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

Quite so!

300 posts and all of about two with anything to give the audience and authors any guidance on this and future ideas.

Bas – Revisionism has got a bad name, which is then employed by the Keepers of the True Flame to rubbish anything, which deviates from the receive wisdom they like. I would agree that you cannot take one sentence, twiost it and then rewrite the story based on that (Ponting on Churchill was a good example of that). It does require a reading around the subject – which is of course why it is easier to follow the received wisdom. However, it can be a single sentence, which prompts another look at the material in general.

The key as you imply is to marshal your evidence (and be truthful about where that has come from) and arguments (which must be logical) to make your case. Thenn it should be submitted for scrutiny – anyone can comment (or review), but they must in doing so, recognise their own limitations and not repeat some other work as though it is Gospel. This last is abused by a few people round here simply to silence anyone, who disagrees with them.

20th is right, but then the alternative is to give in and then no-one gets any new info. 1809 was a campaign where it was nice of the Austrians to turn up for another thrashing 20 years ago – now it is one of the most popular campaigns. This has not happened by the efforts of the fundamentalists!

"Potential customers want to know about the book, NOT the reviewer. The Armies book contains the work of 10 authors, not one, so should the reviewer describe his or her relationship with all 10?"

Wow! You really must think I am stupid. I don't know what else to say, really.

woundedknee

Yes, I was so biased against it I bought it. Get real.

I do not buy books hoping they will disappoint me. I can't afford to do that. Maybe you can. I buy them hoping I will be pleased with my purchase.

True, I voiced my reservations before buying the title, because I felt it might be trying to cover too many armies within such a small book. But I was hoping to be proved wrong. Sadly, I wasn't, and that is due to some authors getting 20, 30 or 40 pages while others only get 10 and 13 etc.

In terms of reviews perhaps you not aware that I bought Mr. Hollins Osprey title on Austrian Commanders and I liked it. It did not disappoint me. I liked it so much I gave him a 4 star rating and would have given 5 stars had it had better artwork. But if a product disppoints me for whatever reason, I will write a negative review. That is a fact of life you and Mr. Hollins just can't seem to grasp. Sad really.

Dave Hollins

I do wish you would stop praising yourself. It doesn't work. Trying to hide behind a cover of you wanting to offer new work, while the nasty reviewers are against new ideas, is plain pathetic and you know it.

You need to accept that you are just one of ten authors in the Armies book. It contains the work of ten authors, not just yours. But on your fantasy basis I must have something against ALL the authors because I wrote a negative review.

Please move on Mr. Hollins. As I keep saying the book will sell itself without you bleating on and crying about two negative reviews. It does contain some good chapters, despite the unequal playing field some of the authors were given.

A Twinginham

You complained that Kevin Kiley, one of the reviewers, did not reveal his past history with Mr. Hollins within his negative review.

But you know that reviews are about the book, not the reviewer, so why make such a silly remark? Plus the book contains 10 authors, not one, so should he have revealed his past relationship with ALL 10 authors. Of course not. that would be even sillier.

Mr. Hollins mentioned it in the hope those reading it would feel there was another agenda to the review, rather than accept the faults of the title itself. He has now admitted that it was really a comment, not a review. In other words, he knows he should have written his 5 star Vanity Review in the comments section. But of course, if he did that, he couldn't award himsmelf a 5 star rating, could he?

Again, you must think I am stupid. Given the vitriol the two have thrown at each other am I really supposed to believe Kiley's review has no agenda?

Reviews are always filtered through the eye of the reviewer. Knowing the reviewer's agenda is always relevant, as you well know.

A Twiningham

I don't know about you, but I always go by what the review says, not who the reviewer is. I have viewed thosuands of reviews but could not tell you who wrote them. Why – because it is not important.

It is irrelevant who the reviewer is or the history they may have with the author, or, in this case, one of the authors. I want to know what that customer thinks of the book they bought, to see if there is anything that attracts me to buy it or puts me off due to aspects that are not mentioned in the pre-sales hype.

After all, you wouldn't expect the publisher to say before it becomes available that the book will contain a 41 page chapter on the Austrian army but only a 10 page chapter on the Italian Army. But in reviews, whoever writes them, you will find out such aspects. I would suggest you go by the review not the reviewer and even then, try to see the book in a bookshop before making a final decision to buy it or not.

Gazz you are being very naive, not everybody writes things for the good of all mankind, some write to glorify themselves/others/an event/a country etc some write to have a go at someone/something/a country. I refer to memoirs, it matters why/when they write, the same with reviews.

Do you give a rival product a 'must have' review, no, do you give your friends/companies product a 'stay clear' review, no.

Do you write nice things in your memoir about someone who stole your wife/job/country/favourite golf club, no

would you write nice things about your lifelong friend/boss/wife, of course, or at least leave out the bad things.

"Gazz you are being very naive…"

Either that, or….

YouTube link
for a break in the action

300 posts and all of about two with anything to give the audience and authors any guidance on this and future ideas.

I find this statement soooo ironic. Every time Kevin Kiley puts fingers to his keyboard here or publishes a book hollins is the fist one to bag his work in every way shape and form he can. hollins speak about only desiring to be able to express "new future ideas" but interestingly it's Kevin's work he craps on constantly….no matter what that work is about.

Kevin could write a cook book and hollins will stomp on it. and the reason why??? Because Kevin dared to write a poor review of his work previously. hollins could not take criticism and felt personally hurt by it. What a childish way to react to criticism. Lets face it hollins this is all about pride and revenge but when its your work that is under fire you appeal to the ref regarding foul play and hurt.

you make me sick.

Well at least you acknowledge your illness…

I see Napoleonic Panty Explosion is in full gear.

Pity the forum rules do not allow one to call someone who constantly submits repetitive crank posts a nutter and to shut up. Of course then Hollins wouldn't be able to constantly tout his book. Nor would Armitrout have 300 post threads to lure his advertisers…

A level playing field??? Pray no one shows the OP an Osprey catalogue… How many booklets about the Russians? the French? the British?

Another Liechtensteiner very suspect … just joined today, wonder who it is?

His stated wish that he could use accusations of Mental Illness in his attacks should give the game away on Mr John's real persona!

Pat

Liechtenstein must be quite a place for wargaming.

I dunno, OB – there will be Pros and Cons –

Pro – you would never be more than 200 yards from a man with a large collection of carefully read Napoleonic History Books.

Con – you would never be more than 200 yards from a man with a large collection of carefully read Napoleonic History Books.

Pat

(when I bought my house the Estate agent mentioned it was a Stone's throw from the local school. Luckily, there was a 24-hour Glazier just round the corner)

In war, when ya are running out of reinforcements or need ammunition you have to call in for help. Guess the new guy is simply reinforcements with ammunition.

Guess the new guy is simply reinforcements with ammunition.

Well, from my perspective he's shooting blanks. Not sure if he's an asset or a liability for Team Kiley in the ongoing war against Hollins and anyone who disagrees with Team Kiley, his posts overall are an interesting mass of self-contradictory statements and insult that detract from whatever point he is trying to make.

I understand, of course, that you (and your "teammates") will insist that I am a part of Team Hollins because in your view anyone not on Team Kiley must be part of Team Hollins. However, from my view there is really only one team playing on this forum, vs assorted individuals and pairs who don't automatically agree and support Mr. Kiley or his "teammates". It does help maintain a sense of persecution, though, to believe that everyone who disagrees or criticizes is a part of an opposing force with evil intent.

Having been reading the posts about Dave Hollins and Kevin Kiley I decided to buy a book of each author I managed to get hold of Dave Hollins work Marengo and was not overly impressed just another short booklet. Am now in search of Kevin Kileys work on Artillery I feel sure this one will be the same disappointment, this could be the reason for the friction between the two but thats just my opinion.

Well, from my perspective he's shooting blanks. Not sure if he's an asset or a liability for Team Kiley in the ongoing war against Hollins and anyone who disagrees with Team Kiley, his posts overall are an interesting mass of self-contradictory statements and insult that detract from whatever point he is trying to make.

Are you suggesting that PH has deserted?

I understand, of course, that you (and your "teammates") will insist that I am a part of Team Hollins because in your view anyone not on Team Kiley must be part of Team Hollins.

That's very disingenuous and to my knowledge nobody has ever suggested that if your not for us you're against us. I don't think either side is guilty of that. If it comforts you though I think you mark your own turf with your tones, very much like the rest of us.

Vendome

If Mr. Hollins and his followers stopped moaning about two negative reviews and creating fantasy excuses why they were written and let the book do its own selling or not, whatever the case may be, there wouldn't be any need to mention it again.

The previous comments to my Amazon review were rightly removed because they were mainly abusive. But Mr. Hollins has since decided to write further comments again. He just can't move on. Such a shame.

Gazzola – So you will continue to post on every thread as long as anyone else is posting -- in other words you MUST have the last word.

Old Bear – Gazzola has been characterizing anyone who disagrees with him in these threads as being on Team Hollins throughout the many threads he has started to attack Hollins. He has already characterized me in the same manner in a previous thread, as have Shane and Kiley in past threads. How is it disingenuous to state that I am sure he and they will view me in the same way now?

Why does there have to be sides?

James

Billy – If you take a look at the received wisdom on the subject of Marengo, (Elting's Atlas or Arnold's book) you will find that a lot of original work went into that Osprey. Okay, it is not the whole story, but at least it looked at nearly all of the available material (some surfaced afterwards) – that's about 80 eyewitness accounts plus all the analysis and OBs. It had to be written for the bicentennial obviously.

The friction with Kiley began here, because he was unable to back up his sacred texts with the facts and so, started his trashing camapign. If you look at his Artillery book, you will find (from the footnotes) that it is all third-hand claims.

That's the difference.

At least there is one positive thing to be had out of these threads and that is the ‘Idiot Tendency' have clearly identified themselves:-)

Bill

Vendome

If someone makes a posting concerning me or something I have posted or my review, don't you think I have a right to reply to them? Or are you suggesting that none of them are worth a reply, which is an interesting consideration?

XV Brigada

I don't think that's a nice thing to say about Mr Hollins. Shame on you.

Hew Johns

No, I think you'll find Shane is expressing the cause of what makes him feel sick. There is a difference if you think about it, at least for a few seconds.

Without reading through seven pages of posts….

Has anyone challenged Mr. Kiley's review of the book, or specifically the Austrian chapter? And I mean challenged in a meaningful way instead of just name-calling.

One problem is its so big, but I will try and summarize the problem areas.

Starts ok with general praise for the authors/chapters of

Jack Gill, Rick Schneid, Charles Esdaile, Alexander Mikaberidze, and Oliver Schmidt.

plus

along with the Italian and Polish chapters would rate a `five star' rating for the work.

some more praise

The best chapters in the book are on the Confederation of the Rhine, the Spanish, the Russians, and the Italians, though those on the Prussians and the Duchy of Warsaw are also informative and very helpful

complains about the length of chapters (387 words so far)

now the problems

Three of the chapters have some problems. Errors in the French chapter are myriad, less so in the British chapter by the same author. And the Austrian chapter fails in two areas-on the Austrian general staff and in the artillery section.

French errors
1. naming the two French carabinier regiments as an `elite form of cuirassiers
2.stating in two places that the carabiniers were only issued with breast plates
3.Sailors of the Guard three battalions when they only had one at full strength
4.a 3d Regiment of Guard Chasseurs a Pied in 1813 when there were only two
5.Dragoons of the Guard were `redesignated' as the `Empress Dragoons' when that term was a nickname
6.confusion over the Guard Lancer Regiment in 1815
7.the Flanquer-Grenadiers were formed in 1812 when they were not until 1813
8.there were 12 cuirassier regiments in Poland in 1806 when there were only eight
9.mistakenly naming hussars as `elite light cavalry'
10.names the Polish Light Horse at Somosierra in November 1808 as lancers, when they were not…
11.the engineers are portrayed as part of the French artillery arm, when the two were actually officially separated in 1758
12.Contrary to what is listed in the chapter, in 1809 there were two battalions of miners, seven engineer train companies (one of them being a depot company), five sapeur battalions (three more would be added in 1811-1812) and the number of pioneer battalions is greatly understated in the text by at least a factor of three. The pontonnier battalions did belong to the artillery and were not engineers.

The British
1.British foot guards `conduct and performance in battle was also generally higher' than line units is at the very least arguable….
2.the French attacking in column at Maida is perpetuated in this chapter
3.statement that the British infantryman could fire his musket `perhaps twice as quickly as his French counterpart' …
4.statement in the chapter that the musket could not be fired prone is incorrect

The Austrians
1.The staff section in the Austrian chapter is both confusing and error-ridden (followed by 275 words on the French staff)

56 word recommenadation of Gunther Rothenberg's Napoleon's Great Adversary,

2.The artillery section is also error-ridden, 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
3.characterization of Gribeauval as a `siege engineer' is incorrect.

bit of a rant

Unfortunately, it appears that no primary source material was used for either Gribeauval or his artillery system in the comparisons in the text, 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.

end of error list

Taken altogether, however, despite the flaws noted above, this book is recommended as an introduction to the period

followed by more praise for

Jack Gill, Charles Esdaile, Rick Schneid, Oliver Schmidt, and Alexander Mikaberidze

but all of us should look forward to more work on the period by Malyn Newitt and Jaroslaw Czubaty

and the .. [Gregory Fremont-Barnes (Author, Editor)David Hollins, neither mentioned by name in the whole review]

while three error-ridden chapters do not add to the overall knowledge of the period and detract from the overall effort of the other contributors.

In case i have missed something check out the review in full yourself.

so who wants to tackle it?

What are Mr Kiley's qualifications to make these comments and on what does he base them?

Bill

I don't doubt Mr. Kiley's qualifications to review this book. And I've read his review, I'm just curious if anyone has REFUTED any part of it and said "Actually, Mr. Hollins got that right."

poor old bill

Yes Clay, I did on 23rd March – reproduced below with some additional notes:

"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 artillery). 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 material is taken fron the 1769 Reglement, Krieg 1792, Rauchensteiner: Kaiser Franz und Erzherzog Carl, Gallina:: Beitraege zur Geschichte des oest. Heerwesens, Charles' Denkschrift and Vorschrift, Regele: Generalstabschefs aus vier Jahrhunderten, Schels' 1811 Memoire, Befreiungskriege 1813 (Staff History of the Liberation War), Horsetzky: Kriegsgeschichtliches Ubersicht der wichtigsten Feldzuge in Europa seit 1792,
Wolf-Schneider: Der oest-ung Generalstab (KA Nachlasse). The artillery was drawn from the material listed in NV72.

"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 Ney staff thread with LWF's comments for information about how 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. Rothenberg did not read much of the material listed above. He makes five refs to the staff in his index, which essentially address the performance of the staff on campaign – he does not discuss its structure in any detail and I have not made any secret of the difficulties it faced with training and experience. That side of it is well known and stated by Rothenberg, so I was addressing what has not been in English before tpo take the story up to Radetzky's direction of the massive Allied army at Leipzig. Rothenberg was under the Ruling Theories of 30 years ago and indeed draws heavily on material idolising the Prussians in the wake of the 1866 disaster.

"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. Please produce the evidence that Gribeauval imagined some mobile artillery and tested these weapons or commanded the Austrian artillery etc. Gribeauval's time in Austria is laid out in Duffy, a book Kevin certainly read.

"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 says the author of hatchet job on it. Their work is documented and draws on much original material. I would recommend this book as it tells the full story across Europe.

In short, what is Kiley's expertise? He cannot read French or german, which is a major handicap. When questioned about his material, it soonm becomes apparent that he has copied third hand claims – we have established that he made up the key 1762 report and did not read it (there is no ref to the original or its printed form in his book). We have established that he ahs not even raed what Duffy says about G's time in austrioa and when you check the basis for this "innovative" French system, you will find that the original sources do not say what is claimed.

In short, his review is a lot of nonsense, because he lacks the skills to read the original material and then fails to answer any question raised about his work. For ten years, he has waged a campaign against any work, which refutes the received wisdom, just by sowing doubt, not by producing any evidence. His most infamaous review was of DD&S, whose work
he trashed without mentioining his own rival work. he has fabricated his bibliography, failed to check his own sources and made up key documents. That should invalidate his comments!

At least there is one positive thing to be had out of these threads and that is the ‘Idiot Tendency' have clearly identified themselves:-)

Like Hollins, you seem to feel enough superiority to be able to dismiss any opposition as being 'Idiotic'. Why would you feel that?

Mr Hollins,

I understand that Mr Kiley has written on Napoleonic artillery and that you challenge his facts and synthesis. I await a copy from my local library with anticipation. I see nothing under his name on the subject of Austria specifically which would tend to suggest that he has no qualification in that respect. This is the problem with Amazon reviews. It give people a 'soap-box' with which to seek attention and whose views would otherwise not see the light of day.

I am amazed that people like bill and hollins etc are able to get away with calling other posters names…

I thought name calling was not allowed on this forum. I hope Bill steps in and maintains the rules of this forum so that posters are not insulted like this.

Bill,

Dave is okay! (I know it is a generational thing!). Indeed, do read Kiley's book. Ask yourself in particular:

1) has he read the relevant sections of the non-English works in his bibliography

2) why do pp.54-5 (one of the two pillars of the Gribeauval mythology) bear no relationship to the 1762 report, now online at link (section 3 at the bottom).

You may pause at pt 2 to reflect on the research methods of Stephen Summerfield, the S in DD&S, also subjected to a Kiley "review".

Dave,

You cheeky b***er:-) Yes I will read it and draw my own conclusions. It is the historical method that interests me bearing in mind all that has been said. Of course if the facts are wrong then no amount of synthesis is ever going to make them right but my competence probably doesn't extend that far.

Bill

XV Brigada

There is nothing wrong with Amazon reviews and you know it! You would not be moaning about them if the book containing Mr. Hollins' chapter have been given positive reviews or higher star rating.

It is not a soap-box. What an absurd remark! It is however, a way in which potential purchasers of a product can find out more about what they may be considering buying. And that is what hurts Mr. Hollins. He obviously does not want people to know about the faults it contains or the unequal playing field the authors were given.

There seems to be a very 'elitist' mindset, or rather 'people full of their own self-importance' mindset appearing here, judging by what some of the posters are suggesting.

They seem to be suggesting that a reviewer, in this case an Amazon reviewer, should be 'qualified' to write a review. They can't just be a customer who likes or dislikes the title thay have bought, and wants to explain why in the review. No, they must be some kind of 'expert' and they must be able to 'read' several languages.

They are reviews written by customers. It is NOT important WHO they are. It IS important WHAT they say. They are, after all, just an aid to potential customers.

And I'm sure potential customers do not buy or not buy a title, purely on the reviews given, unless a major fault with the title is exposed. Most reviews, as with the two Armies reviews, offer positive as well as negative aspects.

It seems odd that one of the Armies authors is unable to accept this and move on. That, in my opinion, suggests he may have another agenda.

Gazz

What I don't understand is why you gave the book 2 stars, when you agree that most of the chapters are right, and even one of them is brilliant (Gill's). Wouldn't have been more accurate a 3 or 4 star review?

"They seem to be suggesting that a reviewer, in this case an Amazon reviewer, should be 'qualified' to write a review. They can't just be a customer who likes or dislikes the title thay have bought, and wants to explain why in the review. No, they must be some kind of 'expert' and they must be able to 'read' several languages."

I don't think that's correct. What some of us have said is that a review written by a professional is more dependable, overall, than other written by an amateur.

As you know my field of expertise lies in the war in Spain, specially on irregular warfare. If I would wrote a review of a book on the Austrian army, I wouldn't dare to base it on 'errors' or 'mistakes' of the book except if I would have a certain degree of expertise on the topic, and would have consulted the original documents. I would comment, though, on the literary quality of the book; on how the research is presented; if the conclusions are consistent with the facts, as presented by the author; how extensive is the documental evidence presented; if there is any bias on the author's part, that is noticeable; how informative is the book; or if the maps are good or they aren't.

While the former is a review that only someone with a in depth knowledge of the topic can do, the second can be done by anyone who has a grasp on how history should be written, researched and on how evidence should be presented.

Best regards

The expertise of a reviewer, just like any agenda, is relevant to the review and should be explained at the start – although I think that was Gazzola's objection to my comments.

What some of us have said is that a review written by a professional is more dependable, overall, than other written by an amateur.

not if the review is written by one of the authors…that smells of unethical dishonesty to me, even if he did declare his name and intent first. His aim was to click the "5th" star and boost its overall rating because he feared others, like his rivals, would come along and upset what he felt should be a higher rating given to the book. Problem is, the book has his name on it as an author. So I say again, that to me smells of dishonesty.

tell us hollins, what made you give your book a five star rating???

Thank you for the response.

I find it amazing that 200 years later there is still so much debate. Do other periods of history go through this? We just accept the 'official' U.S. accounts of WWII…150 years from now people will be arguing over it like we are.

It is impossible to comment sensibly on the content of, let's say, a book on the French Revolution, or American Civil War or whatever, if the reviewer knows little or nothing about the subject? All they could possibly say is this book is well written, is printed on good quality paper, has so many pages, so many pictures, an index, a bibliography etc. But what happens is some reviewers pose as experts based on opinions formed by what they have read in books by other people which may or may not be any good. In other words, they feign competence to comment on the the accuracy or synthesis of the content. That is why most Amazon reviews of historical books are a waste of space.

Bill

I've got both Napoleon's Great Adversary and Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars in my collection and must now read them again, with a bit more attention….

FYI – the whole "Hamilton-Williams" thing put a scare into me. I really soaked up that book and it's been difficult purging my memory of what's crap and what's not. When I first started reading it, I smelled a 'rat'. But a friend convinced me that all was good and I read the entire book. His description of Ponsonby's charge was so good that I *WANT* to believe it….

Well, fiction can be a good read!

The thing about Naps is that it stands between a period of widespread literacy (ACW onwards) and not much beyond official work (7YW back to Rome). however much of its content has been hard to access or for reasons in the 20th century, simply ignored. Consequently, a 200 year received wisdom has grown up, which has only been untangled in the last 20 years. in contrast, to remain topical, when I was growing up, JFK was some youthful saint, who had brilliantly driven off the Russians over Cuba. The big anniversaries of Dallas were always marked favourably. These days, we have a much more extensive and rational picture of him and the events of the early 60s, but still the teddy-throwers have been hounding the Hitler (sorry, History) Channel.

I wouldn't accept 'official' U.S. accounts of WWII without reading British, French and German accounts.

A lot in Hamilton-Williams is good, most of the problems are his claims to fame and suspect source referencing.

I agree with others above on reviewing, I would have to feel very sure of my facts before I pointed out errors.

At lot of KK's complaints of things here on the forums and in books are often just his interpretation, others may have a different interpretation, some of the 'facts' in the French/British chapters are going to be right or wrong, but Gribeauvals artillery system is very much down to ones opinion.
The 'siege-engineer' would describe his role defending Schweidnitz but wasn't his official title, Dave will use terms like that more as a 'put down' for whatever reason, his dislike of Gribeauval/Berthier is as well known as Kevin's support for them, so anything artillery or staff related will produce a conflict between them.
I think what i have said is fair comment to both parties.