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

>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.<

Lots of people have. It doesn't make him better qualified as far as the Napoleonic period or any other period of history is concerned. Similarly a history degree doesn't make one a historian.

Bill

I disagree, XV Brigada. Surely actual service puts you in a far better position to understand both the friction of war, and troop psychology.

If real warfare was conducted by armchair generals either:
a. There would have been a lot less mistake made; or
b. There would be a lot less armchair generals second guessing the actual commanders because they would have grown up

My moneys on b!

It doesn't make him better qualified as far as the
Napoleonic period or any other period of history is
concerned.

Bill – I am just trying to understand your meaning here, so in
you eyes what qualifies as a historian or what does it take
to become one?

Regards
James

G'day, Sparker.

Military service can give you numerous insights into how soldiers (or sailors) think and act- at the time you were serving. How much do you think your experience in the RN reflects experience in Nelson's navy, for example (apart from hating being on watch or complaining about the food)?

For example, these days the general reaction to being shot at is to go to ground and then crawl to a position where you can observe to return or hold fire, as appropriate. It worked for me the very few times I was in that situation. But that fleeting experience gives me no idea of how it would feel to stand in a firing line, 50 paces from the enemy, and trade shots. Being in 100 contacts, or even a largish battle such as Silver City, wouldn't do that. Come to think of it, nor do I think officers and NCO's in 1809 would appreciate someone's prescience if they adopted today's practice, rather than maintaining their place in the line.

Nor do I think that watching an M-198 detachment manhandling the shell cradle to the gun breech, or "punching bombs" into an M2A2 or L-119 myself (done both in my time), is going to tell me too much about loading, laying and firing an 8lb gun in 1813. I may get some extra insights about specific things (I know that skull dragging a 105 through mud is not fun, for example, and think someone doing the same with a 6lb gun in 1805 would probably share that sentiment). Too much has changed WRT equipment, drill, discipline, nutrition, mindset and medicines (particularly anaesthetics and antibiotics- very rarely these days is an infected wound likely to end up as a choice between amputation or death) for modern experiences to closely parallel those of 200 years ago.

Hours on the parade ground gave me the skills to maintain the dressing when marching in line, understand why a misunderstood order can throw a company into disorder and the discipline to ignore an itchy nose (a lot harder to do than it may seem). Most civvies wouldn't have a clue about what drill is or what it requires. Not unless they've been in a marching band or pipes and drums, been marching girls (not the US cheerleader-types, but the drill competition sort that my sister used to do) or otherwise spent time at drill themselves.

It also gives me no idea whatsoever as to what it's like to try to maintain my dressing, keep step, stand tall and obey commands while some bloke, with much malice aforethought, is heaving bits of metal my way.

I used to think differently. But after reading more memoirs and discussions with people such as John Cook, I've come to believe that any greater understanding we get, either from wearing a uniform or being on active service, must be limited. You had to be there to truly understand.

Cheers.

Dal.

Dal

Good points. But what military service MIGHT give you is a better understanding of the science involved.

I can recall a long argument about whether cannonballs rose in flight. Despite the argument being distorted by both parties talking past each other by having different definitions of the starting angle of the ball, Kevin's knowledge of the science of ballistics was invaluable in that argument.

G'day, Roly.

Yes, KK did come off as knowing more about that subject, from the few posts I read.

Having said that, ballistics at that level (ie what happens when a projectile leaves the barrel), is really a very simple subject- one taught to every army recruit so they know how to take a correct sight picture, aim their weapon and correctly zero their weapons (at least in the Oz, NZ and UK armies). Even the maths you need to calculate the culminating point of a projectile (ie where it reaches its highest point along the trajectory) is only 4th form calculus. Or it was when I was in 4th form.

It stays simple, too, until it gets covered in semantics, jargon, esoteric terminology and point scoring.

Which reminds me why I rarely visit here. I'm off.

Take care, mate.

Dal.

There seem to be a lot of people talking about Armed Forces experience – who never served.

I did.

My experience : Only because being an officer doesn't make you either a gentleman neither an integer personlity.

I met such specimen but also the other side.
The same I can say about NCOs – the same about soldiers.

Being in the military helps to understand some aspects – like obey an order – or how to get around it.

Otherwise it won't qualify you to understand a fig about the Napoleonic period, for that you have to do research, reading, visit actual battle fields.

Too many people did have to leave TMP due to the so called gentleman like behaviour of 10th Marines.

Un ami serves here as prime example, others like Steve Smith or Nvrsaynvr or Chuvak are missed from my side as well.

Who else other than David Hollins has a knowledge about the Austrian Army that is above the works by Rothenburg or Petre?

I think I can hear violins a strumin

Lots of people have. It doesn't make him better qualified as far as the Napoleonic period or any other period of history is concerned.

Bill,

You shouldn't let animosity blind you to reality.

Good points. But what military service MIGHT give you is a better understanding of the science involved.

Roly,

I would suggest that the major thing ACTIVE military service can give an author/historian is a knowledge of what men go thorough in combat conditions. I have no problem accepting technical information from people with no combat experience but regardless of who they are, if and when they start opining about behaviour of men in battle, then they are only able to speculate or assume based on the opinions of others, regardless of how capable they are in the field of studying.

This is true in any walk of life, be it the law, medicine or whatever. The most incisive knowledge comes from the people who have walked the walk.

Who else other than David Hollins has a knowledge about the Austrian Army that is above the works by Rothenburg or Petre?

I'm not surprised you don't know the answer, as the view from there must be fairly limited, and somewhat odious.

"If experience really mattered, Man would never have walked on the Moon" (Doug Rader)

It is an entirely fatuous argument to pretend that doing something now gives you any expertise on what was done 200 years ago. While the physical laws of ballistics have not changed, the kit involved has – a metal ball of often uneven casting in a smooth tube propelled by a bag of black powder is a very different proposition from a precision engineered shell with a pointed end and a flat base moving down a (usually) rifled barrel propelled by modern propellant and directed by radar.

If you are looking at the period weapons, you must read the perido works and look at the artefacts. Part of the G myth is that he somehow produced an early precision engineering in French guns – what do we read? A standard windage of 0.13 inch – interesting the that G apparently "invented" go/no go rings, which implies a variation in ball size, without getting into the precision boring of barrels or wear on them. When we look at go/no go rings (not that these are used today) they were in fact used at right angles to each other allowing a relative variation of 0.07in. Indeed, this windage is not correct as a 1/12 in is 0.085in or 2/3 of the alleged standard French sizing, which in itself is a nonsense given that windage is proportionate, not a standard measure.

What modern experience has shown is an apparently, an inability to understand period weaponry and the copying of third hand materials, which do not even reflect the original French text. It is nonsense to cover up a basic failure to do any research.

However, if Kevin is such an expert on ballistics, could he explain Smola's comments about accuracy being different with different weapons? After all, Smola was merely a contemporary commander.

Who is Steve Smith and the others mentioned by Von Winterfeld why do they not post on the forum is there some reason

A very well-read bibliophile, who knows a lot about the period and could always find the book you were thinking about.

He was chased from this forum by the same people, who have bneen involved in this latest stunt, who went whining to Bill when he responded. Any forum is poorer without his presence.

His original crime seems to have been reviewing my Osprey NV72 in which he pointed out that Austria was using the bricole before Gribeauval even went there. It was the starting gun for the demolition of the Gribeauval mythology and as such, it seems he had to be silenced for his heresies.

Talk about hyperbole, Dave. Steve was not barred from TMP because of a review he did way back when. He got barred for his continual abusive comments that angered not only the recipients, but also neutral readers.

As well as having a great fund of knowledge, Steve unfortunately also had a great fund of very sarcastic put-downs. It was the latter that let him down.

>>>>

I find myself addicted to always having to reply to this festering discussion. So, if anyone catches me saying any more on either this or any of the other current threads on this topic, they have my permission to pull out my 28mm French artillery (sorry, I don't have Austrians) and stamp them into the ground. That's how desperate I am to stop this scab-picking!!!!

It is an entirely fatuous argument to pretend that doing something now gives you any expertise on what was done 200 years ago.

How convenient for you.

However, if Kevin is such an expert on ballistics, could he explain Smola's comments about accuracy being different with different weapons?

Whatever Kevin's experience level, it's going to be greater than yours. Of course luckily that doesn't matter. No doubt if we watch the skies over Libya right now a selection of armchairs will be seen circling overhead…

Ideally, a military history of the Napoleonic would contain several elements including the interweaving of veteran soldier's expertise & experiences and the knowledge of a researcher's foray into foreign archives.

How good would that be?

Instead we get toxic jealousy, endless bickering & petty mean-spiritedness of epic proportions.

Arteis, You are conveniently forgetting that Steve was marked out by the Tendency as a "supporter of DH" long ago, esp for that comment, which revealed the flaws in the work of the Tendency's favourite author. They engaged in a feeding frenzy of abuse and when Steve responded, off they went, pressing the button.

I could press the button on a few people here for what they have written maliciously about me. Would you like me to?

Old Bear, would you mind defining what you describe as "ACTIVE military service"? Is it as simple as someone is a "combat veteran"? If so, define "combat veteran":

Is it a squaddie who did two tours in NI during the troubles and once took a round into his "broader personal space"?
A bunch of diggers getting brassed up by friendlies, because it's dark and the Handau think the blokes with guns are actually CT's?
A Q'ie with a chest full of bling, including an ICB for being an infantryman on active service, who never set foot outside the blast-boxes in his three tours of the MEAO?
A gunnie who shot off 40+ EFC equivalents, but never took anything in return and rarely, if ever, saw the results of his fire?
A US Hummer driver doing the Green Zone to Airport and Return run?
A GPCAPT doing one sortie to Dili in a Herc?
A storeman pulling bodies out of a well in Comoro in 2006?
The grunts carrying stretchers through the stray rounds at Kibeho Stadium, who aren't allowed to use their weapons, except to defend their own lives?
The nurse MAJ walking beside a stretcher at Kibeho, holding up a saline drip bag?
A SIG who gets dropped by shrap a week into his trip and is now MEC 4, so won't be going back?
A WO2 who gets killed during training near, but not in, Iraq?
A young digger taking mortar and small arms fire at Siem Rheap, who knocks over a KR that gets too close?
The CT practicing long distance "Spray and Pray" from the edge of the J at Sidi Batani?
The young bloke who saw his Dad knocked over, when the Handau thought they were trying to do more than nick some chicken wire?

Or can you just tell, somehow, who has "walked the walk"? Some of the above are easy. Others?

Most importantly, what great insights would they now have about the Napoleonic Wars? Do they know whether Napoleon used a GO/NO GO device on Josephine?

What was your earlier comment about limited and odious views, mate? Does it make it hard to control your armchair?

Dave Hollins, KK seems to understand the theory and practice of ballistics better than you do, going from the thread in question. It's got nothing to do with Smola, Gribeauval or the size of Lichtenstein's wheels. Just accept for once that he seems to know more about something, or can express himself better about it, than you do or can.

Dal.

Sparker,

My view differs from yours. I don't believe that anybody who served in the modern military can really know what it was like to march and fight in Napoleon's and Wellingtons armies. I'm also sure that present day soldiers do not have the same exposure to the privations of early 19th century soldiering.

The ‘friction of war' as described by Clausewitz alludes to the danger, physical demands on people and lack of clear information. I don't think you need to be a soldier to understand the ‘friction of war'. These things are present in situations other than war.

Soldiers are ordinary human beings who have been trained to do a particular job in a particular setting. I am not a psychologist but my understanding is that psychological behaviour is a combination of genetic inheritance (which is probably why some people are better soldiers than others) and training. I am sure that is a simplification but I'm also fairly sure that the training received by a Napoleonic conscript was nothing like that received by a professional soldier today. Soldiers in the end are still human beings who have the same needs of any other in order to function.

Bill

James,

Insofar as we all study history to one degree or an another I suppose it can be argued that we are all ‘historians' but it is a matter of degree. My particular interest is the methodology of the science and if you really want to drag an answer from me I suppose that in this particular context what I am actually saying is that having a qualification in history, or a qualification in any subject, does not necessarily make one any good at it.

Bill

Dal,

I wasn't thinking much past soldiers who had been under fire to be honest. No doubt we can come up with all sorts of variables but I am generalising. I believe the term 'being in harm's way' was coined in the States and probably goes some way towards what I'm thinking.

Such experience bears no specific insights into military service in the Napoleonic Wars, of course. However, it does breed, I believe, a greater understanding of the nature of what men go through in combat conditions. As I have said before, no combat experience is needed to narrate historical facts, however, when discussing battle situations and opining on behaviour in battle, I am more inclined to listen to somebody who knows what it is like to make decisions under fire.

Dallas – let me reveal the absurdity of your argument. As a junior officer in the RN reserve working aboard minesweepers and patrol vessels, my understanding of how to manoeuvre a sail-powered vessel is better than Nelson's (especially as it is much easier to move a ship with her engines with her engines than the rudder these days).

Just run that one past me again.

Kevin may well have studied much more ballistics than I did and served in he modern world – to suggest that he knows more than the people of the period is just utter nonsense and is typical of the clap trap he has been putting about to cover up for the simple fact that he has not done the resarch, won't listen to adverse information and thinks anyone opposing his view of the world should be silenced.

However, would either of you please explain to me why Smola talks about variable accuracyt at differing ranges and the Fahnrich from IR42 saw balls fly over his head – if the trajectory of a ball is basically flat. Please explain graviational effects.

Dal,

Very good points. As with most things it is a matter of degree.

My father who was the most unlikely soldier in the first place spent the entire Second World war in administrative staff posts in the UK, the Sudan and Palestine. That was what the lottery served up for him much to his regret as of his three best mates from school two were killed and one got an MC in Normandy. He thought he had a 'bad' war. I think it was a pretty good one! Does this mean he knows what it was like to be in action? Absolutely not.

Similarly my niece's husband has been in the British army for nearly 15 years but didn't go to Iraq and has yet to go to Afghanistan. He's currently in the Falklands helping remove the remains of an Argentinian minefield. Does this mean he knows what it was like to be in action? Not really.

Bill

Dallas – let me reveal the absurdity of your argument. As a junior officer in the RN reserve working aboard minesweepers and patrol vessels, my understanding of how to manoeuvre a sail-powered vessel is better than Nelson's

So, patronising, arrogant and absurd in equal measures. Minesweeper to HMS Victory in one oh-so-easy step.

on another subject I just cannot believe an author can write a 5 star review of his own book and get away with it???

How can you trust a man who would do such a thing? Sorry but his credibility is next to zero for me now. I am stunned how he could have the nerve to use what seems to be totally unethical behaviour to boost the opinions of others of his book??

I can only shake my head in total disgust and disbelief

Shane:

You should double check all facts before making such strong claims. DH was not the sole author of the work and his interest in the work was noted up front. I'm not getting involved with the pros and cons of the review, but how "did he get away with it?" If you were a co-author with several other individuals and rated the book well and noted your involvement--is that "unethical?" Unethical is a rather strong accusation. There are other authors known to us on this site that imply that they used sources (and actually did not). Is that unethical? Balance . . .

Looks like I've opened a can of worms! That wasn't my intention. When I pointed to Kevin's military background I just wanted to stress that he has a field of experience that can compensate, somehow, his less thorough historian training.

When I was writing my book on the guerrilla war -hopefully, it will be published sometime this year- I passed copies of the draft to two acquaintances of mine, that are in the military. Both of them wrote books of military history of the Napoleonic wars, although neither of them has a formal training as historians. Their commentaries on military matters were very helpful, specially those about oversights I did when commenting on logistics and command and control topics. Their comments on social issues, in the other hand, weren't as useful, and I didn't feel compelled to include them in my own work. But those on military topics helped me to improve my understanding of the subject, and to correct some issues that otherwise would have diminiss the quality of the analysis. I, as a civilian -I spent my 12 months of compulsory military service in a library!-, wasn't aware of the nuances of things that for a trained military as the bread and butter of warfare.

I agree that the experience of war has changed, but in the end all goes to the same basics, no matter if there were Summerian armies or modern US military: how to organize your forces, how to put the soldiers where you want when you want, and how to have them feed and rested enough to apply the force necessary to defeat your opponent.

That kind of things are, usually, better understood by people with actual command experience, that by civilian historians, no matter how well trained in their profession they are. For the former is part of their job description; for us is an intellectual exercise. The point is that any person that studies a topic in which he has not actual experience should be humble enough to accept that, perhaps, he can learn something from people that do. In that particular sense, I feel that Kevin's opinions deserve a certain amount of consideration, beyond his credentials as historian could or could not deserve.

Also, I mentioned the mistakes that historians do. My opinion comes from personal experience; from errors made by myself and by personal acquaintances. Just to mention one example: in his book on the guerrilla war in Spain, Charles Esdaile affirmed that the existance of guerrillas did more harm than good to the Spanish war effort, as it took from the army thousand of potential recruits and actually promoted desertion. Superficially that can look as a correct assesment of the facts: the guerrillas DID accept in their ranks thousand of potential recruits and deserters. However, what Charles misses is that there is not way to prove that those recruits and deserters would have helped the war effort at all, if the guerrillas wouldn't have existed. A close analysis of the patterns of desertion in the Spanish army shows that in those regions were guerrillas didn't exist or were unconsecuential, the desertion was still rampant, the difference being that those men went to their homes, instead to join the irregular bands. Therefore, while the affirmation that guerrillas accepted deserters is true -and can be proved by contemporary documents-, it's not but a part of the whole truth, as you learn from researching the patterns of desertion in Spanish army.

As you see, the use of original documents is not the Holy Grail. You can make mistakes, even if you use contemporary documents.In my opinion, by the way, that's one of the reasons because researching and writing history is so entertaining and funny. Did I say I love it with all my heart?

Best regards

By the way, I agree that if Dave stated up front in his review that he was one of the authors, he has nothing to be blamed for. He would have been dishonest only if he would have claimed he hadn't a personal interest in the book.

"Lots of people have. It doesn't make him better qualified as far as the Napoleonic period or any other period of history is concerned. Similarly a history degree doesn't make one a historian."

Yes, you are right, but at least it gives him the benefit of the doubt, doesn't it?

"Do they know whether Napoleon used a GO/NO GO device on Josephine? "

I wasn't aware that NO GO was an option for Josephine.

"Sorry but his credibility is next to zero for me now."

Oh please, Shane. You and Hollins have been bashing each other for at least two years on this site. You had no faith in him to lose. Hollins could have written "the Queen is English," and if Kiley did some pedantic criticism of it, you'd find a way to take Kiley's side.

Balance indeed. If we accept that it's not a good idea to give onesself a five-star review on Amazon, then surely it's also not a good idea to use Amazon to "review" the work of somebody with whom you have a personal dispute, nor to "review" a competing book for the purpose of slamming the competition, both of which Kiley has done several times, and not just about Hollins. Check out his review of Stephen Summerfield's artillery book. (Not to mention the old "log in multiple times to vote for or against other people's reviews," which was a KK standard in years gone by.)

The next time somebody offers that tired old cliché about the ferocity of "academic" disputes being inversely proportional to their importance, I'd like to invite people to look at some actual academic reviews, in refereed academic journals, and see how concise and civil 99% of them are. Quite unlike the anonymous free-for-all vendettafest of sites like Amazon.

Bas – No, because any author's standing can only be based on their output. No amount of military service can make up for padding your bibliography, making things up and failing to check the original material. While the last is not always right (viz. Weider and his N the peacemaker nonsense) that means you must have a broad knowledge of the subject to be able to spot the context to see if it is suspect. As I said to Dallas, it is absurd to think yourself better than those, who were there and (while it does not feature here) any comments revealing a lack of scientific/technical knowledge need to be explained. Smola prefaces his remarks by saying "Experience has informed us".

The subject is the guns, how they developed, who did what and how effective they were. Ballistics is a small part of the issue, but is somehow paraded to prove greater prowess generally.

Well, it must be 500 posts now on this and the "reviews" aside, I have yet to hear a single relevant comment!

Mind you, I am still waiting for an explanation of Smola's comments or in terms of Kevin's work, why he maade the 1762 report up and why he makes claims, which the original French and German documents do not substantiate.

We are afflicted in this period with a lot of Chinese whispers, such as a model of a (probably) Swedish designed 4pdr gun becoming the building and testing of Prussian and Austrian designs, despite the fact that not a shred of evidence has been produced to support the latter claim. We are stillw aiting for that too, but no doubt, Kevin was too busy reposting his "quaklifications".

I suppose it is a fact of military life the servicemen should not question what they are told and that perhaps has another impact on books by servicemen? My background has always told me to substantiate what it is put before me before presenting it to anyone else.

Am I the only one who is starting to see "Blah, blah, blah…" when reading the posts?

I once accused dave hollins of delusions of grandeur.

He told me he'd coined the phrase.

Bad – Well, I hope someone might say something about the book. You never know!

"Well, I hope someone might say something about the book. You never know!"

A trifle disingenuous, dave?

Well despite some spittle coming from some corners I think some very useful points are being made here.

Dal I think you have much to contribute and I would hate to see you leave this forum. Also, whilst I agree with everything you said about the difference between current and Napoleonic service, I can't agree that the experience of being in Command, on operations, doesn't give you insights into the thoughts, feelings and pressures of Commanders that have gone before.

I'm not on an ego trip here, I've never been shot at directly, I've never been in hand to hand combat, etc.

But I have had to make on the spot decisions, in operational theatres, involving complex air and waterspace deconflictions, whilst considering complex ROE issues and my 2 up commander's intent.

And that has completely changed my view of what I read about military and naval history, and has made me much more sympathetic to the 'mistakes' that some real commanders have been subjected to by armchair generals.

Some happily denigrate the works of Rothenburgh, Chandler, Elting et al, becuase they didn't have the benefit of the latest 'revisionist' historical techniques, access to soviet archives, whatever.

But what comes through in their writing, and that of current military historians with service experince such as Col. Lipscombe, Peter Edwards, and Kevin Kiley, is an understanding and sympathy for the potential agonies of indecision a commander will be under whilst directing combat, IN ANY ERA!

And this sympathy and exposition of their state of mind, is in marked contrast to the studied, academic, almost microscopic critique of commanders actions by the likes of Peter Hofschoror and the like with their pedantic recounting of who showed what to whom and when…

Shane

You are spot on. What Mr. Hollins did was dishonest and no amount of feeble excuses can justify it.

As I've said before, good authors ignore negative comments and let the book do the talking and selling. Or if they feel upset and angry, they let off steam in the comments section. They don't write reviews of their own work.

And when you think of it, his 5 star Vanity Review was an insult to the gallant efforts of the other authors, who did very well, considering the limitaions they were under.

I do hope he has, at least, apologised to them because, when you think about it, his Vanity Review suggested that their work might not be good enough to sell the title. I hope he has also apologised to Amazon and Amazon themselves should be applauded for removing a 5 star rating.

If you haven't got the book, it is still worth considering. However, I would suggest you view it first in a book shop or library, if possible. On the positive side, despite the unequal playing field the authors were given, it does contain some very good chapters, such as the one covering the Confederation of the Rhine armies.

Sparker

In your example

The Serviceman would give us the personal view of how scary war can be and how difficult it was in real life.

The academic quotes/translates/annotates/analyses letters/reports of those who were actually there.

both are useful, but one gives us a story the other is history.

Gazzola
Didn't you just say that at the start of the thread? (Yes, got fed up of 60% of the threads being greyed out)

Regards

GB

Oh please, Shane. You and Hollins have been bashing each other for at least two years on this site. You had no faith in him to lose. Hollins could have written "the Queen is English," and if Kiley did some pedantic criticism of it, you'd find a way to take Kiley's side.

yup, your right, hollins is rude, self-righteous and condescending. He puts people down when they disagree with him and gets away with calling those who oppose him the, "Idiot Tendency", how is that?

So if I see something that he has done that is dishonest and unethical I am going to complain about it, that is my god given right of freedom and you sir can suck it up.

What hollins did was truly disgusting and wrong. I don't care if he admitted being one of the authors, what he did by reviewing his own work and that of his co-authors is NOT worthy of the academic standards expected of men and women who are supposed to hold up to high levels of honesty. How could you trust an author who reviews his own books and gives them a 5 star rating?

C,mon, despite my dislike for someone who constantly insults me I still have a couple of his books and revere them. But what he did crystallised my opinion of him now completely. I know Kevin would never have stooped to such a low level and I am proud to be part of his fan club. And what makes me more proud is that in all the years hollins as accused Kevin of dishonesty Kevin has not stooped to the same level. With the current revelations he could use this as ammunition to return fire but has not. hollins dishonesty is his own doing and he now has to live with this.

Even though I dislike hollins I still trusted his academic efforts, not anymore, axe to grind or not he committed a dishonest act and what little faith I had in his work is gone for good.

And as for balance, what a joke. There is no balance, hollins took away any balance when his unethical behaviour led him to click that 5th star.

Sparker – they are two different things. PH and others will look at the paper trail to try to establish what happened, from which they will argue a certain motivation. That is cold analysis, which is where you learn the lessons of war or perhaps politics in some cases. Often it leads to patterns over longer periods.

Of course, those, who have been in combat, have a much clearer understanding of it than those of us, who haven't. However there are pressures in all jobs and all of us have experienced time and resource pressure. To have participated in modern combat means that you understand that – it does not make you an expert on the soldiers, kit and fighting of 200 years ago. There are all kinds of pressures like career pressures, peer pressures, our own psychological make-up, which play a part in any decision-making process. If anything, military people tend not to question what is put in front of them – thus we tend to get "I am sympathetic to x and so, I can apply my military experience to his predicament; Y on the other hand was a traitor to the cause and all-round scumbag, so his motivations will be given short shrift". Non-military people do this too, but their view is not clouded by the military experience.

Certainly, it means different people will argue different views – but for perfectly valid differing reasons, each with its advantages and disadvantages. The important bit is the information and analytical techniques used to express this.

Aaron Ramsay will face the same problems of inspiring a demoralised group of mainly more experienced men tomorrow against England (Wales v Eng at football for non-Uk readers – Ramsay is 20) as a young subaltern. The only difference is that the only shooting will not involve live weaponry. Our own life experiences cloud our judgements and you certainly do not have to be inside something to see out – like many others, I predicted financial collapse based on asset bubbles and problems in the derivatives markets (okay, we got the scale wrong) while the so-called experienced people were clear it would not happen. It is entiorely fallacious to suggest one is better than another, especialy when you are looking at a time none of us experienced.

As for Rothenberg, Elting etc., no-one is "denigrating" any of thgeor owrk – just pointing out that they didn't have access to much of the material, could not easily interact with people, who might have other views and in particular, were this prone to the Ruling Theory of the day. They can make their points, but the world has moved on

hollins, how did you feel when you clicked that 5th star on amazons? did ya say to yourself, "this is wrong, I should not do it?"

I bet you thought about it but ya clicked it anyway didn't ya?

how dishonest can ya get…

If you ever accuse another author of dishonesty again I will be all over you my friend. I will constantly remind you of your current actions.

and this:

As for Rothenberg, Elting etc., no-one is "denigrating" any of thgeor owrk – just pointing out that they didn't have access to much of the material, could not easily interact with people, who might have other views and in particular, were this prone to the Ruling Theory of the day. They can make their points, but the world has moved on

This is NOT the same language you have used when referring to their academic efforts in the past hollins. This little passage is meek and mild compared to the vitriol that you have spurted forth in the past. It is obvious you now feel you must tone down your accusations aimed at others because of your own dishonest and poor behaviour. What a joke.

Like driving past a car wreck – can't help but look, and feel guilty doing so.

I've enjoyed this melodrama immensely, and I would give it a five star review. That said, this is where I came in so it's time to leave and head down the pub.

Should I encounter someone whose ever luvin' guts I mortally detest I'll probably buy him a pint.

So there are now 4 threads with nearly 600 posts in which we can insult Kevin, Dave and each other, wonderful!

oh and bang on and on and on about this fairly harmless book on Napoleonic armies, what a strange place TMP can be.

Have we got enough for five a side yet?

Kevin's team – Gaz, Shane, bear, sparker?

Dave's team – Brigada, LWF, VW and ? (not me, i don't play footie)

GB,

No thanks. I'm not on anybody's team. I am excused everything except drawing breath and pay. I'm a spectator anyway and like all spectators I can identify a team that has unskilled players in it. But I agree with you about the obsession with the book. Some of the reactions and comments have been absurd.

I think it is time to leave the thread to 'Kevin's team' so they can stroke each others' egos without interference.

Bill

I am just kinda wondering what the other authors of the book
think about these shenanigans and wonder if they will ever
collaborate again on another book after seeing this.

XV – I see we have all three stooges present now:-)

XV – I think it is time to leave the thread to 'Kevin's team' so
they can stroke each others' egos without interference.

"Jez Bill" how does this make you a spectator with
comments like this, seems to me your just inviting
it or instigating it.

You should have stopped at absurd on you last comment.

Regards
James

I am certainly not in 10th Marines team, but neither in Dave's – see my discussion with him about the Austrian Jäger.

Dear Graf Bretlach – I am well able to form my own opinion and don't have to back up a person like a spine less individual.

I don't understand that you are writting such pure nonesense about myself.

Also what about Chuvak, Steve Smith, Un ami, nvrsaynvr, John Cook, to name a few, all in Dave Hollins team or vice versa?

All had to leave or did leave TMP because such a lot of rubbish was written about their persons.

*******************WARNING******************

This topic has no new content. Please step away from the topic. There is nothing to see here.

All comedic value has been exhausted.

Why did they leave the TMP forum it also seems that a number also left the Napoleon Series forum have they become disallusioned by the Napoleonic period ?

A number of us did depart the NSF as the moderators were allowing one or two individuals to keep repeating the same old claims without acknowledging that material had been produced, which buried them. It made any discussion rather pointless. Those same repetitive individuals are also fond of running off to Amazon to write hatchet job reviews – their agenda is to drive people out, so that theior sacred mythology continues to hold sway. I expect they will start now on newer members, who are considered to be siding with the infidels – when in fact they are merely looking at the scene from theor own point of view. Steve Smith was the most recent victim of this.