take von Winterfeldt's comment a few postings ago, for example.

There are two sides to this, and neither of them is nice.

On the other hand, there are people from both sides who can and do argue respectfully despite disagreeing (I'd put you in that category, by the way).

@ 10th Marines [Kevin]: Ummm, you didn't follow the proposal. It was to pull your review:

2)Kevin whatever his name was and Gazzer remove their blatanly biased and anti Hollins reviews and leave a level playing feeled for genuine customers to review. They may not want to and may feel that there reviews are justified, but I think that it is clear they are biased.

So far as I know, neither you nor Gazzola has done that. And nor, for the record, has Dave done his part.

You're right, I probably do have better things to do. But from time to time I get sucked into (rather stupidly) thinking I can intervene to stop these on-going feuds blistering and festering all over the Napoleonic boards, until I realise my efforts are probably just picking the scab and spreading the infection.

Roly,

I agreed to the proposal, though with caution-'trust but verify.' I even offered to apologize, when there was nothing to apologize for. This thread is oozing self-righteousness and hypocrisy, coupled with an incredible lack of judgment. It appears to me that you and others are judging people by the lowest common denominator. Don't judge others by your own low standards.

I have attacked no one, yet, those of you who are conducting personal attacks are the ones driving people away. I do believe Roly that you are promoting a 'feud' that does not exist except where it is convenient for you to aid in personal attacks. It takes at least two to feud (look up the definition of the term) and I'm not 'feuding.'

In the future, please leave me out of your workings on this forum along with your sidekicks in your endeavors.

Sincerely,
K

Being new to the forum could someone explain what the apologising would be for who as insulted who, there seems to be two factions regarding these debates the hollins faction and the Kiley faction and I can't understand it

It's a battle as long & complicated as the Napoleonic Wars themselves. Apparently a bricole or two was involved…. TMP link

Arteis

I'm speaking only for myself. But really, you want me to remove what is basically a customer review. I bought the book, read and gave my opinion on it. I would have loved to have given it 5 stars.

The sad fact is that the authors do not have a level playing field. Each author could have had around 25 pages each but sadly, they didn't. I can imagine what people here might have said had Mr. Hollins received just 10 pages while others got 41!

But Mr. Hollins is only one of ten authors within the book. You know that. But to think the review was written just to get at him is absurd. It is written against the whole book. Not just one author. The other authors have good track records in publishing books. It is not the authors I'm complaining about and you know it, so why pretend otherwise? But I suppose it is easier for people to pretend it is written against one author, rather than accept there might be problems with the title.

I think you, and Mr. Hollins, need to move on and let the book do the selling. That is what good authors would do. And I wouldn't have to make any further posts to defend my views. Perhaps you could mention it to Mr. Hollins and his followers?

"This thread is oozing self-righteousness and hypocrisy, coupled with an incredible lack of judgment."

Can we take this as at least a partial apology?

Since you are here would/can you refute Hollins' assertions about your sources? As someone who has refrained from purchasing anything with either of your names attached to it as a result of the mud-slinging I would be very interested.

"The sad fact is that the authors do not have a level playing field. Each author could have had around 25 pages each but sadly, they didn't. I can imagine what people here might have said had Mr. Hollins received just 10 pages while others got 41!"

I'm failing to understand what in the hell this has to do with the overall quality of the book. Are you some sort of fanatical democratist or something? Unless of course you do have a grudge against DH and granting him more space than the others is bugging you.

That couldn't be it though because you have stated that you don't have a problem with him and would love to buy him a pint. Of course you have also asked how low he could go and called his actions pathetic and (IIRC) shameful…

Arteis,

Is there a similar case against Hollins and co? I am not so sure about that. I wouldn't bother to debate with the likes of Kiley and co any more as there is no point to it. All you get back is the 'flat earth' view mixed with rudeness from his hangers on.

The bricole debate which I followed with interest as the whole subject of artillery was relatively new to me, was typical but I don't think Kiley ever conceded that he and his sources were wrong even when it was obvious to a baboon that they were.

There, you have made me say the wretched word.

Bill

Are we there yet?

Most of us were 'there' a while back. Three or four of us can't agree where 'There' is, and one doesn't appear to be able to say 'there' – or indeed anything other than the same 30 words rearranged in different shapes.

Luckily, they are not driving the bus.

Pat

Looks a bit like a Vanity Review there Pat, have a word with yourself.

Mine's a Boddingtons

Here you go Connard: YouTube link

Have two. You've earned it: YouTube link

Connard, we're not there until we reach 250.

Mine's a pint of snakebite and a whisky chaser.

I'm trying to get rid of the taste of Mongol's spam javelin.

Bill:

You are spot on with your conclusion that "Kiley's reaction from the other side of the Atlantic is almost without exception that as it does not appear in some book or other whose author he favours over all others, it is wrong. When his sources are challenged he takes it as a personal slight and an attack on his favourite author/s because he has some kind of relationship with them and kicks-off on a tangent."

10th's remark above ("I have attacked no one, yet, those of you who are conducting personal attacks are the ones driving people away. I do believe Roly that you are promoting a 'feud' that does not exist except where it is convenient for you to aid in personal attacks. It takes at least two to feud (look up the definition of the term) and I'm not 'feuding.'") is as disingenuous as his claim of being a military historian.

This claim comes from someone that made the following recent comments (in the Staff and other threads):

"you don't know what you're talking about."

"You have made a grave error in your comment on Col Elting and it shows to me that your suppositions are done without research and to my mind you have insulted an old and very dear friend, now unfortunately no longer with us."

"In other words, I am a trained military historian, whether or not you like it. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point."

"Lastly, if you don't like being called on ludicrous 'opinions' then don't make them. Again, you just don't know what you're talking about, and you're posting was ignorant."

10th pans other works that he doesn't like (as opposed to reviewing). His facade has worn thin. As noted above, he doesn't know German well enough to do any field research and yet passes himself off as an authority in his "reviews."
He cries foul if any of his favorite secondary sources are questioned.

10th is not a wargamer and he is not a military historian.

It's curious how I see things from an outsider point of view. While I agree with Dave's analysis, I feel somehow put off for his angry remarks against Kevin. And the opposite is true too: while I usually disagree with Kevin's interpretations, I feel his answers normally polite and well educated.

Sometimes I've debated with Kevin, and everytime he has answered with politeness, even recognising that my interpretation of the facts could be more accurate than his.

In the other hand, I wouldn't dismiss Kevin's scholar credentials so easily. May be he's not a trained historian, or, at least, his training wasn't as thorough as you can receive if you have your PhD. However, he has been trained in one of the toughest academies in the World, West Point; he was an actual commander of troops in the field, and he has combat experience. For me, talking about logistics or maneuvers are just intellectual exercises… truth is that I, as a civilian, have not an actual grasp of what they meant in the field of battle. In that sense, I would say that Kevin has an insight on how armies work that I only know from books and documents. At the least, he deserves a measure of respect for that.

In the other hand, I've a good knowledge of how historians,-trained ones- actually work, and it's not an encouraging thought. I've seen dilettantes analysing primary sources with more care and insight than trained historians do.

Finally, I would like to point that I am not in Kevin's Team. I just respect his bonhommie, even when we don't see eye to eye.

Best regards

It seems no one knows what the initial arguments were between Mr Hollins and Mr Kiley,whats all the bother about ?

I thought the Napoleonic Wars had ended in 1815…

Basileus, you have probably said better, and with more gentility, what I was trying to say.

Basileus 66

Well said Sir! I am a very amateur historian – I majored in History with a First, but have not earnt a living at it, so am not in a position to differentiate between these two protagonists…

But as a retired career military man, now working in the university sector, my instinct, as yours, is to sympathise with the 'Kiley Camp'. Kevin was a serving officer, which to me says a great deal about his integrity. Some academics, on the other hand, have never really left school…

Basileus:

There are many members on this forum that, besides being wargamers, have served in the military (including combat zones), have degrees (including history), advanced degrees, and are well-read in military history. They share their knowledge without presumption and add to the community in a positive way. There are many members (and now, unfortunately ex-members) that command other languages and share knowledge from archives in Germany, France, and Russia. It is nice that you want to maintain a semblance of peaceful contribution, but posters, such as the greatly missed Un Ami (a wonderful asset and contributor to TMP) left this forum in disgust because of the "serving officer" that more than one real (professionally trained, foreign language proficient, and peer-accepted) historian noted "was immune to correction."

We all can read secondary sources or translated sources written in English. The majority of people come to this site because of a shared interest in miniature wargaming. I will add that there are military schools more difficult than West Point (based on many measures including attrition rates for failing) and that some members have graduated from them. They are not nearly as presumptuous as 10th. When someone capable of doing archival research in Russia has to put up with criticism from someone that can only cite their favorite secondary sources and refuse to acknowledge correction--it gets really old to those of us that have interest in the field. 10th is not a "trained military historian" as he claims. He is an amateur historian that attended an online master's program in general military studies. His books are "popular" period works based mostly on secondary sources (and translated sources). He does know some things about the artillery field, but there are many members that possess knowledge in other areas far in advance of his. Go back over the past many years and read 10th's posts. Find one example, just one, where he admitted that he was incorrect. I can state that Dave Hollins has (I pointed out, for example, an error in the OB in his Marengo 1800 Osprey a few years ago and he replied positively). 10th (and a few others) cannot control their ego. Read his many comments calling TMP members marplots, "horribly wrong," "gave error," etc.

10th recently used a metaphor for horse manure in a reply to a member's post (i.e. that his reply was said byproduct). Sparker, you should note that "officer and a gentleman" behavior. Integrity isn't issued with a uniform--it is earned.

Sparker – read his book, then you will find the extent of his integrity. he takes you for a fool to believe that he had read the material listed in his bibliography. He thinks that somebody will not even check his claims drawn from third hand sources against the origianl French texts. It displays a contempt for the reading public that we had only previously seen from Hamilton-Williams and Bowden. As for his reviews, his only intent is that you do not read the book at all, as it contains material, which he cannot access himself, but which undermines his claims completely.

That is his integrity and what he thinks of you, the reading public.

I was a junior officer in the RN Reserve, if that helps, but I would prefer to be judged on my books in this matter.

A Twiningham – On the subject of the book, the original set-up was 20K for Uk and Fr, 17K for Austria, 15k for Prussia and Russia, which is reasonable reflection of the involvement of each nation, their popularity and where the original work of the last 20 years has been done.

It seems (I don't know) that a late decision was made to reduce the book from 320 to 288pp. Practicalities plus the availability of other material prompted the editor to reduce his own chapters on UK and Fr. One of the aims of the book was to reflect new work, so these nations were reduced as not much "new" has been done on them (France post-1803 in this case as much has been done on the Revolutionary French). I did take up some extra space with the unit titles, but this is a subject, which appears so often on thes eboards that I thought I should address it.

It is the intention of the True believers to start a fight without addressing the actual issues, simply to put people like yourself off buying any new work, for fear that their sacred texts would be shown up for their inadequacies. However, the likes of ELting would actually have been interested inn what came up, were they still amongst us.

Again, I would ask any of you to consider what it would be like to find your work rubbished on the Net – not because the reviewers know anything, but because they do not like what you write. Would you not respond – or indeed not take the opportunity to put them on the spot to show up their own inadequacies?

It is not mud-slinging to point out that Kiley has made things up – you can check the facts yourself. However, their attempts to throw up smokescreens are designed precisely to make you think" a plague on both your houses" to avoid their own inadequacies being shown up. Have a read of this book – you will find it quite useful I hope.