"This Might Also Be Helpful...Or Not" Topic

coodya pleese halp mee speek beta englesh mr gribby, im beeggin ya pleeese, i wanna now my abc'es so bdly so i cood do sum seerioos disscushuns on this heer foram so that i cood fit in wif u and talk gud

iwanna be like u mr gibby u arr my hero

/yawn

your boring me gribby

Definately Full House

'…given his claims in his Amazon review that I know nothing about staffs and artillery…'

That isn't what I said and you are misrepresenting what I did say. This is what I did write:

'The staff section in the Austrian chapter is both confusing and error-ridden. The role of an army chief of staff is not presented correctly 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. 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. 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. 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.'

'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.
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. 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, 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.'

You haven't accurately portrayed what the Austrian general staff was-it wasn't what you wish it to be but what it was, and while individual Austrian staff officers were excellent (Suvorov especially prized them in Italy and Switzerland as his own were inefficient), the staffs they constituted were overburndened, not efficient, and that was one of the reasons the Austrians had many problems on campaign against the French, whose staff system was efficient and was headed by the premier chief of staff of the period.

Many of your artillery remarks, regarding Gribeauval, his system, the Systeme AN XI, as well as gunnery and ballistics are incorrect. Perhaps your 'research' needs to be revamped or you need to go back to school and take a physics course in ballistics to actually attempt to understand it. Basically, you don't understand the French artillery arm, how it was constituted and how it performed in combat. In short, you obviously don't understand what an artillery system of the period was. Not understanding many facets of a subject is not the same as not knowing anything about it. You want to be recognized as an artillery 'expert' but you have an awfully long way to go to reach that goal, if ever. You wish it so badly that it is apparent to me that you'll say anything or accuse others of anything to become it. Unfortunately for you, Rothenberg is still the authority on the Austrian Army of the period, not you.

…'especially coming from someone, who made things up in his own work.'

I have made nothing up. Your repeating that inaccurate remark is merely misrepresenting what I have written.

'You have claimed to be an expert on artillery of the Napoleonic Wars'

I have never claimed that at all. To say so is another misrepresentation. If you believe that I have said that, then produce it. You have a real problem taking things our of context and being accurate in what you say. It is getting tiresome, along with the personal comments. You act worse than some of my teenaged students.

'You should not be too surprised, given your enthusiasm for claiming that others don't do their research to find the truth about yours published in a forum, where you have ample opportunity to respond clearly – rather than writing rubbish on Amazon and running away.'

And where did I run to? You are incorrect, as usual and don't know what you're talking about. You have accused me of various forms of obfuscation, but you cannot or did not counter it, merely accusing me of things that are neither true nor correct. Further, you have written a 'review' of your own efforts as well as admitting you wrote a review of a book you didn't read.

K

Very long on polemic Kevin, but not actually answering any of the questions raised against your work and your poisonous reviews. Coming from someone, who cannot read French or German, who fabricated his bibliography, made up a key piece of his work and has been found out on innumerable occasions copying thirdhand claims in English, which do not stand up, I don't think any of us need take any lessons from you.

I think you will find that accusing authors of errors and nonsense is aan accusation of getting it wrong. No doubt, you can tell us all about the in-depth research you have done on the Franch and Austrian staffs/artillery. Do tell us what the 1762 report actually says and why Gribeauval's career in austria is npot how you would wish it – indeed, it is given in Duffy in English and still, you ignore it! Where are all the reports of the supposed tests on Austro-Prussian guns? Perhaps we might hear about how G invented the bricole and the hausse sight, when all sourtces say they already existed? Tricky, aren't they? Maybe we might get an answer?

As I said, you do not anwer the key questions and run off to Amazon with yet another of your accusatorial reviews, designed just to sow doubt in the minds of readers.

So, come on then Kevin, ATQ and do tell us why you made things up – or indeed, why your knowledge of Nap guns is so much better than gunners, who were there – esp as you cite their work without actually reading it.

'Seems we have another contender (from the G overall barrels thread on Discussion) – an entirely fictious Gribeauval system, based on 18 calibre barrels! I was interested to see that N's order to sort out the artilelry was issued 9 days after becoming First Consul, so I think the Emperor is with us on the ranking of No.4 anyway.'

Do you have the order and if you do can you post it-at least the date? You have overlooked the fact that Napoleon was revamping the entire French army, especially the cavalry, during this period. And what actually does 'sort out' mean in your lexicon?

Finally what is the 'fictious Gribeauval system based on eighteen caliber barrels'?

K

YouTube link

Cute Skip.

The only problem is a confrontation like that would never happen-he feels too comfortable behind his keyboard.

K

I will just note that once again, you have failed to address the questions raised about your own work.

However, a committee of artillery was established in 1790 by the French National Assembly "to treat with the Minister on all the businesses relating to all the services and work of artillery". It wasn't actually convened until 1795, but advsied on the artillery thereafter. The experiences of the Rev Wars (the first major war fought by France since the 7YW) led a group of influential French artillery officers to be critical of the equipment. The main complaints were that the 4pdr was too small to be effective and the 8pdr too heavy for close infantry support. On 16th Nov 1799, the new First Consul ordered the committee to prsent an assesment of their activities to date (which had actually included some testing of captured Austrian and Prussian
weapons!). This committee was later expanded to become the artillery reform committee on 29th Dec 1800. (Ref: DD&S: Napoleonic Artillery pp. 68-70, another book you chose to call erroneous).

As to the calibre comments, I misread something and corrected myself a few posts later – something you omit to mention. Before you get excited, note that your own barrel measurements are also wrong as they are the full overall length, despite your emphasising the contemporary method. I see nothing wrong with correcting oneself.

So, Kevin, about this fantasy 1762 report, the claims you make about G's inventions (notably the bricole and hausse sight), the datyes of these alleged tests of Allied kit, your fabricated bibliography? Your turn.

Kevin@ see he came right back

And there is no citation on pages 68-70 of Napoleonic Artillery to support the ideas expressed. Couple that with the many errors in fact in the book (along with shoddy work in the notes as to references), including the bouncing canister rounds, tends to negate unsourced information.

I am surprised that you use a secondary work for material that you post, when you are always talking about primary sources. Seems hypocritical to me.

The information on Gribeauval and the bricole was given to you years ago as being in G. Roquerol, L'Artillerie au Debut des Guerres de la Revolution (where you can also find information on Gribeauval being considered a 'collaborator' by his Austrian artillery colleagues-and that is also in Howard Rosen's The Systeme Gribeauval). The mention of Gribeauval testing both the Austrian and Prussian field pieces is in both DeScheel and du Coudray.

And your insistence and reptition of calling the bibliography in Artillery 'fabricated' is nonsense and that just isn't true. You really ought to knock it off. The adjustable hausse sight was Gribeauval's development from earlier work done in that area, and if you don't realize it's originality or believe it was copied from somewhere else, then please show from where and a picture of its precursor would help immensely.

Finally, and I've already explained this on this forum, there is no 'fantasy' involved in the small section on Gribeauval's 1762 report-it's my interpretation of it and how it was developed.

K

'…see he came right back.'

Skip,

Unfortunately, yes he did-just like a yo-yo or a boomerang. He has to have something to hate. He once made the comment that he would disagree with everything I ever said or wrote on Max Sewell's old forum because of the ancient Marengo review (which turned out to be correct, by the way), so whether or not I answer him, he will always manage to bring my name into a discussion and make insulting, disparaging, and personal remarks about me. I've ignored the 'gentleman' for quite some time, but it's getting a little old and his comments on Amazon were defamatory.

K

I've never trusted Lawyers and certainly would not now.
Some in the industry are just bottom feeders.

My moneys on the Marine of Artillery who "
in my opinion" would be well educated in the craft.
Not to mention is a West pointer.

Regards
James

'Stephen Summerfield produced an excellent bit of research on Gribeauval, do you agree?'

Since the material has been in print in English from at least 2005, the material would be very easy to assemble. Further, most, if not all of it, has been posted on the forums so it is readily available. If he had taken a look at Rosen's work on Gribeauval, the differences between the officers of the Corps Royal de l'Artillerie and those of theh Regiment Royal-Artillerie could have been explained much better. Also, explanation of the miners position in the artillery would also have been much clearer.

'What happened on the NSF? you eventually revealed where you got your 'fact' from, others checked for themselves, turns out your 'fact' was a badly translated book, and the 'fact' went ** in a poof of smoke!'

If you had actually paid attention you would have realized that the material was not badly translated from a primary source, and that the primary source material, from Tronson du Coudray, backed up the translation. So, the 'fact' that I posted was correct and was backed up quite nicely.

'I have seen this so many times from you
1. You post some statement of 'fact' or post a critical review of someones work.
2. somebody challenges you about your 'fact'
3. you reply after a while with a list of books you have read, or some 'definition' of something, or he says so and he is a excellent author so he must be right.
4. somebody repeats the challenge you didn't answer
5. you say i have supplied the 'evidence' (the list of books)and you don't know what you are talking about.
6. somebody repeats the challenge you didn't answer
7. you reply lets agree to disagree, or lets move on, or I have listed my books, look it up yourself or look at my qualifications, i must be right
8. somebody get very frustrated
9. after a few months delay go back to 1.
All sound very familiar?'

Interesting viewpoint, but somewhat slanted and incorrect. You take the agent provocateur viewpoint of material and discussions and to my mind merely want to cause trouble without actually contributing to a discussion. You also take cheap shots and some very inaccurate ones, such as that above. Perhaps if you stopped your nonsense many of the arguments would never take place. I think you enjoy them and like to start them…

K

Keraunos

I would agree with you if the idea of a badge with Mr. Hollins head on it was serious, which you obviously seem to think it was. It was joke, a bit of humour, aimed at Mr. Hollin's constant fantasy claims that people are gunning for him because they disagreed with him or wrote a negative review on something containing his work.

Mind you, if you do hear of anyone making them, please let me know, just out of curiosity of course.

John,

Interestingly, if you write a positive review of Hollins' work, which I have done at least twice, there is either no notice of it or it doesn't register.

His reaction is spite, inaccurate accusations, misquoting, and general ignorance.

Sincerely,
Kevin

interesting viewpoint, but somewhat slanted and incorrect.
You take the agent provocateur viewpoint of material and
discussions and to my mind merely want to cause trouble
without actually contributing to a discussion. You also take
cheap shots and some very inaccurate ones, such as that
above. Perhaps if you stopped your nonsense many of the
arguments would never take place. I think you enjoy them and
like to start them…

He Kinda sounds like a drama queen, my daughter uses that
line a lot.

Regard
James

No, I was actually complaining about a rather nasty campaign against my work – it seemed a bit silly just to complain about some and not others.

James,

Some of my students do the same thing. ;-)

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin

I've written positive reviews on his work, as well, and again, not even a polite thank you. But I think it is a case of Mr. Hollin's not recognising what you do right, but for what, in his opinion, you do wrong – eg, disagreeing and negative reviews.

By the way, any news on the badge making?

Anyway to the subject matter and its illumination of your in/ability to judge the work of others.

I wasn't surprised at the tone of your remarks aimed at a well-researched work, which showed up the received wisdom for what it is, but your claims are actually wrong. In the piece covering the committees from 1790 to1803, there are four footnotes, all to a 2002 published essay by nardin about these committees. Are you disputing Nardin's work or that DD&S represented his research correctly – my own experience with material I am directly familiar with rather suggests it is not the latter. So, where is Nardin at fault? Although Nardin's 1982 biog of G is rather elusive, it is worth noting that your bibliography does not include any reference to anything by Nardin.

Then we have a rather curious approach to sourcing: "Roquerol, L'Artillerie au Debut des Guerres de la Revolution (where you can also find information on Gribeauval being considered a 'collaborator' by his Austrian artillery colleagues-and that is also in Howard Rosen's The Systeme Gribeauval)." So, can we hear about these Austrian comments on G being a collaborator – because they do not appear in his MTO citation (for sapping at Schweidnitz) or any Austrian printed sources. So Rosen repeats these claims – does that prove anything beyond that Rosen copied Roquerol without substantioating these claims?

So, we move to G's alleged innovations: 1) the bricole: You claim this is substantiated by Roquerol writing in 1896, a full century after these events. However, the Austrian 1757 drawings clearly show it in Austrian service and some of those drawings are reproduced in Duffy pp.286-88, as well as NV72, a point picked up by Steve Smith a full year before your book was published. The NSF discussion showed an earlier Prussian usage and possible a Russian origin. It is interesting to note therefore that you ignored the evidence in a book you used and list in your bibliography.

2) the hausse sight: du Coudray says of this on p.56 of his book, now at link that G was the one responsible for the "moyen" (method) of maintaining the aim – "ce moyen" was the insertion of a hausse sight in a slot at the rear of the barrel. In a footnote on p.59, du C talks about "the inventor of the sight", but does not say G. indeed, it cannot be G, since the sight is shown in the 1767 Austrian Okonomie drawings. Such was the usefulness of G's method that it was the 1780s before Prof Lombard devised the deatil and the slot first appeared on the m.1789 barrel. What we actually have here is a mistranslation – Du C was backing G in an argument with the de V crowd, who supported the return of the button and V of 1732.

So, a mistranslation – and what do we find with the claim about testing barrels. As was pointe dout above, the NSF duscussion showed that the claim about the tests was down to a mistranslation of "experience" in du Coudray, copied by de Scheel. On p.13, du Coudray actually says: "G, qui joignait a une connaisaance parfaite de l'ancien etat de l'Artillerie, l'experience la plus complette des changements que les Autrichies et les Prussiens avaient juges a propos de faire dans la leur, puisqu'il venait de commander celles des premieres pendant plusieurs campagnes et qu'il avait toujours eu en tete celle des autres" before going on to describe the 1764 Strassbourg tests. So, where does du Coudray say that G tested Austrian and Prussian weapons? It is worth noting that you do not list du Coudray in your bibliography.

Du Coudray is of course also wrong about G commanding Austrian guns anywhere, not that it vstopped you from claiming on p.67 that G knew the Austrian artillry "having served with it and used it in combat over 4 years". Duffy provides the information about G in Austria in his book, showing that G was only ever involved with the sappers and their operations. So, you have quite deliberately ignored this information, despite claiming that the information mentioned by Dr Summerfield was all available pre-2005, when your book was published.

From ignoring inconvenient material, we can move to fantasy. You now claim that your account of the 1762 report, which you describe on p.68 as "the blueprint for the G system", was an attempt to convey the thought processes behind what was written. How can you begin to suggest thought processes, when you have not read the end-product? Indeed, what are these thought processes, when they bear no relation to the content? It is worth noting that Duffy cites the report four times in his footnotes to the Artillery chapter. It is also worth noting that you do not list Hennebert in your bibliography.

Bit of a sad story, isn't it of books not read, sources not checked, contrary evidence simply dismissed , but now to the fabricated bibliography: You list a considerable number of French works and at least a dozen German works, none of which you have read – and in a list, which omits some of the most important tetxts! It is simply designed to persuade the unsuspecting reader that you have read them and that your conclusions have some basis in an analysis of the period evidence. It is a mirror image of your attempt to persuade the reader of the accuracy of your opinions, when you say G was "possibly a genius", based on a a quote describing G as "the designer of one of the world's greatest artillery systems" – footnoted to de Scheel to suggest a period origin, but actually a comment by Don graves, on which he has subsequently recanted!

I think that puts your capacity to review other works in context.

As to my using secondary material on a forum, I would suggest any forum would die if we insisted on primary material. Secondary material can be brought up and then checked itself in a forum discussion, maybe by those with access to the primary material or related evdience. That is after all what we have donme right here with your claims. It is all rather different from writing a book, where the author speaks to his audience and should be clear about where his material comes from.

Gen Brock,

There is I think just more than a possibility that Mr Hollins is right and Mr Kiley is wrong. I have just completed reading the latter's book, only the first half which is actually about artillery largley Gribeauval's system (the rest is an account of some battles). I can't comment on the technical points made but I did note that many footnotes are to secondary English language material, which might be very good for all I know, and not to the Foreign language primary material in the bibliography which I thought odd. I also thought that the historical method was poor. Mr Kiley set out his views and then proceeded to attempt to prove them correct. He could be right of course but this is not the way to do it and on technique alone his argument that Gribeauval was a genius fails. I can't comment on the behaviour of your daughter:-)

Bill

You should bear in mind that much of it is actually de Scheel and Tousard – T having copied large chunks out of de S. This has resulted in one reviewer noting that four chunks of text are repeated.

The acid test is whether the supposed original sources for their books are correct – there are many instances of mistranslation, misrepresentation and downright invention – and then whether the original source is correct. Unfortunately, too much has been made of claims in French books about other nations' artillery and G's own life experience, especially in Prussia and Austria.

Hence the ultimate need is to examine what is said to establish whether it stands up.

Have you read or do you have Tousard's artillery manual? As DeScheel's is quite small compared with the 1200 pages of text in Tousard, 'large chunks' of DeScheel is a gross overstatement. You might actually wish to take a look at Tousard. If you do, you'll find that the material in it was compiled from over 75 sources, both in print and in manuscript form.

The major French sources used by Tousard are by General Victor-Antoine Andreossy, LtGen De Mouy, Captain Henri Othon De Scheel, Colonel Edme-Jean-Antoine Du Paget, Denis Diderot's and JL D'Alembert's Encyclopedie, General Jean-Jacques-Basilien Gassendi's Aide-Memoire, Gribeauval's material, especially the Reglement of 1765, General Jean Fabre de Lamartillerie, General Theodore-Bernard-Simon d'Urtubie.

The major English language sources were by Captain Ralph Adye, Major General Alessandro Vittoria Papacino D'Antoni, Major Charles James, James Glenie, John Muller, Benjamin Robins, and Captain William Stevens.

For their works you can take a look at the Smoothbore Ordnance Jounal, Volume One on the Napoleon Series as the article about Tousard's source material is there. If you can' find it I'll match the works with the authors for you. Most of the names of the authors should be familiar, but if they are not, I'll explain them to you.

I used Tousard heavily in Artillery because it would be easier for readers to look up his manual, as thorough as it was for the period, especially if they didn't have French or German languagne skills. The other artillery manuals consulted were checked carefully against Tousard's, such as in the crew drill area, to ensure they matched.

In writing Artillery I consulted, and listed in my bibliography, 24 primary source artillery manuals in English, French, German, and Spanish. Forty percent of the footnotes in the book are from primary source material.

It should also be noted that Gribeauval's Tables des Constructions des principaux attirails d'artillerie, published in 1792, three years after Gribeauval's death, was the work of Gribeauval (and states so on the cover of the work). Plates from this work are reproduced in the 1795 edition of De Scheel and in the 1800 American translation. This is sometimes overlooked. There were only 104 copies of these tables, of which there were three volumes in four parts.

K

'Unfortunately, too much has been made of claims in French books about other nations' artillery and G's own life experience, especially in Prussia and Austria.'

Undoubtedly for two reasons: first and foremost, because Gribeauval was French; second, undoubtedly because the French captured so much Austrian and Prussian artillery from 1792-1815.

It is also logical to conclude that if one is defending a fortress and is a senior artilleryman, that the artillery is commanded by that senior officer.

Thanks Kevin, since the question seems to have been directed
at you through me 'and' he doesn't understand the Tech. part
of it so it makes me wonder how he can even comment on your
book.

Regards
James

Wow Kevin you never back down/change opinion/read more ever!

in response to my mention of Stephens excellent article you reply

Since the material has been in print in English from at least 2005, the material would be very easy to assemble.

but we had to wait till now for Stephen to compile it, and I believe he was using mostly French sources, something like that should have been in your book then? You replied to the Hennebert issue by saying you had the book for years, but you didn't mention it till Dave published the report.

My statement of the way you defend a viewpoint, you reply

Interesting viewpoint, but somewhat slanted and incorrect. You take the agent provocateur viewpoint of material and discussions and to my mind merely want to cause trouble without actually contributing to a discussion. You also take cheap shots and some very inaccurate ones, such as that above. Perhaps if you stopped your nonsense many of the arguments would never take place. I think you enjoy them and like to start them…

No I like a good high level discussion on topics, I don't think I cause the arguments, just sometimes comment on them, especially when you seem to avoid the answers using the tactics stated, all of which are in some forum archives somewhere.

And yes it was a mistranslation, I don't see how you can deny it, look back on the NSF

If I had the time or will I could copy and paste some of your posts, but I really don't because you still wouldn't believe me.

Can you produce any evidence of Gribeauval commanding Austrian artillery, in the field or in a siege, I have looked but not found any yet? Schweidnitz in 1762 had a fortress commander (Guasco??), had Gribeauval doing the counter mining etc, I think there was an Austrian commander for the artillery but not found his name yet.
I would like to prove Dave wrong, but it needs something more than some 3rd hand say so.

Why don't you admit you used Tousard because it was in English, you mention all the other sources, shouldn't you have used those instead of just repeating Tousard?

James

What line is that? or shouldn't I ask?

OMG! Mark you are making me look smart.

Thank you
James

"It is also logical to conclude that if one is defending a fortress and is a senior artilleryman, that the artillery is commanded by that senior officer."

It is however better to read the source material than engage in guesswork. If you read it, notably the MTO award, you will find that G was leading sapping operations. Okay then, it must be logical to conclude that if one is defending a fortress and is a sapper commander and that the artillery is commanded by someone else, that you are a siege engineer.

We are still waiting for the evidence to back your claims, which is still not forthcoming – what was this four years with the Austrian artillery, where, when etc?

You can list all the sources you like from Tousard – there are plenty of books in your bibliography, most of which you have not read, and at least one, which has evidence running entirely contrary to your claims (Duffy), but which you have ignored, plus those three important French works, none of which you even list. So, if you lifted Tousard and de Scheel, plus the likes of Rosen and Alder, where is your expertise – you have just lifted secondary works with all the problems of factual errors, mistranslations, claims passed off as fact and downright invention (we are still waiting for the data on these tests). Don Graves is interesting on Tousard – also on the Nap Series at PDF link Note his fns. 6 and 7, where Tousard seems to have a lot in common with you: he apparently used the best English translations of French works and set out to prove that G's guns were the best, despite a noted gunner turned Emperor having abandoned them 9 years earlier! He also used the main printed British texts, wihch you list – so does that mean you have read them, Adye aside? Perhaps Graves'most revealing comment is that Tousard cannot be a reliable source for US artillery of the period, which is odd, given that he was in the US at the time!

So, we are back where we started – you have not even looked at key sources in English and French, let alone German and other languages. You are relying on a tertiary soucre with an agenda behind it, which itself was only based on translated work, so Tousard did not go back to the French material either, judging from graves' comments.

The 1792 plates are very interesting, but nota s you present them. I have seen the British Library copy in its nice red (?) leather covers, but the title is: "Tables des constructions des principaux attirails de l'artillerie, proposeìes ou approuveìes depuis 1764. jusqu'en 1789, par Mr de Gribeauval, Lieutenant Geìneìral des armeìes du Roi et premier Inspecteur de l'artillerie." It is worth remembering that Gribeauval was not in charge for the entire period and that 'approuvees' means 'approved', so it could have come from anywhere originally. Given the research by Nardin mentioned by DD&S, it seems that it may have been a move by the committee as one of its tasks was to supervise quality control and uniformity of production. It is a snapshot of the French artillery down to the main bolts and being 1792, does not prove anything about what Gribeauval did. Again, contrary to your claims, we only have du Coudray saying tables of measurement were sent out in 1765 – no mention of plans – and you might care to look at Digby's translation of Dolleczek in the Ordnance Journal, as it seems the Austrians were about 50 years ahead of even that.

Failure to read these key sources and think about them has made your own case rather weak, when we check these materials – copying Tousard's agenda and recent US books won't change that.

So, about these key questions – where is your evidence?

Ha Dave remember Marengo…

Just to expand on what I said so that it is cannot be misunderstood, I cannot comment on the technical aspects of Mr Kiley's book because I haven't got access to the source material, therefore I make no comment about it in respect of the accuracy issue levelled by Mr Hollins. I have neither time nor inclination to go to all the trouble of doing that.

I can comment on the historiography though and it is not impressive in respect of historical method and judging from footnotes the use of the sources listed seems rather selective. I also thought that the book was a bit disappointing in that the title did not reflect the content as about half of it was nothing to do with artillery as such but a handful of short accounts of various battles.

Bill

Graf B,

I have Mr Kiley stifled and don't read any of his posts. It is a waste of time in my view like trying to teach a pig to dance and really irritating. But assuming you reflect him accurately Mr Kiley's response is a bit disingenuous in my view as it seems fairly obvious that he started this thread in the first place with the intention of starting trouble. If he did not, then he is naive bordering on the terminally dim. I don't think he is either naive or dim.

I thought the link to Graves' Tousard article was illuminating. I am now struggling to see Tousard's relevance as a principal source for any book on Napoleonic artillery which tends to reinforce my concerns about Mr Kiley's selective use of sources.

Bill

What the are you two arguing about?

The Prussian staff history gives a day by day account of Schweidnitz in 1762 but doesn't really help much re Gribeauval.

It does give

Commandant General Guasco
General-Quartiermeister General Gianini
Ingenieur und Artillerist General Gribauval

at the end it lists only 3 generals captured, however the artillery were more likely commanded by an obrist, or even lower.

I'm surprised they were the only generals involved, there were 12,000 odd men in the garrison

Grosser Generalstab – Geschichte des siebenjahrigen Krieges v6-1 1762 pp. 251-364

Grosser Generalstab – Die Kriege Friedrichs des Grossen tends to have more details but only have up to vol 6

Guasco left an account will try to find it.

I assume this the correct one
Johann Franz Graf von Guasco de Clavières (1708-1763)only because he was promoted FzM on 27 Oct 1762

XV Brigada

You posted that Kevin could be right and he could be wrong. So that suggests you are not convinced by Mr. Hollins' arguments.

You also stated that you don't read Kevin's posts, so what is the point of reading Mr. Hollin's posts anyway, since you will have no idea of what he is talkin about, concerning Kevin's posts?

And the 'trying to teach a pig to dance' reference is low, even for you.

Wurzbach's entry is at link – with the detail on p.333. At the top left, W notes that Frederick the Great handed the job to Lefebvre, who was to recover Schweidnitz by means of mining operations. The trenches were opene don 6th August and FtG was initially optimistic, but Lefebvre had to acknowledge that he could not make progress against the counter-mining with Quetschminen [see below]. On 26th Sept, FtG writes: "Das Genie Gribeauval" – Genie means 'genius' these days, but has been translated as "that devil" and is of course the root of Ingenieur (engineer) "defends the fortress … he is constantly poresenting us with obstacles of all kinds". Gribeauval's "Chicanen aller Art" actually delayed the capitulation until 9th October, notes Wurzbach, whose refs are on p.334, including Passac in 1816.

It should be obvious from this that Frederick's remarks tell us what G was up to, but have been selectively taken out of context.

Hirtenfeld's collection of MTO winners adds G at link p.157. He says General Giannini and the "famous engineer Gribeauval" supported Guasco in the defence of the fortress. Wurzbach notes that Gribeauval and Lefebvre were childhood friends, but opponents in mining theory. L was an advocate of "globes de compression" [some kind of big mine – in the WW1 explosive sense, not digging], while G advocated smaller Quetschminen [some kind of small charge mine, which was less spectacular, but did more localised damage].

It is interesting to note that no French source makes any mention of this L/G theoretical argument about mines and how it played out at Schweidnitz, any more than the information about G with the sappers in Duffy.

To answer bloomheller, we began with Kevin's statement of the received wisdom about Gribeauval, especially about Schweidnitz and we are delving into what the sources actually say, given the deep layer of subsequent mythology produced by the likes of Tousard. We have also looked at the real "research" underlying Kevin's book to see if he has unquestioningly copied third hand claims, which suit him (much like Tousard!) rather than actually reading the books in his bibliography, in order to establish the accuracy of his book and subsequent claims to expertise in his Amazon reviews. It is throwing up yet more information about Gribeauval's actual activities and how the process known as Ruling Theory has distorted the truth.

Isn't Wurzbach a secondary source?

K

Yes – but he quotes FtG's letter, which is the best we have thus far and certainly better than any other source you mention.

I suppose there must be an account of this action in the OMZ somewhere.

Looking round the net, it seems that a globe de compression was a big, explosive mine – a pile of explosive in a dug out chamber at the end of a tunnel. Vauban was an early investigator of the forces involved. A Quetschmine produced a lot of gas on explosion, which would fill the enemy tunnel and effectively suffocate anyone in it, as the gas drove out the oxygen. That of course would be one of the Chicanen aller Art.

Thanks for info Dave, I'm just about there, having skim read the staff history, still would like Guasco's account.

Have the biogs of the 3 generals on the Austrian side Piedmontese, Italian of some sort? and French vs a Frenchman, Major in Prussian service.

been reading Wurzbach and Hirtenfeld, what would we do without Google?

Funny But Duffy got Guasco wrong calling him the other one, Peter Alexander in his fortress book.

I note that losses were about even, which is unusual the attacker should have lost a lot more, how things might have been different if Guasco had been relieved by that sleepy Daun.

Also note a few secondary accounts say Gribeauval was in charge of the artillery and defence of, although some were just repeating each other.

Schweidnitz was in a poor state, so Prussian artillery was inflicting high casualties.

The mining debate is interesting in the context of G's experiments in his earlier days as I have always wondered what experiments an individual can conduct with artillery – however, the effects of powder charges are somewhat easier to do.

Major Lefebvre with his 'globes of compression' was trying to destroy the fortress, while Gribeauval was only wanting to destroy the Prussian galleries.

I'm sure there are lot's of experiments you can carry out on artillery

The casualty ratio was 7,000 Prussians to 1,000 Austrians. The only reason the Austrians capitulated was that they ran out of ammunition.

K

OK Kevin, not anywhere near the figures I have, where did you see those?

I think the reason they capitulated was because of the practical breach, although Guasco had offered capitulation before this, Tauenzien turned it down.

Pierre Nardin, Gribeauval: Lieutenat general des armees du roi (1715-1789), page 86.

And for the quote from Marie-Theresa about Gribeauval, 'general de bataille commandant en chef du genie, de l'artillerie et des mineurs' see page 65 of the same volume.

K

If Guasco had 'offered capitulatin' Tauenzien would have taken it. The siege lasted from 10 July 1762-9 October 1762.

Tauenzein actually wrote to Frederick that he needed more time to take Schweidnitz because of 'that devil Gribeauval.' Frederick actually arrived to take over the siege and after it was over asked Gribeauval to enter the Prussian service, which Gribeavaul refused.

See Precis sur M. de Gribeauval: premier inspector de l'artillerie de France by Philibert de Passac (1816) page 6. This is a much more thorough treatment of Gribeauval than the entry in Wurzbach's Lexicon which only gives a snapshot and leaves some material out.

For a complete evaluation of Gribeauval and his artillery system see Howard Rosen, The Systeme Gribeauval: A Study of Technological Development and Institutional Change in Eighteenth Century France-PHD Dissertation for the University of Chicago, August 1981.

Rosen is quite good and thorough and makes use of extensive archival material.

K

The argument appeared to be more about the defensive measures – a big mine or a gaseous explosive. These you can experiment with yourself, whereas artilley tests would require crew, proper charges, a range etc.

This is quite interesting on the siege, link which actually ended after a lucky shot blew up a magazine destroying a key fort.

Unfortunately, Nardin is the latest manifestation of the failure by French authors to do any work on G's time in Austria, although we should be fair and note his book as published in 1982. The claim about G being apptd to command originates in Thiers, being an exaggeration of the comment of du Coudray above.

If I want to find out whether Massena was made a marshal and on what date, I can do so by finding the Mashalate appt list. Like the supposed tests of Allied kit (apparently an invention of Rosen, as one among many) there is no date or appt order – because it did not happen. The repetition or invention of a claim does not make it true.

at least the conversation is moving!

Duffy is quite interesting: p.140: The young Lt Waldhutter earned the Freiherr suffix 'von Minenburg' through his desperate sortie against the Prussian mine craters at Schweidnitz.

p.300: the lengthy defence of Scheidnitz was "largely through the efforts of Captain Pabliczek and his men, who displayed a clear superiority over the Prussians in the underground war" (as miners).

p.298: 24 sappers fought at Schweidnitz.

The article on the siege linked above gives about 3000 k+w on each side, based on several Prussian sources, which would suggest that Nardin is wrong and is using another bad French source on this.

Yes that is much better, see ya'll can get along if
you put your minds to it.

Regards
James

General Brock

If it stays like this it would be great and we can really enjoy further informative postings and debate. Fingers crossed.