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

Whoot! I got the first post of the page.

Clay, every period has its fanboys who have to have their way with the with subject and no one else is allowed an opinion. This even happens among professionals. Check out the professional historical message boards sometime. One of the reasons I'm glad I'm out of academia.

Mr. Hollins

No, the problem was that you turned a comment into a review. Had it been a comment like the one you have since made, then that would be acceptable. But oh no, that wasn't good enough for you. You had to turn the comment into a Vanity Review. And the only reason you did that was to give yourself a 5 start rating. Own up and move on.

it is a mistake to think these subjects are a matter of opinion – evidence must be marshalled to back the argument and the original material must be checked, because of the unfortunate tendencies towards mistranslation and extrapolation.

Gribeauval's only known job in the French artillery was as a ca[tain of miners. That fact combined with the fact that all he did in Austria was sapping make him a siege engineer. He is only an artilleryman on the basis that the French combined artillerymen and miners at that time, because both were only concerned with sieges, as nothing bigger than a 4pdr was in the field. So, artillery was a simple infantry support weapon, much as it had been since it started. There is no evidence that he ever commanded artillery in the field or at sieges.

That is why he is a siege engineer – because there is nil evidence that he ever commanded a gun inn action.

The keys to his myth are 10 the 1762 report, an alleged technical blueprint, which is nothing more than a Q&A on the Austrian guns of such a basic level that anyone, who had read NV72 could comfortably have written it, and 2) the 1792 Table du construction, alleged to be end result of his actions, while the administrative head of the French artillery, which is actual just a snapshot of the french artilelry as it was in 1792. What do we find as Nap's almost first move as First Consul – he orders a new artillery system, which is basically a copy of Lichtenstein, while he uses captured L guns, while dumping G guns in the depots and in Spain.

When you look at all the alleged innovations of G, you find they already exist on Lichtenstein, which is the system, which brought heavier guns into the field. This achievement is ignored, because everything germanic is ignored and because the extrapolation of one paragraph in the 1762 report intro. Once yoiu check all the claims for G's guns, you find that they are not true. De Coudray says "Msr G is to be thanked for introducing the hausse sight" – not inventing it as the mythologists would have us believe. Many claims simply have no basis in evidence at all, but are repeated over 200 years, so that they appear to be true. Ask for the evidence that G built and tested full size Austrian adn Prussian guns – it is an extrapolation of a mistranslation!

These things are not opinion – a fact is a fact, an unsubstantiated claim is an unsubstantiated claim. What hangs over this is a very powerful and much repeated Ruling Theory that G was the man and his guns were the step change in artillery. I started writing NV72 on that basis, but soon found that the "innovations" already existed. I was the first to look closely at the 1762 report – it ahs only now been published on the NSF. That is how RTs work – they are assumed (wrongly) to be true, so any challenge becomes a question of opinion – if you start from forst principles, you will see that one side's evidence stacks up and the other's does not.

Here's a new drum

link

Just in case anyone's tired of banging the old one.

Okay, so the next question is…

Does one have to be able to read German and French in order to be an authority on this subject?

basileus66

Yes, some of the chapters are good and some of the authors should be applauded for their efforts, considering the lack of space some of them were given. Gill's chapter on the numerous armies of the Confederation of the Rhine is, in my opinion, brilliant. But even Gill describes his own chapter as an introduction because, even with one of the biggest chapters, page wise, he was unable to offer more.

Had the book contained 5 armies I would certainly have awarded it more than a 2 star rating. But only if the authors had been given an equal playing field.

In my opinion, whoever the fool or fools were, who decided that some armies and authors were more important than others should not be allowed to have any say in future publications.

And who is to say that a review by a 'professional' is not biased? How would you know if the 'professional' liked or disliked the author or had previous history with the author? Are you suggesting that reviewers should state their past and present history on the work reviewed? How would that look if the reviewer was another 'professional' who liked the author's work. "Hi, I am so and so and I really like so and so's work. We work together or have been close friends for years…." or "I hate this person because years ago he wrote about my work and I've never forgiven him. Now about the book…." It just wouldn't work, work would it?

And Mr. Hollins and his followers have not complained about my 4 star review of his Austrian Commanders title, have they? So it seems more of a case of positive reviews are acceptable, by anyone, no matter what previous history they may have, but not negative ones?

Mr. Hollins

How about moving on and let the Armies book sell itself, rather than raking up the past, which you seem quite fond of. Most people find it easy to do. It seems odd that you can't.

This reminds me of the people who put their fingers in their ears and yell, 'BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!' when someone's trying to explain something to them. No wonder people refuse to play Napoleonics.

Oh, BTW, Clay, some experts insist you have to speak those plus several others to be an expert.

Hey ! I cry foul on that one !

This has nothing to do with playing napoleonics.

It's possible to play Napoleonics with British troops wearing the wrong shako….if you want….and don't care too much.

You can play "Napoleonics for fun"

You can do skirmishes with Napoleonic elves and orcs, inspired by the Sharpe books.

It doesn't have to be dour and worthy (and dull).

Clay,

It depends what you mean. Do you mean to write Napoleonic history? To do that you must able to speak the language in which the original source material is written. The most important historical material is first hand or primary sources. You will find very little first hand material on the Prussian and Austrian military of the Napoleonic period in any language other than German and almost all first hand material on the French military is in French. Similarly you'd need to read English to write authorititively on the British military. It follows that in order to make use of this material the historian must understand the language in which it is written.

Books about history are text books and secondary sources. The readers of such books can become very knowledgeable indeed but only so far as their choice of reading allows and they only know what they have been told or choose to accept. In other words their knowledge is limited by what they have read. The wider they read the more knowledgeable they become. A problem arises when people develop loyalties to their favourite authors and are unwilling to accept anything that contradicts them or revises what was previously written. This is unfortunate for these people because history as a discipline is by nature revisionist.

Bill

You're right, 20thmaine. I apologize for that. There are decent people playing Napoleonics. And I even know a few of them.

The keys to his myth are 10 the 1762 report,

I am with connard, I am getting so tired of hollins continuing to beat this same old tired drum, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. Don't ya think it's about time he got over it???

How can someone be so obsessed with one thing for so long? I really think that is a tad bit scary…

Well as I said some things are a matter of opinion, some are facts that are either right or wrong.
I didn't want to start arguing over Gribeauval, there are too many gaps in his history to be clear.

But you calling him a siege engineer is your opinion of his position, it wasn't an offical title, unless you can come up with an offical document calling him so.

in later years before he died he was
Member of the Conseil de la Guerre
Lieutenant-G้n้ral in the army (since 1765)
Premier inspecteur – Corps Royal de l'Artillerie
Gouverneur of the Paris Arsenal
and
Commandant en Chef of the Corps des Mineurs
Non of which call him a siege engineer.

I agree currently we don't have anything saying he commanded artillery in the field, information on his career during the 7yw and before is annoyingly thin, but he was in charge of the whole French artillery corps in the end.

I believe the French used artillerie pieces greater than 4pdr in his day.

My opinion is you and others call him siege engineer, like you call Berthier chief clerk, its used in a derogetory way.

Come now Count B. are you sure you aren't whistling a make-up call?

Hollins puts a fair line in the sand, "There is no evidence that he ever commanded artillery in the field or at sieges." Anyone could force him to revise his position simply by finding a picture of a bri… er, the missing evidence. Of course it's a derogatory phrase. Not towards Gribeauval who has been amolderin' for two centuries. But rather at Kiley who insists G. was a gunner.

The outcome of this pedantic argument diminishes Gribeauval's achievements not a whit. It does, however, speak of those who would interpret his achievements. So pick a side. Is Hollins describing G. as a "siege engineer", in print, in a hardback book you don't have to buy, so cheeky it must be denounced by every red-blooded miniaturist? Or is Kiley's accusation, at Amazon's cash register, of "error-ridden", on the basis of niggling point he cannot substantiate, the kind of hatchet job we all should object to? Just how much tendency does one need to avoid the obvious conclusion?

It's always interesting how people will complain about a thread when it's a simple matter to not read it.

And Hew, the issue of Gribeauval's experience is a good one to resolve…..

Just how much tendency does one need to avoid the obvious conclusion?

We know who you are.

Nearly clever use of the 'tendency' title, but didn't quite fit and like your work, not as clever as you think you are.

isn't it obvious to everyone? the Napoleonic wars did not end with the retreat of the Old Guards last square that evening in June, nor with Napoleon's death. Even though the last musket shot and gun barrel is now silent and cold the heat is still prevalent in the friction of the pen and now the rapid-fire of key punching on keyboards all over the world.

My guess is it will never end and to be honest, all of this drama and foot stomping is actually a good thing. Because people on both sides are so stoic the period will continue to draw interest for generations to come, long after all other periods have faded into history and lost.

To be expert on anything, you have to be able to deal with the key features – in the case of the French army, that means you must read French 9unless nearly all of the material has gone into English) and in the case of Prussia and Austria, you must be able to read German. Would any of you accept "expert" work about something in an Anglophone country (post colonisation!) if the author could not read English? No, you wouldn't, so why does this not apply to any other nation?

The reason you neeed to be able to read the relevant language is to check the original material – much of what is written historically about the Europeans has been written to suit agendas and amplified in whichever is required. So, you need to be able to check the original. Take for example, this claim by Kevin from p.68 of his book: "that report [the 1762] became the blueprint for the Gribeauval system of artillery – the most comprehensive system up to that time". You will read that in every book in English, but go to the original document or the printed version in Hennebert and you will find it is nothing of the sort.

Take this from p.67: "(G) brought back plans of the Prussian light pieces and haad one cast, built an test-fired". It stems from a mistranslation and a lot of extrapolation. Ask a simple question and you will discern the truth: Where is the evidence for this claim.

How about this on p.91: "The French sight was the excellent Gribeauval movable or adjustable hausse sight" – except de coudray says quite clearly that "Msr G is to thanked for introducing the hausse sight" and one is shown in the Austrian 1767 Okonomie drawings. Here, the key French source and the contextual Austrian material have been simply ignored. Then comes the bricole – quite clearly in Austrian service in the 1757 illustrated regs (and actually Prussian with a probable earlier Russian origin). In that case, the French document say that G advocated the use of manpower and bricoles on campaign marches – to save the cost of horses.

Now, you do not have to be able to read the original material to offer a view on a subject. Take for example this from p.67: "(G) knew the L system like the back of his hand: he was familiar with its strengths and weaknesses, having served with it and used it in combat for over four years". You do not have to be able to read German to know this is false – the material is in Duffy, (a book, which shows the 1757 drawings), which is in Kevin's bibliography and which he clearly draws on. So, certainly, anyone, who only has access tos econdary material can still get involved and take a view, provide dthey specify where the material comes from and acknowledge that this has had a single-level filtering. It should however help anyone to question what is put in front of them.

To talk about G's achievements, we must first establish what he did and not consider them under the Ruling Theory, repeated in many books, that he produced a step change in artilelry, which gave N the hitting power he needed. RT has 3 features: A) the repetition of the received wisdom, usually apparent from high reliance on recent secondary material, B) ignoring and shouting down of anything, which is inconvenient – reviews, Duffy, Franco-German material, questions about the evidential basis and C) the extrapolation of claims and the interpretation of material to suit the idea you started with, perhaps the most famous being the intro paragraph from the 1762 report, which is much stated (Kevin on p.55), without actually discussing the text of the report.

Look at this way – whatever the merits or failings of the YrXI system, why did Napoleon make almost his first order in power a replacement of the G guns, if they were that good? What do the surrounding docs say about this order and its basis? Why have they not apparently been published?

The whole subject is interesting for everyone, because it tells all of us a lot about how the period facts and its popular view have become disconnected. The more we dig, the more we find the popualr claims are not true. the more w eask for evidence of those claims, the more we find it does not exist. Obviously that has an intellectual interest, but it is likewise something gamers should ponder as they play an approximation of what happened. Maybe that +2 for being French isn't all it is crakedn up to be!

Specifically on GB's point, George Osbourne, current UK Chanceloor (Finance Minister) is a politician, who has a degree in modern history, joined the Tory party as a researcher and then was selected as an MP. this does not make him an economist now or ten years ago. Maybe someone 200 years from now might think that he must have been at some stage to hold the key oversight post of the nation's finances – but a qucik check of what he did, shows otherwise.

Clay the Elitist

It would be much easier if people agreed to disagree. But some people, like Mr Hollins, sadly can't accept that. You have to agree with him in everything, otherwise you don't like him. Yes, very worrying.

I could have sworn this thread started with my disgust at Mr. Hollins writing his own disgraceful 5 Star Vanity Review?

Yet Mr.Hollins, who often complains of threads being diverted, is again trying to divert the thread to another author, namely Kevin Kiley.

And if you can't read French, German, Spanish or any other language, other than English, you get the material translated by someone who can. Simples!

I am with connard, I am getting so tired of hollins continuing to beat this same old tired drum, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. Don't ya think it's about time he got over it???

Whoa there b'wana.

I wasn't singling out Hollins, I was pointing the stinky finger at ALL of the posters on this thread (and other similar threads, and boy are there other similar threads) who drone on and on and on and on and on about the same old thing. All. Of. The. Bleedin'. Time.

Look around. There are agendas galore. Hollins isn't the only culprit.

Would you like me to tell you about 20mm plastic figures ?

;-)

Pass me that drum…..

Connard sage

I think you'll find people reply to posts made about them or that relate to something they may have said in a previous post. But if people didn't write the posts in the first place, the discussions, debates and grudge wars would probably end, well, for a while at least. Perhaps someone should call in the UN?

Or if you prefer, SSLC.

Knock it off, you're beginning to sound like a Smiths song

I agree, there are agenda's here everywhere. I have one also.

I agree, there are agenda's here everywhere. I have one also.

I bet it's not as big, shiny nor well researched as my agenda. So nerrrrrr

20mm plastic figures? How common, are they what poor people use?

If Osbourne has a degree in history, better watch out for more book reviews, or not.

I believe Kevin admitted to ***(I have forgotten the phrase he used)about the 1762 report.
If any beloved TMP readers would like to fill in the blanc.

I don't think we need to question M. Gribeauvals credentials, he seems more than qualified, although it
would be great to come up with an OOB that has our M. Gribeauval actually present at a battle, or commanding artillery as a junior officer, maybe one day.

Gazz, Dave will keep going until someone admits he is right or someone else comes up with some decent counter evidence, can you or your friends help?

whistling a make-up call

that phrase seems vaguely familiar..

I think it was something like "embellished it by trying to imagine G's thought processes". Given that there is no ref to the original report/Hennebert in his bibliography or notes, I would suggest it is hard to imagine the thought process, which went into producing it.

It is fundamental to the whole story, because of it being an alleged "blueprint" (p.68 in Kevin's book), which does rather demonstrate that he did not read the original. Indeed, it seems that prior to my reading it a couple of years ago, only Duffy read what Hennebert published! It stands in contrast to what L did, which was to direct the whole process, which began with ideas, then testing, then adjustments, then production in 1753. This G's apologists try to emulate by pretending the 1762 report was the opening blueprint and the 1792 Tables was the system he envisaged. In fact, the former is a Q&A on the Austrian artilelry and the latter is simply a snapshot of the French artilelry as it was in 1792 – barrels by Maritz, hausse sight by (someone!), bricole by the Russians, carriage from old French designs shaved down in L style with strapping etc. etc. Indeed, if we look at L, he does covere everything from muzzle to butt plate, plus ammunition, carts, howitzers, training, technical manuals, standardised production etc. G on the other hand did not even address much of it!

You will indeed search in vain for OBs containing G in command of guns.

XV Brigade –

The 20mm plastic figure is the ultimate in wargaming figures – large enough to paint well, cheap enough to field large battles at a 1:1 figure ratio. It is regarded as the choice of the intelligensia.

The best are better sculpted and more historically accurate than any range available in metal.

They are more widely available and better cover all periods of history than any metal range. They are unchallenged in their coverage of napoleonics. You doubt me ? Show me the metal historical range that contains these at anywhere near the same price :

link
link
link
link

Moreover…but …wait..what's that? What is that noise ? it seems to be a steady beat ? It's getting….louder ! Drums ! Drums ! Drums in the deep !

Re the third link, according to my sources they should be Austrian gunners.

Connad Sage

I didn't know they covered topics on how low an author can go? I'll have to look them up. Thanks for the tip off.

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)

I had resolved to stay away from the train smash that this thread has become, but I do resent being allocated to a team.

For the record I am not in Kevin's team, nor in Dave's. I have bought copies of all the book published by both authors, and will continue to do so.

For what its worth, my opinion of fellow TMP'ers is framed by their conduct on this site. Kevin has always been polite and courteous. Whilst I recall that Dave has been very hostile and rude in the past, as Shane has observed, his attitude now seems far more reasonable, and hence he has gone up in my estimation. (I hope that doesn't sound patronising or pompous (allthough I am a Pom!), I don't expect him to turn cartwheels or anything!)

My only agenda on this thread has been to disagree with a view expressed by some that military experience is of little or no relevance to military history, since equipment and techniques have changed. I have stated my rebuttal that in terms of the pressure that commanders are under, experience beats imagination.

I understand Dave's, and others, points that careful study and scrutiny of the archives is important. The only academic work which I have had published concerned a professional issue and involved no archival work, thankfully. (an article on Littoral Tactical communications for Naval Forces magazine which I was 'invited' to write by my CO at the time.)

However I remain adamant that secondary works by the pantheon of Military Historians with Service experience remain valuable and extant. It would be interesting to hear from the likes of the current crop of ex Service historians such as John Gill, Peter Edwards and the like if they agree.

My only other agenda, vented in another thread, was distaste for one of Gazzola's posts.

But niether of these should serve to put me in someone's camp!

Sparker, well as you didn't turn up, the game went ahead without you, its still playing BTW, only Kevin is over at Amazon at the mo, Brigada and VW won't play, LWF is also missing, think old bear is down the pub so its just Gaz, Defiant and Dave playing, no score yet.

As we are some 200 years away from the period I think the researcher with good methodology and language skills beats any current service experience, but i'm sure there are exceptions, John Gill indeed, although I think his experience was more intelligence than grunting on the front line, a brilliant historian/researcher/writer who has obviously read all the French/German sources and managed to put them into a coherent 3 volume history, have a look through his bibliographies, very impressive.

20th,

Comprehensive indeed. They remind me of those old Airfix 1:72 of my youth. I'll stick with my 10mm metals thanks. Price is not an issue but space is. Thanks for the links.

Bill

One simple question what constitutes an expert can anyone point me towards an expert on the British, the French The Prussians, Austrians and Russians. I would be delighted to know there names.

Sparker – if you extrapolate the nonsense on here over the past few weeks out over ten years, you will get an idea why I get a bit short with some of its authors. I haven't changed – it is just easier to point out Kevin's utter failure to do any proper research from his own recent publications. Of course, Kevin is always keen to offfer people his material – it makes him seem nice and helpful, while in fact, he is just trying to spread his mythology and avoid answering the key questions.

I would agree on teams – the Tendency do back Kevin, but otherwise the rest of us can discuss the actual material.

Imperiale – I doubt anyone can be an expert on a whole nationality. The subject is just too vast.

Imperiale,

I agree more or less with Graf B. An expert is simply a reliable authority with extensive understanding of the subject and the specialized skills of the discipline in question. An expert historian would have the skills of the discipline derived by training, education combined with practical experience and extensive knowledge of the specific subject matter. The key attribute is that they must also have established their credentials and be recognized as an authority by their peers.

Bill

I prefer Nils Bohr's's definition

An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a narrow field

Or Frank Lloyd Wright's

An expert is a man who has stopped thinking. He knows everything

People complained about my using the term 5 star Vanity review, in relation to Mr. Hollins disgraceful action, but he does like to spout own favourite term – Tendency

For those not in the know, members of the terrible Tendency are anyone who dares to offer criticism against his work, disagrees with him or finds that something he says in a post contradicts something he says in his own books. They are also automatically allied to his dreaded foe, Kevin Kiley, even if they have never met the man or live thousands of miles away from him.

And if someone writes a positive review on Mr. Kiley's work or a negative one on Mr. Hollins work, they are obviously covert leaders of the Tendency and gunning for Mr. Hollins. So much fantasy and imagination. I'm surprised Mr. Hollins has not yet considered writing a novel.

Long live the Tendency!, er, whoever they are!

Sparker

People should be allowed to disagree with each other and voice their opinions, without being labelled as being for or against certain personalities. You have disliked one of my posts, whichever it was, but that is your choice. I'm not going to throw you into one of the mythical camps because of it.

The truth is, there are no camps, just people with different opinions. And some opinions will obviously match or disagree with that of others. That's a fact of life. But it seems Mr. Hollins and others want to create a fantasy world in which people are in various camps. In that way they think it will water down any criticism of an author's work or posts, because they can then claim they are in the 'opposing' camp.

However, sadly, Mr. Hollins goes a bit further, with his Tendacy tag, which he has created in order not to reply to people. That's why I wrote the previous joke post. It is just plain silly. But the problem now, is that it appears Mr. Hollins is beginning to believe his own fantasy creations, rather than accept criticism like other authors, even after all these years of being in the business.

link

'I prefer Nils Bohr's's definition
An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a narrow field'

'Or Frank Lloyd Wright's
An expert is a man who has stopped thinking. He knows everything'

Excellent-very well said.

K

So no one can tel me who the experts are supposed to be, all I am trying to do is find a list of so called experts on.
1 The British Army
2 The French Army
3 The Prussian Army
4 The Austrian Army
5 The Russian Army
6 The Poles
I fully understand various people wil have various opinions.

Connard,

LOL! Yes there is probably one throw-away quote like those for every day of the week. Mind your your two were people who thought very highly of themselves.

I can't remember who said it but it went something like 'I was an expert on parenting until I had children of my own'

Imperiale,

You'll need to find an expert to recognise another:-) I am fairly sure though that the expert on the French army will probably be French so that narrows your search a bit!

Bill

I'll give you another throw away quote then, attributed to Marcus Aurelius

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth

Pick the bones out of that.

Serge,

I was told once by a very wise man that there is no such thing as an 'expert' in military history.

My own opinion is that anyone who is actively seeking that illusive accolade, or presenting himself as such, is merely into self-promotion and not really interested in researching history.

However, that is merely an opinion.

K

'I'll give you another throw away quote then, attributed to Marcus Aurelius
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth'

And from one of my favorite historical personages. Again, very well done.

K

You flatter me Kevin. I'm merely standing on the shoulders of giants :)

When you hit the nail on the head, you hit the nail on the head-you are a perceptive person.

I would submit that all of us are either standing on the shoulders of giants or at least attempting to.

I'm doing a little research on the Romans for the moment and I have a volume by Marcus Aurelius that was a Christmas present a few years ago. Full of wisdom that book is.

Sincerely,
K