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

no way, 6 pages!

Dear John
I would refer you to my two books upon Russian subjects where I was fortunate as it states to have a Russian colleague in my department who translated many Russian texts that were the basis of my work. All the references I still have in my library or I can show you at Hull or Louhborough University library. This was written before information was available from the East and access to the internet back in 1990-92 during my PhD. Alas it was only published in 2005 and 2007 respectively. Alas my Russian is a little rusty from then. Remember that there were a number of important chemistry papers in Russian and German that I required for my work. This was before English became in effect the universal scientific language. Many references to dye synthesis dated to the 1890-1930s period.

I could also explain the mistakes in Cold Fusion. This was an honest mistake but the Professors refused to accept that they were falable. It was an instrumental error and poor calibration.
Stephen

From a French colleague

The passage quoted by Kevin on TMP is from pages 38-39 of ….
Engineering the Revolution : Arms and Enlightenment in France, 1763-1815.
Ken Alder
Chicago : The University of Chicago Press, 2010.

There are two end notes. Kevin omits the notes in his quote.
"…. a reduction in their weight, and a thorough reappraisal of how they were to be deployed in the field. [note] 41 Gribeauval's report began ….
…. it costs too much and one runs a great danger if one is not sure of success.[note] 42"

The notes are on page 359 of Adler's book.

=======================================================

The first part of Kevin's quote is cited by Adler as follows :
note 41 : "SHAT 1a2/2 Dubois "Memoire sur l'artillerie," [1762]. Nardin's biography of Gribeauval (pp. 90-92, 108-18) emphasizes Dubois, whose uncle was Entrepreneur of the Manufacture of Charleville, and whose relative was the future Conventionnel, Dubois-Crance."

Comments ….

Le sieur Dubois was not an artilleryman, nor even a soldier. He, and his family, were financially interested in whether or not large new military spending programs were started. Nardin's comments were on point. But first, let's source-check Adler and Kevin ….

Adler has "SHAT 1a2/2" – that is Serie 1, sous-serie a2, carton 2.
Serie 1 of the old SHAT archives (ex- Archives de l'artillerie) is "Organisation de l'artillerie" – later Series are about equipment.
Sous-serie a2 is "Etudes et Memoires".
Carton 2 is composed of Dossier 1 and Dossier 2. Dossier 1 has 12 sous-dossiers about organization and training, mostly documents from Gribeauval, none from Dubois, and all dated after 1762. Dossier 2 has about 20 items, mostly about pay and benefits, none from Dubois, all after 1762.
So whatever Aldler saw in the archives and translated for us, we won't be finding it too easily – Adler seems to have botched the citation.

Le sieur Dubois was from Rouen, trained as a bridge and road engineer, and later was the "chef de bureaux" (chief clerk, office manager) of Etienne-Francois de Choiseul, le duc de Choiseul (1719-1785), in 1762 "secretaire d'etat a la Guerre et a la Marine". It appears that Dubois and his family did indeed manage some profiteering in the process of the re-building of the French military.

"Sous M. le Duc de Choiseul, cet homme [Dubois], de petit commis, dit-on, etoit pavenu a avoir plus de 100,000 livres de rentes, & donnoit des audiences come le Mininstre."
Translation : Under the duc de Choiseul, this man, with a lowly job, it is said, was to come to have more than 100,000 livres in annual income, & gave audiences just like the Minister.
link

"Ce sieur Dubois, espece de parvenu tres-insolent, avait la confiance du ministre, a cause de l'order qu'il avait etabli dans les bureaux."
Translation : This sieur Dubois, a species of very insolent upstart, kept the confidence of the Minister because of the order which he had established in the offices.
link

Another relative, le sieur Dubois-Martin, performed the same role for the comte de Broglie. The comte de Broglie, then heading the "ministere secrete", was brother of the marchal duc de Broglie. Recall that Gribeauval was a protege of the de Broglie/de Guibert clique. Some more discussion of "pecuniary" benefits to all the interested parties :
link

Why anyone should take the apparently corrupt office manager's ideas as important for the development of artillery remains unclear. Dubois is likely parroting someone else, perhaps Gribeauval. BWe really can't check this fully, due to Adler's flawed citation, whihc KEvin did not even attempt to sort out before posting.

=======================================================

The second part of Kevin's quote is cited by Adler as follows :
note 42 : "Rapport au Ministere," 3 March 1762, in Eugene Hennebert , "Gribeauval, lt-general des armies du roy (Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1896), 36."

Comments ….

The work ….
Gribeauval, Lieutenant-General des Armes du Roy, Premier Inspectueur General du Corps Royal de l'Artillerie (1715-1789).
[lieutenant-colonel] Eugne Hennebert [1826-1896] Paris : Berger-Levrault, 1896.

One will note that this was the last, perhaps somewhat posthumous, work of LTC Hennebert, who covered quite a wide array of topics in his writings :
link
Hennebert's fiction under various pseudonyms, including sci-fi and …. pirate stories! :
link

The text of the 1762 report, in full and in French, pages 36-44 from Hennebert :
link

Adler's citation is good this time. Adler's translation of the first few words in the report looks good too. Hennebert's transcription looks perhaps quite accurate, including the archaic spelling. This short text is what all the fuss about the 1762 report is about.

There is nothing about comparative testing here. The report is Gribeauval's impressions after seeing both the foreign and French artillery.

There is no dispute over the 1762 report as listed in Hennebert (Duffy has certainly seen it) and no-one claims that it says anything about testing anything. However, it is regularly cited and that paragraph is repeated to demonstrate that it was a blueprint for an artillery system, which would enable N to win his victories. I don't believe that Alder has read the report as he would say something more about it, if he had. If he has read it, then he is ignoring its contents completely.

This is how Ruling Theory works – the claim is advanced and then all material is interpreted to suit the idea, (hence the extrapolations and repetition of single paragraphs) while anything inconvenient is ignored (like the whole report!). over time, all that is left is what suits the claim, which is then repeated without any checking. This was what surprised me when I read the report – I was expecting this fabled blueprint when in front of me was a simple Q&A.

Dubois gets more interesting now as it is not in the SHAT cited carton. You will see above that I was initially suspicious of its existence, then it was fleshed out and I picked up a 1764 reference. It is at link about ten lines down, but looking at this again, we see it is the work of one Captain Dubois, who is apparently not the Dubois, who sent the Q&A to G in Austria.

Oh dear!

Everyone can see the "1762 Report" :
link

When Gribeauval went to school at La Fère, there were no separate national schools for artillery or military engineering, or bridges and roads. The schools which supplied candidates to these serivces were operated by the artillery. Graduates applied for commissions (usually granted after an examination) in the service of their choice, or where they enjoyed influence and patronage. 

The career paths included :
>> "corps royal de l'artillerie" – administrative and/or technical serivce for the artillery, including supervision of the civilian artillery train, the schools, the arsenals and the manufacturers – composed of all officers and civilian employees
>> "régiment royal-artillerie" – all military, and this part did have troops, and was further subdivided ….
---- canoniers – manned guns in the field and at sieges
---- bombardiers – manned mortars in the field and at sieges
---- sappeurs – dug saps and trenches 
---- mineurs – mine warfare at sieges
---- ouvriers – light repairs, construction of parts of prepared positions
>> corps royal des ingénieurs ordinaires – administrative and/or technical serivce for military, including design and supervision of construction of fortified places – composed of all officers and civilian employees plus contracted labor
>> corps royal des ponts et chaussees – government department, not military, administrative and/or technical serivce for bridges and roads, including design and supervision of construction – composed of all goverment service "officers" as designers and managers plus contracted labor.

See link

Gribeauval choose the first of these career paths, in 1735. He was appointed an "officer pointeur" in the "corps royal de l'artillerie" . This does NOT indicate that he pointed or commanded any guns. It was a traditonally-styled rank, not a function. He was promoted to "commissaire extraordinaire" in 1743 and "commissaire ordinaire" in 1747, still in the  "corps royal de l'artillerie". Again these are ranks, not functions – he was NOT a commissary.

Note : An officer then did NOT command outside of his chosen division or even sub-division, except in emergency or detached service situations, and then only if the next junior officer was of the correct division or sub-division. 

In 1752 Gribeauval transfered from the "corps royal de l'artillerie" to the "régiment royal-artillerie", as a "capitaine des mineurs" in command of a company of miners. He now commanded a "line" unit for the first time – but not one which manned any guns or mortars. 

In 1755 Gribeuval began his foreign travels. In 1757 he was promoted to "lieutenant-colonel" (this was one step up for Gribeauval, as "major" was then more of a staff function, and not a line rank), but he retained nominal command of his company. Actually, part of his financial compensation came from this company, as one then "had a company" as a sort of royal grant which entitled the commander to certain proprietary interests in the finances of the company. A "capitaine en 2e" or second captain was on the rolls to fill in for absent commanders, such as Gribeauval.

In 1758, with permission, Gribeauval took a commission as an Obrist Ingenieur or engineering colonel in the Austrian service. He was not on a detached mission now, but "quit the service" of France – and does not appear in the relevant "État Militaire" or other French official lists until his return. This was a staff position in the Austrian service. Later in 1758 he was promoted to General-Major Ingenieur in the Austrian service.

Dr. Summerfield's biographical notes (in English) are quite easy reading.
PDF link
PDF link
PDF link

Upon his return to France after being exchanged in 1763, Gribeauval was made a "maréchal-de-camp de l'artillerie" (equal to the rank he had in Austria) and then in 1765 a "lieutenant-général de l'artillerie" (one step up) in the French service. His date of commissioning is later listed as 25 July 1762. But this appears to be a back-dating, as he was then not yet returned to France. Indeed, he had yet even fought at the seige of Schweidnitz (August-October 1762). He remains absent from the "État Militaire" for 1763 (as one might expect) and reappers later. In the 1766 edition, he is the least senior "lieutenant-général de l'artillerie", and the listing notes only his Austrian service, as if he were a foreign officer. 

État Militaire of 1763 link
État Militaire of 1766 link

Also upon his return, Gribeaval was made an "inspecteur-général de l'artillerie" (an inspector-general in the artillery), this was NOT meant as the "inspecteur-général d'artillerie"  (the inspector-general of artillery). Specifically, he was posted as the "inspecteur-général du corps des mineurs" (the inspector-general of the corps of miners). So he still did not have a "line" command over guns or gunners.

Almanach Royal of 1765 : link

Dave,

I am sure that le sieur Dubois wrote a lot of stuff in the years 1762-1764. He was actively engaged in moving the paperwork (and the money) for a great number of military requirements and the resulting contracts.

He was not the capitaine in the list you found. And whatever Adler translated, it is not listed where he said it was, nor is it even really similar to the things actually cataloged in that location.

However pithy and "exciting" quoting le sieur Dubois might be, he, himself, is really no source at all for artillery – since he was not himself a subject matter expert and had a conflict of interests.

The real problem is as you have stated it – lack of careful source-checking and lots and lots quoting and re-quoting of translated out-of-context "snippets" just because they support one's point of view.

On the other hand, dear colleague, calling Gribeauval a "siege engineer" – while arguably true – is most likely to just start that argument.

He was ….
- officier pointeur au corps royal de l'artillerie
- commissaire extraordinaire au corps royal de l'artillerie
- commissaire ordinaire au corps royal de l'artillerie
- capitaine des mineurs au régiment royal-artillerie
- lieutenant-colonel ayant une compagnie des mineurs au régiment royal-artillerie
- Obrist Ingenieur
- General-Major Ingenieur
- maréchal de camp de l'artillerie de France inspecteur-général du corps des mineurs
- lieutenant-général de l'artillerie de France inspecteur-général du corps des mineurs
[etc., etc.]

-- None of these are "siege engineer", although his Austrian ranks might just possibly be rendered thusly.

-- Also, none of these had "line" command over guns or gunners.

-- Lastly, all of these are not-in-English and require lots context to understand the functions and responsibilities – and this tends to make people's eyes glaze over with the degree of arcane detail involved.

But at least the list is accurate.

Yes it does explain a lot about his early career, I have only just recently realised the different roles of the corps and regiment de l'artillerie, it doesn't take away de Gribeauval's abilities but does explain why I could never find any field artillery experience.

The Austrian engineers were an all oficer unit, whose main roles were loooking after fortresses and supervising siege work using temporary Pioneer troops. You would not get a Colonel's commission in such a unit, without being a specialist in that area.

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.

I imagine that many Russian authors/historians can.

"avoid making sweeping statements which can easily be proved false"

Mark,

Any remark about his "abilities" would be rather more of an opinion than than I have about Gribeauval.

However, I have the impression that his choice of and acceptance in the "corps royal de l'artillerie" indicates that he was a leading candidate for commissioning at the time of his graduation from La Fère, that he was among the more successful students, and viewed as among the more intelligent candidates.

The "régiment royal-artillerie" was clearly the "line" or "combat" formation. Not all of its officers went to the schools. In Gribeauval's time, each of its 50 companies had 2 "cadets" who could also aspire to a commission. The school students were, by contrast, serving in the military as "volontaires". Both "cadets" and "volontaires" were envisaged in the organizing ordonnances as likely candiddates for taking the exam for a commission.

The "corps royal de l'artilerie" and the "corps royal de ingénieurs ordinaires" did not have cadets or any similar billet. It was envisaged that the schools would provide all (or nearly all) the new offciers, and it is my impression that the more talented students were drawn to these services.

The "corps royal de ingénieurs ordinaires" did require a modest capability in drawing and making engineering plans of the fortifications. Under Bélidor, those students with a more mathematical talent might have been urged toward the "corps royal de l'artilerie". Perhaps the less martial, or less accomplished, students might be drawn to the bridges and roads service.

For reference, there were when Gribeauval graduated, ….
-- 78 "officier pointeurs" in the "corps royal de l'artilerie"
-- 100 "sous-lieutenants" in the compagnies of the "régiment royal-artillerie"
-- 190 "ingénieurs ordinaires" in the "corps royal de ingénieurs ordinaires"

There were 30-50 "volontaires" students at La Fère, and perhaps about 200 total students in 5 schools. There were 100 "cadet" billets in the "corps royal de l'artilerie".

There was a another parallel organization of "ingénieurs constructeurs navales" who designed and supervised building ships and naval coast installations and an artillerie de la marine to man the guns of the navy. The "corps royal de l'artillerie" did also provide their usual administrative/technical support to the naval artillery. The ingénieurs-géographes and topographers were lodged in another ministry, that of foreign affairs.

Connards Sage

You clot! It is you who should avoid posting the obvious. Of course Russian historians can read Russian. Duh!

My point was that if you really needed something translating there is usually always someone who can do it, as in Summerfield's posting (18th, 3.38pm) in which he says he passed Hennebert to Digby to translate. I'm not saying that Summerfield couldn't translate Hennebert, I'm just using his posting as an example.

It was in reference to the fact that you don't need to be able read in another language to do research, although it obviously helps. If it has to be done, it can be done, but of course, AND OBVIOUSLY, if the researcher can read the language of the source material, it would certainly save time and costs.

" I doubt many authors/historians can read Russian but I'm pretty sure many have used material written in Russian as a source."

Huh?

If you can't read something, then how would you use it as a source?

If you are reading a text by an author who DID read the source, then you cite the secondary author, or if necessary, you do a "Quoted in: … " citation. If you hire somebody else to translate it, then say so. There's an appropriate citation method for that, too.

However, it is not correct to crib that author's citation and use it as your own. That's academic dishonesty. The purpose of citation is to document where, precisely, you got your information from. If you got it from a secondary book, fine; say so. But do not write a citation for a primary source that you didn't actually read… because you can't. I've flunked students' papers for stuff like that. Every history instructor has.

Klingons,

If I may offer an opinion …. I agree with you completely.

Furthermore, I see the issue as not just "reading" the source text, but understanding the syntax, vocabulary, usage and even grammar within the relevant historical and/or social context.

Otherwise, in the present example, you get "officier pointeur" proffered as a function that included pointing guns (it was a rank in a formation that did not command guns) and "major" as a rank in a normal line progression of promotions (when it was a staff-only function, with different compensation from that enjoyed by either a "capitaine des xxxx" or a "lieutenant-colonel ayant une compagnie des xxxx").

Colloquy and discussion with period-expert and subject-expert native speakers can help alot to expand and deploy one's own ligusitic capability. But it is a huge task.

I am an essentially native speaker of French and English. But it it/was a long-term project to learn enough Russian, German, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Catalans and to be able to use these sources. I still sometimes doubt my German, and often double-check the other languages with native-speaker experts. I remain isolated from being able to use Dutch, Swedish, Finnish, Danish, Turkish, Arabic and Persian/Farsi sources – a great sadness I think.

Language competence is a great challenge. But the alternative is to be no more than the recipient of some secondary source's translated information – and this is all too often a perilous step toward misunderstanding. Also, if there are "two sides to a story", then it would be well to be able to undrstand both sides equally.

Not giving full, correct and accurate citations – to my mind to include a full review of the context of the quoted source material and the author(s) – is not only "academic dishonesty" but it also turns discussion of historical reearch into a non-scientific opinion-driven shouting match – as we have seen here. The results are then not very interesting to me, and provide no useful basis for improving our gaming experiences.

Some extracts from the etat militaire 1758

Par Ordonnance du 8 Décembre 1755, les Bataillons du Régiment Royal-Artillerie, les Compagnies de Mineurs & d'Ouvriers qui servent à leur suite, les Officiers d'Artillerie & les Ingénieurs ne sont plus qu'un même Corps sous la dénomination de Corps Royal de l'Artillerie & du Génie, sous l'autorité immédiate du Roi ; la charge de Grand-Maître & Capitaine général de l'Artillerie de France demeurant éteinte par la démission de M. le comte d'Eu.

Tous les Officiers qui seront tirés à l'avenir des Bataillons ou des Compagnies de Mineurs & d'Ouvriers pour être employés dans les Places, seront également chargés des deux services de l'Artillerie & du Génie.
Les Cadets ou Volontaires d'Artillerie sont supprimés pour l'Avenir, à mesure qu'ils s'éteindront, par Ordonnance du 8 Avril 1756.

Nouvelle Ecole à la Fere.
Cette même Ordonnance établit une nouvelle Ecole à la Fere pour l'instruction de 50 Eleves qui ont rang de Sous-Lieutenants, & 40 livre d'appointements par mois. Ils ont à leur tête un Capitaine en second & un Lieutenant qui commandent la nouvelle Ecole sous l'autorité de l'Officier qui commande l'ancienne.

Composition generale du Corps Royal de l'Artillerie & du Génie.
Par Ordonnance du 1 Décembre 1756, ce Corps est compose de 6 Bataillons, le Bataillon de 16 Compagnies, la Compagnie de 50 hommes. De ces 16 Compagnies il y en a 2 de Sappeurs, 9 de Canonniers & 5 de Bombardiers.
6 Compagnies de Mineurs & 6 Compagnies d'Ouvriers servent à la suite du Corps ; il n'y en avoit que cinq de chaque espece avant cette Ordonannce.

Capitaines des Compagnies de Mineurs
Lt-Colonel M. de Boule
Capitaine M. de Douville
Capitaine M. de Chateaufer
Lt-Colonel M. de Gribeauval
Capitaine M. le Rouyer
Capitaine M. de Boignorel

This would be the last position in the French army before he went to Austria, did any of the others go to Austria?

Still just a capitaine in the Mineurs, but a Lt-colonel in the army.

"Still just a capitaine in the Mineurs, but a Lt-colonel in the army."

Mark, dear colleague, may I play the pendant? I apologize in advance.

It is not exactly like later, Napoleonic, dual rank (such as army vs. guard).

Having a company was in effect to have an appointment or an (pecuniary) office, almost in a vaguely feudal sense. There was a "captaincy", if you will accept the English word, that existed like a "colonelcy" for a regiment.

By the way, the types of colonelcy were even more "baroque" (if you will forgive the poor attempt at a bon mot).

A lieutenant-colonel could hold the "captaincy" of a company-sized unit. Hence you will see the expression "ayant une compagnie" = "having a company" if the context (such as the list you posted) does not itself make the association obvious. The usual situation was, of course, a "capitaine ayant un compagnie".

Another related expression was "faisant fonction du capitaine" = "making the function" or "acting as". Here the officer did not hold the grant of the captaincy, but performed the rôle of the capitaine. The on-staff "capitaine en 2e" would often do this, if the titular holder of the captaincy (whether himself a captaine or a lieutentant-colonel or whatever) were absent. A temporarily assigned officer, tending to the compagnie of its absent holder, could be similarly denominated.

There is no reason to be sure that Gribeuval actually ever SAW "his" compagnie des mineurs.

He received the captaincy (and a commission as a capitaine des mineurs in the régiment royal-artillerie) at the end of 1752, under the patronage of the comte d'Argenson. He went to Prussia in early 1755 and upon his return was actively engaged in the debate in Paris, at "headquarters", about battalion guns. He left for Danzig in early 1757 – just as the comte d'Argenson (himself also a member of the "technocrat" cliqué) lost favor and office – and wound up in the Austrian service.

If instead he had ben promoted at the end of 1752 in the "corps royal de l'artillerie", he would have been made a "commissaire-provincial". These actually did tend to serve in the provinces, actively performing their functions. Perhaps there were no vacancies, or none that would keep him close to Paris, and his appointment to a captaincy in the "régiment royal-artillerie" was just a way to promote (and compensate) him devised by his patrons to give him plenty of available time in Paris. Per Nardin and the lists of documents I have reviewed, he does not seem to have changed his activities with the promotion.

This is all much ado about very little – and would not be worth mentioning at all – except that maybe there is some insight into the military culture or society of the era. And maybe that is interesting, espcially in comparison to the changes to that culture or society wrought by the Revolution and under Napoléon.

Amicalement.

"However, I have the impression that his choice of and acceptance in the "corps royal de l'artillerie" indicates that he was a leading candidate for commissioning at the time of his graduation from La Fère, that he was among the more successful students, and viewed as among the more intelligent candidates."

It is interesting to note that Austria's best bombardiers, who did the full 7 year course and would be commissioned pretty soon after graduating, spent their last two years studying physics and chemistry. If the French are doing something similar, then that would explain the refs to G doing "experiments" and subsequently dealing with these gaseous mines used at Schweidnitz.

Sotnik

Maybe I didn't word it correctly, but your view and mine are the same, although it wasn't that different to the British army then and later, but very different to later Napoleonic France.
I'm sure you are correct in that he didn't have lot of time to see 'his' compagnie.

ok now I have visions of Gribeauval and his chemistry set!

Sotnik…

I feel that you are perhaps not as "new" around here as your current name indicates.

Are you, perchance, an old Friend?

----> Mark,

I was 99.99% sure you knew. But there are others perhaps still following along.

----> Dave,

I am of the impression that everyone who met the young Gribeauval thought he was really academically/technically competent and also diligent and hard working. His patrons, perhaps starting with de Bélidor, seemed to have selected him not for any of the usual reasons of family or business connection – quite rare even among the "technocrat" cliqué – but for his skill. I am sure he could have discussed the latest ideas in chemistry with any of the Encyclopédistes.

----> Dave, Sam

Let me please querry your historical German ….

As far as I know, the German use of "Genie" was in Gribeauval's time, exclusively in usage for an inventive, inquiring, innovative personality – such as in modern English "he has a genius for business". The prior (ca. 1550) meanings that included devilish and/or unpredicitably good/evil had been by ca. 1750 pushed out in favor of a re-imported usage from French and Italian.

Do you agree ?

Here's a great link to quite a few historical dictionaries of the German language (it is pretty clear that Kevin didn't take this step before posting his first post on this thread) :
woerterbuchnetz.de

I think the phrase attributed to Friedrich that started this thread (but sometimes also given as Lefebvre's) indicated resepct for Gribeauval's ingenuity, creativity and erudition.

Some sort of furious combat devil, marching up and down a gun line encouraging the gunners, is all quite attractive to modern sensibilities – lots of machismo and all. While a creative technocratic administrator just looks like a sort of early modern nerd. But for me, everything about his real career tells me that it was "that genius Gribeauval", and not "that devil Gribeauval".

----> All,

I do feel increasingly old. I try to be friendly also.

Amicalement.

"As far as I know, the German use of "Genie" was in Gribeauval's time, exclusively in usage for an inventive, inquiring, innovative personality – such as in modern English "he has a genius for business". The prior (ca. 1550) meanings that included devilish and/or unpredicitably good/evil had been by ca. 1750 pushed out in favor of a re-imported usage from French and Italian. Do you agree ?"

That's my understanding, too, although I rarely run across that word in 18th century German texts.

Jakob Grimm's dictionary traced the first usage to 1511. He included no military definition, and of course he's writing one generation after Napoleon.

He summarizes it as a, "Deutschen aufgenommene Franz. Wort Genie, welches nicht von dem Lat. Genius, sondern von Ingenium abstammet, wofür in den mittlern Zeiten auch nur Genium üblich war."

PS – Glad you're back.

Klingons Orbiting Uranus

I think you seem a little confused. What I meant, for example, is that you might be aware of a relevant chapter in a text, perhaps mentioned by other authors or sources.

You may obtain the relevant chapter or article or whatever, and it may be in a language you cannot read. So you find a way to have it translated.

I hope that is a bit clearer on what I meant?

"no military definition"

I thought it a sort of French-German pun or bon mot, as it was a rather mixed group of French and German speakers.
Genie – German – genius
génie – French – fortification engineers/engineering *

* This usage had arisen only rather recently :
« On appelle aussi Génie, L'art de fortifier, d'attaquer, de défendre une place, un camp, un poste. Il s'est mis dans le génie. Il est dans le génie depuis trois ans. »
- Dictionnaire de l'Académie française 1762

Friedrich had had Huguenot tutors and had learned French from childhood. I grew up in a Franglais-speaking household – and we made such combinations.

Thanks for the "welcome back".

Sotnik:

I second the welcome back! Your contributions were missed.

Oh good a fight online. Did I miss anything?

Yes, welcome back indeed.

"Friedrich had had Huguenot tutors and had learned French from childhood. I grew up in a Franglais-speaking household – and we made such combinations."

Oh, I have no doubt that German military men in the 18th century imported all sorts of French terms liberally. I've just personally never seen that one in use, and Jakob Grimm (who is the gold standard for German etymology, in my opinion) doesn't mention its military connotation. That doesn't mean it wasn't there, just not widely-recognized.

(Imagine my confusion the first time I ever tried to read a report in an old German document, regarding the "blessierten Truppen…." I'm sure that Frangleutsch like that was widely used.)

I suppose that to do the engineering type jobs, you had to be something of a genius in the eyes of most people, given the complex maths and dark arts of chemistry. In UK, calculus has been taken out of Maths A-level (18 yr olds exam) as it was thought to put them off – look in any contemporary technical manual and you will find lots of calculus and geometry.

Good to see your return, Sotnik – you have many friends here!

Interestingly enough, I had a hacked mail message from Evan Polley's AoL account just yesterday.

---> Royal,
Not fighting here – just discussing some sources, some language usage, and some rather ancient history. Nothing worth fighting about in my opinion. But maybe interesting nonetheless.
:-)

---> Lest, XV & Dave,
Thank you so much!

----> Sam,
"blessierten Truppen…." Priceless!

"Genie Gribeauval" – not so much an import, but a kind of pun, I was thinking. The audience would have known both the German and French meanings, and would have thought of Gribeauval as a member of the Austrian Ingenieur Corps, and they had just fought over a fortified place.

It is interesting to me that there is an air of trans-national professionalism in such an anecdote, whether exactly true or not. It is not at all the kind of "ideologicalical" or "nationalistic" or "propagandistic" anecdote (I use quotes to acknowledge the potential for anachronism) that seems so typical in the Napoleonic era.

I wish my group would play 7YW.

Actually, I wish they would play Lasalle for the later period!

Amicalement.

----> P.S.
Maybe we could ask (very, very nicely) if Shane and/or Kevin would, please, start an "invite SHS back" poll.

"I wish my group would play 7YW."

I have a fun new 18th century project, hopefully coming out next year, that I think you might like.

Sotnik,

I would like to add my own "Welcome back" to the chorus. Your return is worth this thread getting to the sixth page.

Rick

And thus it ends with Flowers and Unicorns.

Maybe we could ask (very, very nicely) if Shane and/or Kevin would, please, start an "invite SHS back" poll.

I do not know what level of sarcasm or intent is levelled in this comment but please keep me out of this, I have no desire to get involved in this. I also do not know who "SHS" is?

here you go, sounds like this is needed
YouTube link

Shane,

SHS presumably is Steven H Smith

Regards

ah thanks Whirlwind

Sotnik and others,

I do not know how many times I have to say this but I have nothing to do with smith's banishment from this forum. Yes I complained about his behaviour and I cannot stand his attitude but the kicking of his account is NOT, and I repeat, NOT up to me. You need to speak to Bill, the forum owner about this. I have no say in the matter.

Your request was sarcastic and uncalled for and meant only to provoke a response. Well you got it, are you happy now?

"Yes I complained about his behaviour"

"I have nothing to do with smith's banishment from this forum. "

Alas, you contradict yourself, sir.

Un ami in need is un ami indeed.

Shane,

This is rather off-topic, and personal instead of subject-matter-specific. But I think I owe you a proper explanation. I regret I am on the other side of the earth and can't just talk it over face to face over a couple of drinks.

So, with my apologies to all for hi-jacking this thread ….

Shane, I was being completely serious, not sarcastic.

I think SHS is a great contributor to forum discussions, and a great helper for anyone doing research in these areas. I think TMP would be better if he were to return.

But my opinion is totally unimportant.

The posts he directed at you were such that you felt that a complaint was warranted. You were the aggreived party. You were the one whose complaint called out for a ruling from the decision maker, the "Editor". (Maybe the same was true for Kevin.)

So, as I see it, if any one person were to propose that SHS be invited to return, it should be you (and/or Kevin). But since this is a community of sorts, I thought maybe a general poll to get everyone's opinion would be best.

In my opinion it would not be respectful to you (and/or Kevin) to start such a poll. Hence my suggestion that maybe you (and/or Kevin) consider whether your complaint was answered and whether you would propose that we think, as a community, about asking the Editor for a new decision. I think that you have the perogative, as the aggrieved party, to not act on my sugestion if you think your complaint has not yet been fully answered.

See, no sarcasm at all.

Amicalement.

Rick, 14Bore & Arteis,

Thank you very much !

O/T

@ dave

In UK, calculus has been taken out of Maths A-level (18 yr olds exam) as it was thought to put them off

Good God, is that true?! I did calculus as part of AO-Level in 1979. It was what you did between the O and the A Level. Everybody did maths O Level at 14. You then did further maths till 16 and you dropped maths altogether only if you weren't taking it to A Level.

You're saying they don't do it prior to degree level now??! If so, a contemporary maths A-Level must be about equivalent to a c.1980 O Level.

In the same vein, there is a certain Latin grammar dating from about 1880 that in my day was given to children ahead of the 11+. It is now given out only to A-Level pupils.

I was slightly different – A grade O-level aged 15 in 77, followed by a B in Additional Maths. Stupidly, I thought I could cope with A-level Maths, but I could not do calculus to save my life – although I understand it now! Stats saved my neck enough (A in the Quantative Maths unit of my MBA a few years ago). However, my nephew was taking Maths A-level a couple of years ago and I regaled my travails with calculus to receive the response: "What's differential calculus?". It was indeed binned some years ago as it put the little darlings off doing Maths A-level. It can be taken in Pure Maths, but certainly at my school, that was the second part of Double Maths, which only the really clever kids did.

It would be good to see Steve back as he does read these boards. Whether Kevin is still about, I don't know – Royal Marine – he got a bit of a ing in this fight, which he started and one of his favourite recent author has been shown now to be making citations up.

Sotnik,

This thread has taken a few twists and turns so there is no need to apolgise for hijacking anything. My two penneth for what it is worth is that any forum is only as good as its members and on that basis it was the forum's and every member's loss when Steve Smith (and you) left. I would certainly like to see him back but I regret I do not agree with you that Messrs Kiley or Devries should have any input to such a move.

That this thread has taken so many turns is I think evident. I hope I detect something of a ‘new dawn' in that the few disruptive elements and their gang-warfare tactics against any individual who disagrees with them are no longer being tolerated by the majority and there appears to be almost a degree of ‘community policing' going on.

I think this is encouraging. Long may it last. It must be clear by now that their behaviour is not acceptable to most of the people who come here.

Bill

gribby, I fail to see how I am contradicting myself. Complaining about someone's behaviour and latter banishment are two totally different subjects. I complained about his incessant aggravating insults only in the hope of getting him DH'd, that was my agenda. His subsequent banishment was for his constant insults on not just me but others as well. He was indeed DH'd by Bill and asked to stop but refused. After several incidents Bill obviously had had enough. I cannot be held responsible for what Bill does on this forum in his attempts to control the behaviour of those not unlike you who believe it perfectly justifiable to act like he did.

You guys seem to forget how insulting he was, do you need to be reminded of it? How many threads did he hijack just to add insult to others including me. I could not care how great of a contributor you might think he was, his actions and behaviours here were obviously enough for Bill to ban him and that is his prerogative, I have no access to accounts so that I can click the "banish" button, only the power to complain, but I was far from being the only one to complain about his behaviour, I had several emails from other posters who also had had enough of him and complained. But none of us have the power to ban him, get that into your head.

God, I cannot figure out how I can be now be put to the sword for his banning??? gribby, I suggest you whinge to Bill, instead of whining and sooking here at me. You seem to be very good at chiming in only to cry. Your sole aim in your post above was to insight a negative response from me which, like others in the milky white "XV brigade" is to appear transparent and blameless while re-focusing all of the bad behaviour here on others and not take any of it on themselves. How low can you go !!

It must be clear by now that their behaviour is not acceptable to most of the people who come here.

Bill

LOL, and your behaviour is milky white isn't it Bill???

How hypocritical can you get!!

take a scroll back down recent memory lane and see how you act mate, it is just as bad. But you want to stand with angels so that you look like a nicer person don't you Bill???

I desired NOT to get involved in any of this, I just wanted to read the posts and remain silent. I was dragged into this because my name was mentioned. It is obvious that I am being provoked into responding because you guys cannot seem to just let things go. Your desire was to get me to respond thus aggravating me into a negative response so that I could be further crucified when I did!!!

How brave and morally upright of you guys, and what makes me laugh is that you stand around pretending to be angels who only wish to make the forum a great place. Listen guys, you are all JUST as guilty as I am of the recent conduct of this place but you either do not wish to see it or are blind. It takes two to tango and by god you guys are great dancers !!

Who is Sotnic? and why has he been welcomed back I noticed that he only joined TMP on the 18 April two days ago am I missing something as he been on the forum at an earlier date. The Napoleonic board is certainly very strange.

@ Imperiale: We believe (rightly or wrongly) he is a long-lost TMP poster who had the ability, sadly lacking in many here, to argue his points in an exceptionally gentlemanly and gracious manner, which, if his view was opposite to yours, caused you to consider and reflect rather than putting your back up.

O/T

@ Dave

Sounds similar to me – A in Maths O, B in Maths AO, chickened out of taking maths any further, in case I went down another grade rather than going back up one in moving up to A Level.

It now appears I've got the equivalent of a contemporary maths degree.

Only in recent years have I been getting interested in calculus again, for work-related reasons where, if all you knew was statistics, you'd know enough.

I'm also starting to think the path to plausible artillery fire results is via some sort of calculus-derived formula. That is, there'd be a normal distribution curve of fire effects. Muller or Scharnhorst type results would sit 4, 5 or 6 standard deviations out to the right. That is, in really vanishingly exceptional circumstances, you could obtain them. But mostly you wouldn't.

So the area under the 1SD part of the curve integrates to 160, in the example used above of 32 guns firing 25 rounds each. 2/3rds of the time, 160 casualties is what you'd achieve.

Where I've been going wrong is in trying to force artillery fire effect tables into a bell curve shape. In fact what should happen is that a plot of sufficient readings would give you your bell curve, but the table itself need not. I the case of 8 12-pounder against a 3-deep line, the lowest extreme of losses is 0, the top extreme is 72, and I have to figure out where the main part of the curve is.

Wargaming is about playing with figures, of course…

@ Imperiale / Arteis:

Did he use to be called Un Ami?

Shhhhhhhhh.

4th,

I am afraid that despite frequent protests to the contrary secondary education across Britain has been systematically dumbed-down. Removing a foreign language from the curiculum was done because results were poor. So, the easier examinations are made generally and the more the harder subjects are removed from the menu of subjects, the better the results will be and everybody is happy.

Politicians can point to the higher numbers of passes and therefore the success of their education policies, head teachers are happy because their schools appear to be high achievers, parents are happy because their children appear to be doing well and school leavers are happy because they get ‘good' grades. Well, the students are happy until those with even A grade passes find that they need to undergo remedial mathematics in order to successfully complete graduate courses in some of the sciences.

Bill