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

Well I for one enjoy watching with amusement grown men act like A***holes, and have done for the best part of a decade now…

Well I for one enjoy watching with amusement grown men act like A***holes, and have done for the best part of a decade now…

lol, have you stopped to think that you have just made a statement that is rude, ignorant and quite nasty. Guess you just joined us "A***holes" then and didn't even realise it?

'Yes, by you, no one asked you to write all that stuff.'

Did you not complain that I didn't explain material enough, or is it too hard to keep up which is why you feel the compulsion to become snotty?

K

Kevin

It is obvious Hollins' cheer leading groupies are missing their leader. So they have to come up with something to fill the void in their sad little lives. Ignore them.

It should be quite clear now that there is a lot of loose language in this subject, which is then interpreted to suit the desired conclusion. Consequently, we need precise questions and sourced answers to get to the bottom of the issue.

The Austrian scrap metal is not bits of rusty rustic cart just chucked in, but simply the peelings from boring previous barrels (we seem to have no indication of what the French did) – which certainly is no basis for suggesting this weakened or honeycombed barrels.

The 1792 plans are the second pillar of the claims about gribeauval and once again, we have to look closely at the surrounding evidence to establish what really happened. What it is isn't is some "plan" of Gribeauval's – just as the 1762 report was no blueprint. The plates are only linked to Gribeauval as he is mentioned in the title.

We can see the faults in the argument – du Coudray says quite clearly (writing in 1772) on p.83 that tables of dimensions were sent out to ensure standard production, but nothing about plans. link Inn contrast, in Austria plans were sent out with the dimensions in 1718 PDF link These events are all part of national efforts to standardise production – in the early 1790s, the French Assembly is trying to standardise its own weights and measures system. It is perhaps no coincidence that 1790 saw the first plans for a decimal/metric system and the establishment of the artillery committee, while 1795 saw the formal establishment of both. Obviously, the correspondence surrounding the 1792 Tables needs looking at, but it seems far more likely, given that one of the commitee responsibilities was supervision of the standardisation of gun production, that this was part of that early 1790s process. The plate book talks about the French artillery "since 1765", yet it was 1764 when Maritz II's guns were tested at Strassbourg. it is simply that 1765 was the first sign of G's involvement in the decree of that year introducing his field gun designs.

If we look at the course of events, it runs:

1761: Louis XV authorises Maritz to redesign French guns. he produces a lighter 18 calibre barrel with the much mentioned 150:1 barrel/ball weight.

1762: G writes a Q&A on the Austrian artillery system

1764: Maritz II's design is tested at Strassbourg

1765: Decree introduces the new gun.

1771: Muy & Gribeauval produce Collection complete de la nouvelle artillerie construite dans les Arsenaux Metz et Strassbourg. DD&S note this is often erroneously referred to as the 1765 G Treatise.

Somewhere between 1765 and 1772: tables of dimensions are sent to the foundries, according to du Coudray – like a ref to the 1771 book above. There is no evidence of any "plans completed before 1767", which is probably a claim due to Coudray's "dimensions".

1776: After the 1772-5 arguments, the G field guns are confirmed by decree, although de V guns are retained for siege warfare.

1781: (not 1765 or 1770) It seems G urged Manson to prepare drawings to standardise the guns, suggesting that they were less than uniform prior to that date.

1789: G dies, succeeded by du Teil as First Director of Artillery.

1790: National Assembly establishes the artillery committee and metric system, although both do not become fully active until 1795.

1792: Manson produces the Tables du construction de principal attirails de l'Artillerie propose ou approvees depuis 1764 jusque en 1789 par M. de Gribeauval.

1795: De Scheel: Memoires d'Artillerie contenant l'artillerie nouvelle ou les changements faites dans l'artillerie francais en 1765. As DD&S note, this presents the G guns as they were in 1765, not as they were in 1792 aftertchanges by Manson and others.

29th Dec 1801: Napoleon establishes the committee, which will produce the Yr XI guns.

Much would then seem to depend on what is in the 1771 book and what the 1781 correspondence actually said, given the exaggeration that author is known for. It shoul;d be pretty obvious that neither the 1762 or 1792 documents are what they are said to be – and so, while G did overhaul the French artillery in stages, there was no comprehensive system designed in 62 and complete by 92.

lol, have you stopped to think that you have just made a statement that is rude, ignorant and quite nasty. Guess you just joined us "A***holes" then and didn't even realise it?

Shane, I don't know about you but I find two things on interent fora partciluarly irritating:

1. People who claim to be 'amused' by things. Generally typed in a 'let them eat cake' kind of tone. Linked to that is…

2. People who can't wait to decry other people as, well, in this case A***holes. Smug superiority from people who then often go on to type the words "" as if a little bit of the group cool will rub off. Of course once you are marked down as fair game by the Good and the Great it's apparently open season. Especially if you have a gang of fanboys in tow and like to change your ID every five minutes. Then you're way cool.

What I find irritating is unreflective people.
But then I find a lot of things irritating…

OB,

Aye, spot on mate. I tend to laugh at these guys too. They start by complaining about the abuse on the forum, then go right ahead by abusing who they think are the abusers…..what is up with that?

Well, Shane, every time I pop in to see what's going on, you are one of the main ones complaining about the abuse on the forum in threads where you are busy abusing people. While I agree that gets annoying, it's a tad hypocritical to to attack people for doing the same thing you do with annoying regularity. I think I've pointed that out before and been attacked by you and Old Bear because you see your abuse as justified while the abuse by others is unjustified. yeah, whatever.

But lets see what the forum as a whole thinks of the people posting in this thread …

Ben Waterhouse – 2 stifles
Graf Bretlach – 5 stifles
XV Brigade – 4 stifles
General Brock – 7 stifles
Symbiotic Relationship – 8 stifles

vs.

Defiant – 64 stifles
Old Bear – 65 stifles
Gazzola – 40 stifles
10th Marines – 55 stifles
Dave Hollins – 44 stifles

So we see who is getting tuned out. For good reason.

lol, what the hell does that prove? Try putting it into perspective by dividing the number of stifles by the length in days of the accounts to get an average for a start. And most of the stifles we have gain have been over the past few months due to this ongoing fight ever since holins came back to this forum and started his abuse again or did you forget that???

What is more funny is that you would waste your time to conduct such research, have you nothing better to do with your time?

You btw have been one of the worst offenders!! Your vitriol knows no bounds when you get into abuse mode

I like how you put hollins in with us. did he swap camps?

I think some of mine are back in the old political fora days, when a few Yanks took exception to my thoughts on modern conflicts! It is not very revealing (as some people have more than one name) unless you know who is doing the stifling.

Anyway, from Steve Smith, late of this parish, some comments related to Alder and some of the correspondence he cites. It is interesting that Kevin has mainatined that gunw eight is not important, while Gribeauval apparently did:

Re: "Gribeauval told Manson in March 1765 'not to lose from view our principle, which is to lighten [the gun carriages] without doing harm to the necessary solidity.' ":
Engineering the Revolution: Arms and Enlightenment in France, 1763-1815 by Ken Alder, p 154 (see endnote 64, p 385):

link

"(64) S.H.A.T. 4d4 Choiseul to Chateaufer, 31 March 1765. Du Coudray, L'artillerie nouvelle, 66." [Note: Alder uses the 1773 Amsterdam edition.]

Re: "Gribeauval also told Manson in 1770 that he should 'determine the new dimensions and to prepare the tables and drawings that would render the constructions perfectly uniform in all the different arsenals.'":

Engineering the Revolution: Arms and Enlightenment in France, 1763-1815 by Ken Alder, p 156 (see endnote 69, p 386):

link

"(69) S.H.A.T. 4c3/2 Gribeauval, "Memoire," 26 November 1781. In fact, the new carriages weighed more than the old, primarily because they substituted iron axles for wooden ones and added other reinforcing iron parts."

--------
The three problems with an iron axle (meaning it is not an absolute advantage) are thus extra weight, lack of friction for downhill and fieldreplacement.

It is curious with these plans that they are allegedly being mooted around 1770, yet the actual correspondence is 1781 and it takes Manson another 11 years to produce them!

You haven't read the book, have you? You have completely misinterpreted the information. The drawings themselves were completed ca 1767 and were not compiled in the Tables until much lager. But they were distributed to the arsenals and the master drawings were held at the main arsenal in Strasbourg where the standards for the new guns and material were sent to the other arsenals. Production was overseen by the 117 inspectors, all artillery officers, designated as such by Gribeauval. Both Manson and Tronson du Coudray were captains who worked for Gribeauval and they were subordinates in charge of production, again designated as such by Gribeauval.

You also might want to get hold of Rosen which is also illuminating on the subject. Most of the subject areas on artillery you are attempting to talk about you don't really understand and you're cherry picking quotations that you apparently don't understand.

If you wish to have an actual discussion on the subject, I'll be more than happy to engage in one. But you talk around subjects and engage in obfuscation in an apparent attempt to mask your own ignorance of the subject. Artillery is a very large subject, and the subtopics, such as gunnery and ballistics (which you've shown yourself repeatedly to have little or no understanding) are large topics in themselves. And since they are mathematically based, you have to have more than a basic knowledge of different sub-disciplines of mathematics to get a grasp of the subject.

K

I am having some diffiulty in working out what is evidenced and what is made up/exaggerated by the likes of Rosen and Alder – originators apparently of the fabled "tests of Allied guns", something we have yet to get a date or report for. So, I am looking at the original texts, which is where you too should look.

You, quoting one of these authors, say these plans were completed and issued in 1767. If I look at du Coudray, he says "tables de dimensions" were sent out, sometime before 1772. You originally claimed that that the G/Manson exchange aboput "new dimensions and plans" happened in 1770 until GB corrected you by pointing out that it was 1781. Subject to Alder having rendered that 1781 letter correctly, there is precisely nil evidence anywhere of any plans going out before 1781 and the only actual documents date from 1792, when they represent changes produced by manson and others.

So what is the evidence to bakc up your claims – as the evidnce produced so far would run completely contrary to them.

as for ballistics, well, if you know so much, then do explain to us whay Smola says what he does about accuracy at varying ranges.

Just what did Alder and Rosen 'make up'?

Why don't you actually say something in a positive vein instead of always trying to vilify those with whom you agree? That isn't methodology, that is merely sour grapes perhaps because you actually don't understand the topic?

K

'as for ballistics, well, if you know so much, then do explain to us whay Smola says what he does about accuracy at varying ranges.'

That has already been explained to you more than once. The explanation has to be an elevation error, not something wrong with the gun tube itself. As Smola was not in the French gun position, all he can do with the situation is speculate, and if you are interpreting Smola correctly, with which I don't agree, them Smola's supposition is incorrect if for nothing else a lack of information.

K

You are confusing two different quotes, albeit they are consistent. Smola notes that in the experience of the Austrian gunners, the Austrian weapons were more accurate than French guns around first bounce (500 paces) and French guns more accurate at their first bounce (700 paces). How can that be if the ball flies flat, especially given the built-in elevation in the barrel due to its dispart?

The Fahnrich, standing with infantry outside Aderklaa, notes that the French ball flew over the men and into the command rank behind. He notes this is becaus ethe French guns were at too close a range. Your explanation implies that French gunners were too stupid to have the guns level, as at that elevation (according to you) the ball must hit the men before the command line.

I think it is you, who needs to think a bit harder about the relevant ballsitics.

Alder and Rosen are thiord hand sources, who have been found to be making claims, which are not substantiated – like the alleged testing of Allied guns. I expect they make all the incorrect claims about Gribeauval's inventions and reports. Consequently, we need to check what the material actually says. They may be right – they may be wrong – unfortunately, they cannot be confidently quoted alone.

Both Alder and Rosen are secondary sources. If you consider them 'third hand sources' what does that make your Ospreys, which are not documented to begin with?

Both Alder and Rosen have done extensive archival research for their books/theses-perhaps you should consider that along with actually reading them.

If you haven't read them, how can you come to a judgment about them? You have a very bad habit of doing that, as evidenced by the Amazon review you have done.

K

correct me if I am wrong but should it not be more accurately stated that the larger French guns would be more accurate "UP" to 700yds and the Austrian guns more accurate "UP" to 500yds instead of how hollins is stating that the 700yd mark and the 500yd mark is the most accurate for both sides respectfully?

I have read that guns were more accurate "before" the ball first strikes the ground which to my way of thinking shows that the French have a range advantage of anything over 500yds over the Austrians. For the Austrians to gain a level footing they would have to decrease the range to less than 500yds…

and please, before the acolytes start on me, this is not an attack on hollins, it is purely a very serious question on my part.

No, Alder and Rosen are using things like de Coudray, de Scheel and the like – that makes them third hand and we have seen the extrapolation, which has come with that. While my Ospreys use a mixture of primary and secondary material, the primary material in them makes the osprey a secondary source, much of which you can check quite easily in the souces listed. However, I would not expect anyone to quote my Ospreys directly – only in terms of the primary material given verbatim. Beyond that, they may get quoted, but it is my assessment of the available material, which anyone can check against any primary material. They will find that i have not moved away from the material I used and certainly have not invented anything.

Any secondary or later work should be checked against original material – anyone who is found to have invented things, copied third claims or extrapolated from vague material should be checked further. We can see if these authors make a citation whether the citation bears out what they say – we can also establish if they are twisting the material. We are still for example awaiting the evidence for the testing of allied guns, which seems to come recently from thes e two.

quod erat demonstrandum…

DeScheel and Tronson du Coudray (along with Tousard) are primary material. Alder has eight and a half pages of primary source material in his bibliography, Rosen has two pages of archival material plus numerous primary sources in his bibliography in addition to that.

What makes that inferior to yours, when you're usually very shy about listing your sources at all?

K

What about those white bearskins though?

Have been trying to follow the discussion but am now totally confused what do white bearskins have to do with artillerie?

provide a good aiming point?

It was the confident assertions Kevin made about them – it is actually a well-documented error by the artist. It was dealt with years ago by interrogating the evidence and claims.

I didn't say anything about my own work, but this is merely a smokescreen – Alder and Rosen have been found out making claims, which do not stand up, which goes to the nature of their work. As such, thet need to be checked over – they do not reproduce Coudray correctly for a start – we have this famous episode where at least one of them has claimed Allied guns were tested by Gribeauval, which turned out to be an extrapolation based on a mistranslation. What was the source given for that claim anyway? Do they mention the 1762 report and its contents? How about this claim of drawings being issued "by 1767"? They seem to be long on claimns and short on evidence, whatever their bibliographies might say.

Coudray is primary in reflecting the artillery arguments of the early 1770s, but secondary in terms of hard facts, not least as they are pretty thin on the ground! Anything he comes up with certainly looks like it was given to him. His vague assertions, including G commanding artillery in Austria, have then been extrapolated by the likes of de Scheel and Tousard. As for de Scheel, you said yourself that he reproduces drawings dating from earlier, although we have yet to hear their provenance. If it is a reproduction of an earlier drawing or document, then it is primary to all intents and purposes, albeit potentially out of context. Likewise de Scheel was first published in 1777, drawing heavily on Coudray – that would make it secondary, wouldn't it?

As for my Ospreys, you can check them against the material they are based on. They are better than Alder and Rosen as they are closer to the original material and where the evidence has been interrogated before a conclusion has been drawn – as oppsoed to making claims, which do not stand up.

Now, about these claims they make – can we have the citations, so we can check them out?

'Alder and Rosen have been found out making claims, which do not stand up, which goes to the nature of their work.'

'Found out' by whom?

K

And the US general staff system is based on the Napoleonic model.

K

>And the US general staff system is based on the Napoleonic model.<

Now that is a strawman! It is also rubbish.

It is based on the Moltke system like everyone else. It is just an illustration of the effect of the events of the 20th century on the Nap subject that they feel they cannot admit this and so try to find their spiritual hime further back in a non-Germanic context.

Alder and Rosen have been found out by several people here and on the NSF, who have checked their claims against what the actual sources say – viz. this claim about testing guns (no source for that yet). Stephen Summerfield has also mentioned that Alder has been taken to task by others for bending the truth. I was able to look at a bit of Alder, where he talks about the 1762 report – unsourced, despite its prionted version being in Hennebert (pub. 1895). He describes it as a report comparing French and Austrian guns, which it is not. However, (bearing in mind that hhis time limit on the book starts in 1765, the year of the first decree related to the G guns) and he claims there that a group of young Frenchmen took this as their opportunity to create a blueprint (there is that word again) for a new French artillery. I expect this fabled blueprint like the "1767 drawings" doesn't actually exist! Oh yes, what is the soucre for these 1767 drawings?

'Now that is a strawman! It is also rubbish.'

'It is based on the Moltke system like everyone else.'

The Prussian system promoted the dominance over the other staff sections of the operations section. That is something the US system has not done and the fallacy of having the operations section be pre-eminent on a general staff was proven completely false with the Germans losing both world wars-their staff model failed and the modern German army adopted the US system, which is based on the Napoleonic model.

K

Bags of Bull.

Have you actually read either Rosen or Alder? Have you checked their sourcing? I am not aware of anyone disproving what either author says. I have a copy of Rosen and I'm not aware of anyone else that does let alone have read him.

Tronson du Coudray is the source of Gribeauval testing and having an excellent knowledge of both the Austrian and Prussian artillery. I have seen nothing credible that proves that incorrect. If you do, then post it-if not, then all you're doing is obfuscation and confusing the issue with nonsense.

K

'He describes it as a report comparing French and Austrian guns, which it is not.'

You need to reread the passage. That isn't what Alder says. Here is the passage in question:

'Already in 1762-1763, the bureau chief Dubois of the War Office had requested that Gribeauval draw up a comparison of the artillery systems of France and Austria. The War Office had been determined to reorganize the artillery since gaining control of the service. With the stocks of cannon depleted, they saw their chance. Their comprehensive proposal for rationalization became the template for hwat historians have called the Gribeauval reforms. It insisted on uniformity of material and professionalism for officers. It also envisaged an increase in the quantity of cannon, a reduction in their weight, and a thorough reappraisal of how they were to be deployed in the field. Gribeauval's report began with a wary appreciation of the obstacles facing reform.'

'Our [Austrian] artillery here has a great effect in battle because of its large numbers; it has advantages over that of France, as does the French over it. An enlightened man without passion who understood the [relevant] details and had sufficient credit to cut straight to the truth, would find in these two artilleries the means to compose a single one which would win almost every battle in the field. But ignorance, vanity, and jealousy always intervene: it is the devil's work and cannot be changed as easily as a suit of clothes, it costs too much and one runs a great danger if one is not sure of success.'

There are two documents being talked about and referred to here: one is Gribeauval's report (the first paragraph which is shown and which does compare the two artillery systems of Austria and France) and Dubois' Memoire sur l'artillerie. Apparenlty you're either confusing the two and morphing them into one, or you don't understand what is being written or referred to. Please note that Gribeauval's report starts on page 36 of Hennebert and is not at the back of the book as you have stated more than once. Did you actually read it and do you have Hennebert?

K

'…and he claims there that a group of young Frenchmen took this as their opportunity to create a blueprint (there is that word again) for a new French artillery. I expect this fabled blueprint like the "1767 drawings" doesn't actually exist! Oh yes, what is the soucre for these 1767 drawings?'

What are you attempting to discuss here? How do you expect anything new to be constructed without the designs to be drawn?

It appears to me that you have no idea what you're talking about regarding Gribeauval and his system, not to mention your 'interpretation' of Alder's excellent work.

You completely botched what Alder said about the 3 March 1762 report, ignoring what he said of Dubois' material that was mentioned in the same paragraph. Perhaps you have trouble interpreting sourcing since you seldom use any in your own writing?

And you don't even know where the 3 March 1762 report is in Hennebert's work-do you not believe that is odd since you have mentioned it, ad nauseum, as a 'key' document? If you didn't know where it was, how could you refer to it?

In short, you appear to be denigrating work above your own competency level and you don't know diddly squat about French artillery systems. You constantly mention the original sources, but you refer to secondary material such as Duffy, Hennebert, etc., and you criticize work that you apparently haven't read. If you haven't seen Rosen, how can you comment on it?

You have also criticized Rothenberg on using the Austrian staff histories, but on the other hand you state how valuable they are to your own 'conclusuions.' Isn't that hypocritical?

K

Kevin, You know full well that Dave was the first one around here to actually read Hennebert in the British library and the report contained, this was then reproduced on the NSF quite a few years ago now.

Some major smoke screens being produced in defence of two modern authors and your repetition of what they say.

I know it is difficult defending another authors work, when you don't have their knowledge or sources, so best form of defence is to attack Dave?

Mark,

You are incredibly off in your analysis and to my mind have nothing to add but more obfuscation. Hollins has denigrated books he has not read, reviewed on Amazon what he has not read, and then reviewed a book of which he was a contributor. And he accuses others of things that didn't happen. To my mind that is horrible and the only reason for this is an an 11-year old complaint because I reviewed Marengo unfavorably because of a gross error on his part. Maybe one day you'll figure out what's going on, but I doubt it.

K

'The great advantages which must manifestly result from a well-conducted Etat-major or staff, are acknowledged in every military country. France, however, seems alone to have to have entered fully into the system, and to have added the experiment of practice to the suggestions of theory.'

-from the Introduction (termed 'Advertisement') of the British translation of Thiebault's 1800 staff manual.

So, it seems that the British recognized that not only did the French understand what general staffs were for and had one, but that they were ahead of the rest of Europe in that respect.

K

hollins is all about revenge and he hates it that his shoddy work was brought to light, so he continues to insult and attack Kevin because he revealed this poor academic work. The sad part is that naive people here defend hollins unwittingly not knowing his agenda.

Dear Kevin
I have read Rosen and ALder. Both are written to prove their point. Alder has been discredited on a number of places in university academic cycles in the UK especially the claims for mechanisation and standardisation that was "unique" to France. Britain has a great claim upon this and the ideas towards this is also seen in the work of Prussia, Austria, Saxony, Bavaria. As in who was the first person is only of minor importance. It is how it was perfected. Ideas travelled very fast through military circles even in those days.

We have discussed the areas of inconsistence a couple of years ago. This seems to be old ground with no European sources being used to assist the arguments.

There many differences from what I have written about the early life of Gribeauval in the Smoothbore Ordnance Journal. From my recall only French and English language sources were used. The identification of the Prussian ordnance was not correct. The weight ratios and calibre length were in error showing that he "tested" or observed the M1754 chambered ordnance and not the ordnance that was used by the Prussians in the 7YW.

DE SCHEEL
1. De Scheel (1777, 1795 and the US translation) shows the 1762 design of garrison/siege gun. The New designs of Garrison Guns of 1772 were adopted independent of Gribeauval. [See (Dec 2010) SOJ 2(04) 37-41
2. The old carriage for the 6 pouce howitzer is shown with the Richtmaschine which was not a French let alone Gribeauval design but derived from I beleive the Bavarian design of howitzer carriage that dates to the 1740s.
3. The old form of limber is shown that is diferent to the Manson M1792 Drawings.
4. The Siege Carriage show no elevating system and still operated with quorns.
5. There are no illustations in De Scheel of the Gribeauval Garrison Carriage. It is interesting that the Austrian version of the Gribeauval Garrison Carriage in 1772 when Gribeauval was out of favour as it was a superior design.

De Scheel is an important work but needs to be used with caution as it was written by Du Coudray in 1772 for the defence of the Gribeauval System. This was then used as the first volume of De Scheel with the second volume covering the blues and red disputes. This was reissued without revision in 1795 plus a plate from the Encyclopedia. This was translated in 1800 for the US Artillery. Therefore the technology that was taken as being knew was already over 28 years old. The Manson 1792 Tables of constructions who an evolution of ordnance that was not available to De Scheel's translator let alone others that abstracted from this work. [See (Dec 2010) SOJ 2(01) 16 and Don Graves (Aug 2010) SOJ 91]

I know some may disagree with me. I am attempting to present the facts and let them speak. I am still awaiting academic papers to explore this difficult area. The reason for the journal was to move the discussion on Ordnance forward. [Page numbers refer to the printed revised edition available from Ken Trotman.]

Stephen
Editor of the Smoothbore Ordnance Journal.

History is an argument without end, does one
need say anymore…

James

'I have read Rosen and ALder. Both are written to prove their point. Alder has been discredited on a number of places in university academic cycles in the UK especially the claims for mechanisation and standardisation that was "unique" to France.'

Have you read the PHD thesis or the shorter work in a French publication-he has written two.

Articles, and PHD thesis in particular are all written to 'prove their point.' You certainly have done that as have I.

When and by whom was Alder 'discredited'? Or was it merely disagreement. Discredited is a very strong term and is pejorative in nature. It should only be used sparingly.

K

Here's part of Ken Alder's CV:

ACADEMIC POSITIONS

2003 – present Milton H. Wilson Professor in the Humanities, Northwestern University.
2003 – present Professor of History, Northwestern.
1994 – 2010 Founding director, Science in Human Culture Program, Northwestern.
2001 – 2002 Visiting Scholar, American Bar Foundation, Chicago.
1999 – 2003 Harold and Virginia Anderson Outstanding Teaching Professor, Northwestern.
1999 – 2000 Visiting Scholar, Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation, Ecole Nationale des Mines, Paris.
1997 – 2003 Associate Professor of History, Northwestern.
1991 – 1997 Assistant Professor of History, Northwestern.

EDUCATION

1991, Ph.D. Harvard University. History of science.
1981, A.B. Harvard University. Honors physics. Phi Beta Kappa. National Merit Scholar.

HONORS, PRIZES

The 2004 Kagan Prize of The Historical Society, for
The Measure of All Things, co-winner for the best book in
European history published in 2002-03.
The 2003 Davis Prize of the History of Science Society, for
The Measure of All Things, winner for the best book directed to
a general audience in the history of science published in 2002.
The 2003 Dingle Prize of the British Society for the History of
Science, for The Measure of All Things, winner for the best
book in the history of science published in 2001-02.
The 1998 Dexter Prize (now Edelstein Prize) from the Society
for the History of Technology, for Engineering the Revolution,
winner for the best book in the history of technology
published in 1995-1997.

Seems to me he's doing quite well with his publications. And if you remember it was I who referred you to Engineering the Revolution some time ago.

K

Here are two excerpts from reviews, one from Napoleonic historian Owen Connelly and one from the Journal of Military History:

"Alder''s work is one of the first in the history of technology to offer a sophisticated historical treatment of skills. By arguing that skills are historically contingent, Alder''s contribution offers a valuable cultural study of the relationship between the rational knowledge of enlightened philosophers and engineers and the artisanal knowledge of skilled craftsmen."
(Myles W. Jackson Journal of Modern History )

"This is a fine work, grounded in research in French archives and a plethora of other sources. Alder has forcefully demonstrated the role of engineers in fostering social change in the eighteenth-century and revolutionary eras."—Owen Connelly, American Historical Review
(Owen Connelly American Historical Review )

K

What translations of De Scheel, don't say you mean the error ridden Toussard??

10th Marines' claim above "Articles, and PHD thesis in particular are all written to 'prove their point.' You certainly have done that as have I."

What institution granted you a PhD? I find no official record that you have completed a PhD. Insinuating that you were a "military historian" was bad enough, but insinuating that you have completed a doctoral thesis is disingenuous to the extreme. You are claiming to be a professional peer when you are not. You are an amateur historian that relies heavily on secondary sources and have created a facade that only you and a handful of members believe anymore.

Dear Kevin
A scientist is different to one in the humanities. We are from two different schools.

"Articles, and PHD thesis in particular are all written to 'prove their point.' You certainly have done that as have I."

No they are not. Your statement is in scientific circles considered as an insult at best and professional suicide at worst. I have always attempted attempted to present all the information and not prejudge selectively as you suggest. My conclusions are upon the best facts at hand at the time. They have modified as I have better information.

I have never stated that my doctorate was in history. It is in Analytical Science. The thesis exployed a cpompletely new area and showed what was there and possible including the design of instruments, new dyes, immunassays etc… I have in addition a masters in education. I am Fellow and Visiting Professor at Loughborough University. I can therefore comment upon the thesis in those terms.

I have said I have read Rosen's PhD thesis. I was unaware of any articles that he has written. I thought it week in many areas and understanding of the technical aspects poor. The PhD thesis is not a rounded piece of work.

I cannot see the relevance of your post. I was making a serious point that I thought you wanted to discuss.
Stephen

"Articles, and PHD thesis in particular are all written to 'prove their point.'"

Just as a matter of clarification, that is not factually correct. Graduate students in History begin with research questions, not theses whose points they are setting out to prove. That is, in fact, precisely the opposite of sound historical scholarship, and should hopefully be abundantly clear to them by the end of their sophomore (undergraduate) Methods class.

There is a reason why the methodology is required; it is a part of professional ethics as well as standards. Obviously, not everybody "gets it," and there are lapses in judgment, and even some people who do things like plagiarism, or more prosaically, cribbing footnotes (e.g., using a citation that claims one used a primary source – like a carton in a French archive – when in fact one just copied the citation from somebody else's footnote in their secondary source.) I see that sort of "soft-cheating" every semester, mostly just from youthful ignorance and inexperience. The first instance merits a gentle but firm correction. The second instance is an "F". Most students learn quickly, however, and without too much fuss.

One would hope, also, that any student who has had a rigorous History research program, would know better than to include sources in his bibliography in foreign languages that he hasn't (and/or can't) read. That used to be known as "fluffing," until that term acquired a new… ahem, meaning. Now it's just another form of academic dishonesty that merits gentle correction for the first offense, and much harsher penalties thereafter.

Again, most serious students "get it." Those who don't… usually can't hack a PhD program for other reasons, in any event, so it doesn't matter.

Dear von Winterfeldt
Yes I was referring to Tousard (1809). For those interested in Tousard I would refer you to Donald E. Graves article in the Smoothbore Ordnance Journal plus his other writing on American Artillery Manuals on the 1812 Magazine found on the Napoleon Series Website.
Stephen

It is not the level of academic achievement, which matters, but the standard of the work involved. Likewise, I do not have to be an expert to spot some real problems with one. Stephen can tell you much more than I can about the infamous "cold fusion" case, where a couple of noted scientists declared they had managed to set off a fusion reaction at cold temperature, which created the heat for power production. Even my level of chemistry (O-level!) told me that if you mix metal with an acid, you will get bubbles of something together with heat and that this was a chemical reaction, not a form of nuclear physics. It was a classic case of "proving" a claim they had made, while ignoring some pretty basic contrary evidence.

I have some real problems with Alder. If as Kevin confirms, the source for the testing of Austrian and Prussian guns is du Coudray, then in that book, available at link on p.13, we find the "evidence" (unless Kevin can point us to another page). Coudray says Gribeauval had "l'experience la plus complette des changements que les Autrichiens et les Prussiens avaient juge a propos de faire dans la leur". Indeed, Coudray then attributes this l'experience to claims that G had commanded the Austrian artillery in several campaigns and had always been at the head of Prussian guns, neither of which is actually true anyway. If the guns were tested, when and where and what were the outcomes?

As to Hennebert, it was I, who read the BL copy and instigated the discussion – I sent my p/copy of the report to paul dawson without taking another copy. Whether he passed it on or Digby went to the BL, I don't know, but if you read Digby's translation, you will see that my comments about it are right – because I have read it! In contrast, Kevin went on a flight of fantasy and does not cite Hennebert in his equally fanciful bibliography (I was interested to see the comments above on this and of course, Bowden was the last one to do this in the Napoleonic field). So, what of Alder – well, Kevin give us the answer in the first sentence: "'Already in 1762-1763, the bureau chief Dubois of the War Office had requested that Gribeauval draw up a comparison of the artillery systems of France and Austria." It is no such thing – just a Q&A on the Austrian artillery. What follows is interesting – Alder's rendering of one of the intro paragraphs is the same as Kevin's, yet neither has read the report. yet this paragraph has repeated over and over again in some effort to prove the 1762 report was some kind of blueprint – "that report became the blueprint for the Gribeauval system of artillery" (Kevin, p.68).

I presume Kevin is capable of copying Alder and on p.35-36, we have a paragraph footnoted to Alder (fn 16). "Gribeauval moreover completely redesigned the carriages" – as DD&S note on p.64, the design dates back to Brocard's original 1740 design and you can also see that design copied in the 1747 Austrian 3pdr in NV72. So, it continues: "his carriages took into account not only the rearward recoil of the gun, but also the fact that the carriage recoiled down at the same time". How odd, in using the straight carriage, it seems that this important issue was completely ignored by lichtenstein, Congreve, the designer of the US Napoleon gun and indeed, every gun carriage designer ever since. "his carriages differed significantly from Lichtenstein's: they were shorter [true], stronger [evidence? esp given the tendency of G carriages to split behind the axle] and lighter [actually about the same, although the actual G weights are quite elusive]. Additionally, the end of the trail that rested on the ground was completely redesigned to allow it to be better used with one of G's new inventions, the prolonge. Instead of the trail being squared off at the end, G's new design was shaped with an upward flair [sic] so that it would not become stuck in the ground when being towed by a limber witha prolonge attached" – strange then that this flared design is clearly visible in the Austrian 1757 drawings (in Duffy and NV72). The footnote says "Alder pp.153-61 for the construction of the carriages".

Well, at least Alder is vague about the hausse sight, just noting its use, so I wonder where Kevin's claim that G invented it comes from?

Not satisfied with the selective repetition, we now see more Ruling Theory effects as it is now Dubois: Memoire sur l'artillerie, which is the blueprint for the G system (see your own work, Kevin as noted above). I found an archive list saying Dubois is 38pp and was written in 1764, although I was unable to find its contents on the Net – curious how these allegedly key documents are not actually cited or described by their proponents, isn't it? Given its date, we can assume it included the results of the Strassbourg tests and the 1762 report by Gribeauval, but what else? Maybe Kevin can elaborate as he doesn't mention it himself in his own book. So, the blueprint has moved from the 1762 to the 1764 report – but what of these fabled 1767 drawings, something else claimed by Alder? No sign of them yet at all – not forgetting that in 1772, coudray only talks about "dimensions". Why did he not say "plans and dimensions"?

In short, a test of Alder, on material I know about or can read, makes me very suspicious of his methodology, which smacks of "cold fusion" rather than the marshalling of evidence to create an argument. I would prefer it if we could find the original references as the ones we have so far do not say what Alder says they do.

As an aside, I would suggest the staff comments go on that thread, but the publication in English of a french work proves nothing – Petit was published in the US and the Marengo propaganda was published in the British Military Library. Neither were "approved" by the publishing countries. As for Rothenberg, I was merely explaining the scope of his work – he does tend to quote the opinions of the Austrian GS in about 1905, when they like everyone else were in thrall to Prussia and thought theor own history and methods somehow deficient in the military art.

Klingons Orbiting Uranus

Graduate research is generally different to Postgraduate research.

Your point about people using sources in a foreign language that the author/historian cannot read is interesting. I should imagine that depended on if you were referring to a whole works or just a chapter or two or an article or series of articles. Translating parts of a book, a chapter or two or articles can be done with a bit of effort.

For example, I doubt many authors/historians can read Russian but I'm pretty sure many have used material written in Russian as a source. A way will always be found if you really want something translated, no matter what language is employed, although sometimes it can be expensive.

Dear Dave
I passed the copy of Hennebert to Digby to translate. Alas it was not used for the writing of DDS (2007) alas as far as I am aware as I would have referred to it in the Austrian Chapter or certainly was not made available to me. It is an important summary of the Austrian Artillery but lacks the technical information that I would have expected.

I accept the influence of the Austrians upon the carriage design certainly of the 8- and 12-pdr gun carriages plus the limber. Different elevating system that reminds me of the Russian vertical elevating screw. The plate being a French introduction.

The gun tubes have more of the features of the Valliere combined with Prussian. Look at the muzzle design. The Autrian influence seems a little less. Remember the move of the touch hole in 1780 to the breech for the Leichtenstein guns being after that of Gribeauval.

The Siege and Garrison gun tubes of the M1762 design had little if anything to do with Gribeauval as he was in Austria. The gun tube design was by Maritz II as well documented. They were esentially the same as M1732 Valliere without decorations. See the illustration in De Scheel.

The M1772 Siege and Garrison gun tibes of the M1772 introduced the square dolphins but were essentially the same as the M1732 Valliere [length, trunnion position etc…] The design was accepted by Valiere Junior and not Gribeauval.

All this learning needs to be consolidated so it is not lost to the next set of historians. We need to build upon knowledge.

It also should be moted the publishing date of Muy and Gribeauval being after Du Coudray hence De Scheel and Tousard who "extracted" large proportions.

Stephen