"Armies of the Irish Rebellion 1798 Osprey MAA" Topic

Supercilius Maximus

Believe it or not, I do not have a 'personal' grudge against Mr. Hollins. But Mr. Hollins certainly seems to have one against the Irish, as he does the Americans. Can you imagine what someone new visiting this site will think when they see the type of remarks he makes?

My main concern is his arrogant attitude and his inflated ego, which has convinced him that he not only had the right to write a star vanity review and insult other authors, but has now made him believe he can get away with his latest offensive insults. I don't think his past reputation, which is well past its sell by date, should prevent him from being banned.

@Mericanach

Why would Bill's post make you think that there are others here who might share Dave Hollins' views? He was basically offended that people might think that the British members of the board think on the same lines as Hollins. Now, just to be clear, I don't share Dave's views but if there are some people who do maybe the best thing to do would be to NOT call them out to 'make themselves known'. Dave's doing quite a good job of being the thread nobhead without inviting others to help him out

In your second post you said it 'never crossed my mind for a moment (until you raised it) that he might speak for the rest of you' but in your first post you said that his attitude 'does him and the wider British population of TMP very little credit', thereby linking him with the rest of us, which I think is the reason Bill picked a bone with you. That said I think he was maybe a bit too forceful with the 'very little credit' thing, and I'm sure you meant no offence with that comment and the rest of your post.

I think wires are getting crossed here and everyones getting a bit upset because of it. Can't we all just get along?

****Back to the subject of the books, I am looking forward to both of these. I think the blurb could have been better written (as Dave Hollins said in his post that could also have been better written) but it might well just be a temporary space filler. I'm a great fan of Stuart Reid and have found the books of his I own (Ends of the Earth and Frederick the Great's Allies) to be particularly useful to the wargamer with strong focus on the uniforms (including the more obscure which hasn't really been covered before – Hanoverian artillery attached to Scheither's Jager Corps for example). I am sure that his new book will not be bad and as we have seen the plates are very nicely done indeed.

The other books does look very interesting and covers a less well-known topic (outside of, and perhaps inside of the US). Dave criticised the supposed American bias of Osprey (and I've heard the same about a British bias) but that is where they are making their money and if by seeming to focus on them a little too much they can occasionally bring out books on the more obscure and European (like Hollins book on Austrian Frontier Troops) we should be grateful for that. Dave also made the point that Europe is a larger market than the US but I think we should remember that Europe is subdivided into many seperate nations all with their own interests AND languages. The US is a huge market chunk where most people speak English and have an interest in the military history of one country in particular.

R Mark Davies

Mr. Hollins is trying to put down anything Osprey are going to publish because to publish other titles, other than those written by him, and which might sell well, will mean they will be less likely to consider his idea for an Osprey title on Rivoli.

But there is already an excellent title on Rivoli available THE ROAD TO RIVOLI by Martin Boycott-Brown (2001), so there is no need for an Osprey version. And Mr. Hollins only wants to write one on Rivoli in order to attack Napoleon's reputation as a commander, as his comments on the Osprey forum clearly suggest.

Gee, thanks Gazzola. You've never said anything like that about Mr Hollins before, so thanks for pointing it out. I'd never have known otherwise.

In fact, you'd better mention the 'vanity review' again. You've only mentioned it three times so far in this thread and your average is slipping.

Adam,

Thank you for that. I saves me having to explain.

R Mark Davies,

It is a pity that Dave Hollins makes these remarks because it just gives Gazzora the opportunity to make one of his equally gratuitous posts.

Bill

So the rest of us are broadly in agreement then…..

1) Messrs Hollins and Gazzola – your positive contributions are always welcome; as for the rest, please step out into the car park and sort it out there (anyone interested is welcome to watch and call the emergency services – or just watch).

2) Mericanach – fear not: none of us who have posted on here share Mr Hollins' view of the Irish; and we shall not allow him to get away with it.

3) Both of these books sound like they might be worth a punt (unlike the Irish economy).

Did I miss anything?

Or get a room…

<<Believe it or not, I do not have a 'personal' grudge against Mr. Hollins. But Mr. Hollins certainly seems to have one against the Irish, as he does the Americans. Can you imagine what someone new visiting this site will think when they see the type of remarks he makes?>>

Whatever Mr Hollins' faults – and the jab at the Irish was beyond the pale, I agree – I'm afraid that you seem to be incapable of commenting on anything he writes without bringing up these other acts time and time again. We are all aware of what he has done, and what you think were his motives, and for better or worse we all have our own views on the matter. Or none at all. You both have better things to use your posting rights on here for and the rest of us would like to move on. Please?

<<Or get a room…>>

No, that's something I don't think any of us would want to watch.

Supercilius Maximus

My apologies if you do not like my bringing up Mr. Hollins' insults.

R Mark Davies

My apologies. But just for you. Hollins Vanity review.

Both of these books sound like they might be worth a punt (unlike the Irish economy)

That was funny in a sort of Basil Brush "Boom! Boom!" sort of way but this;

and the jab at the Irish was beyond the pale, I agree

Genuinely had me smiling. Good work SM!

SM,

I would say Mr Hollin's remarks were certainly ill considered.

Gazorra is a serial offender but just like every village, every forum should have at least one:-)

The best thing to do is just stifle him as there is little chance of missing anything positive I think.

Bill

Max,

I disagree with your summary of the Legion of the United States. The legionary corps units of the Continental Army were not the model of this formation, the Roman Legion was and the size was similar to that of a Roman Legion (around 5,000).

I also disagree with your characterization of the typical European division being between 10-20,000 during this period. First, the only army that had permanent divisions during this period was the French, and those arose from the 21 (later 23) territorial divisions organized between the end of the Seven Years' War and the beginning of the French Revolutionary Wars on a peacetime establishment. It is also noteworthy that de Broglie (with Bourcet as his chief of staff) had organized French divisions for use in the field in 1759-1760.

As an example of the strength of French divisions in the Army of Italy during 1796-1797 (roughly the same time as the Legion of the United States was in existence) the following can be found:

-Massena's division had an approximate strength of 13,000;
-Laharpe's division had 7,500
-Meynier's divisino had 5,000
-Serurier's division had 9,500
-Augereau's division had 7,500
-Macquard's division had 3,700 (Armee des Alpes)
-Garnier's division had 3,100 (Armee des Alpes)

Only one falls into your stated parameters, which would be valid for 1809 and beyond. It should also be noteworthy that the French did not have the same strengths for each division (they were not organized with exactly the same orders of battle), and when the corps d'armee system was implemented, the same idea held-both to confuse enemy intelligence efforts and because of the relative talents of the division and corps commanders.

In 1800 the following divisional strengths in northern Italy for the French were as stated:

-Boudet: 5,300
-Monnier: 3,600
-Chambarlhac: 5,300
-Gardanne: 3,700

Seems to me that Wayne's Legion of the United States fits right into these parameters as a unit of division strength.

As a comparison the strength of Davout's three divisions at Auerstadt, ten years later, in 1806 are:

Gudin: 9,173
Morand: 10,265
Friant: 7,901

These are gettingn closer to your parameters ten years after the Legion was in existence and operational.

Perhaps the following will help with understanding the Legion in a better light:

‘The Legion of the United States was to consist of four sublegions of 1,280 men each, commanded by brigadier generals. Each sublegion would include two battalions of infantry, one battalion of riflemen, one company of dragoons, and one company of artillery. With the disappearance of the regiments, the rank of colonel also disappeared, the battalions being commanded by majors. The military purpose of the legionary organization was to enhance tactical flexibility by creating four miniature armies in the four sublegions. Here, for the same reason that the French army was concurrently developing the modern division, was a departure from the eighteenth-century tendency to regard the whole army as a single tactical unit.'
-Russell Weigley, History of the United States Army, 92.

‘From 1792 to 1796 the United States Army was officially designated ‘The Legion of the United States.' Its organization was based upon that of the classic Roman Legion, the Secretary of War Henry Knox and Major General Anthony Wayne, its commander, having begun t heir military education with Julius Caesar's Commentaries. The Legion was to have a total strength of 5,120 officers and men, exclusive of Wayne and his staff, and to consist of eight battalions of infantry, four battalions of riflemen, one battalion (four troops) of light dragoons, and one battalion (four companies) of artillery. These were grouped into four ‘sublegions', each consisting of two battalions of infantry and one of riflemen. The dragoons and artillery were assigned to the sublegions or employed separately as the situation required.'

‘The 1st and 2d sublegions were formed from the existing 1st (‘American') and 2d Infantry Regiments, both of which had suffered heavily during previous unsuccessful Indian campaigns. Because of the difficulty in securing recruits, the Legion never reached its authorized strength, and the 3d and 4th Battalions of riflemen were not formed. This was partially redeemed by the organization of an elite light infantry company in each infantry battalion, and by Wayne's insistence upon individual marksmanship. During 1794, additional artillerymen were authorized.'

‘The Legion was the equivalent of the division of all arms which the French army was then developing as a self-sufficient tactical organization. Its high proportion of riflemen and light infantry was specifically designed for frontier warfare. With it, Wayne broke the Indian tribes of the ‘Old Northwest' in his masterful Fallen Timbers campaign of 1794, enabling the United States to nudge the British out of frontier posts they still held in the Northwest territory. After Wayne's death, his incompetent successors abandoned the legionary organization for the more conventional-and more rigid-regimental system. Nevertheless, despite its brief existence, the Legion of the United States remains unquestionably one of the most effective military forces in all American history.'
-John Elting, editor, Military Uniforms in America, Volume II

‘The first four months of 1792 marked a major watershed in the creation of a national military establishment in the United States. Taken together, the decision by the administration to fight the Indian war wholly with regulars, the endorsement of that policy by Congress in approving an army of over 5,000 men, the internal reorganization of the army into a legion, the overhaul of military administration in Philadelphia, and the installation of new leadership-all began the transformation of the military establishment into the efficient military machine that eventually smashed the Indian confederacy in the Northwest. The 1792 reformation was another major step, like the establishment of the 1st Regiment in 1784 and the giving of clearcut military powers to the federal government in the Constitution of 1787, in the creation of the military establishment that Hamilton and Washington first proposed in 1783.
-Richard Kohn, Eagle and Sword: The Beginnings of the Military Establishment in America, 126.

‘With all his warts, Wayne had the mind and the experience for a major independent command. Washington and Knox knew Anthony Wayne-his politics, his personality, his military strengths and weaknesses, and his opinion of how to deal with Indians, which matched that of the administration almost exactly. Chosen as the least of all possible evils, Wayne turned out to be among the most brilliant appointments in the Federalist era. In April his was the first name sent to the Senate, at the top of a long list of new officers, including men to fill the critical administrative posts of Quartermaster General, Paymaster, and Accountant to the War Department. The army was now to be the Legion of the United States: a new organization, different generals, fresh officers, a revamped administration, new spirit-and victory.'
-Kohn, 126

In addition to the volumes named above, two other books are helpful with the history of the Legion of the United States:

-1794: America, Its Army, and the Birth of the Nation by Dave Palmer

-Bayonets in the Wilderness: Anthony Wayne's Legion in the Old Northwest by Alan Gaff.

As to the comment by another poster that 'Actually, the USA "Legion" looks exactly like the internal security command of a typical frontier (more or less military) governate in Russia.' nothing could be further from the facts of the Legion-it was not a frontier constabulary (a label and case that could be made for the US Army prior to the advent of Anthony Wayne and the Legion) but a combat organization that was both excellently organized and trained and led by an experienced commander who knew exactly what he was doing.

'What Wayne did was nothing more than form an expanded legionary corps – hence the name "Legion of the United States" and the use of "sub-legions" perhaps? – similar to those he had observed throughout the AWI and along the lines of de Saxe's model.'

Again, it was the Roman Legion that was used as a model, not the legionary corps of the War of the Revolutiohn.

'To ascribe some brilliant plan to what was essentially just making the best of what he'd got, is to read too much into a simple situation, IMO.'

I disagree and it appears that Kohn does also. The Legion of the United States was Wayne's creation with the support of President Washington and Secretary of War Knox. I don't usually use the term 'brilliant' but this comes pretty close. The Legion was one of the finest fighting formations in the history of the US Army.

K

"My apologies if you do not like my bringing up Mr. Hollins' insults. But the problem is that, although most people are aware of what sort of person he really is, and have made comments about him, it does not seem to have had any effect."

Err…..Gazzola, that would be because he hasn't committed a crime and noone else gives a monkeys. You really are starting to look like a sad lunatic now. You are hijacking every thread. I have taken the mick before but it really is time you gave up. We all know your opinion no, so pleeeeeeeeease stop bleating on about vanity reviews. Please. Pretty Please. Pretty please with bells on.

Dear K,

First two minor, but perhaps exemplary, points …

1. Your modern secondary source was wrong, or incomplete, or incorrect or whatever you want to call it.
Although General Wayne wanted the sub-legions to be commanded by Brigadier Generals, there were only Lieutenant Colonelcies created, given the small size of their force. The issue is discussed in some detail in the primary source material for which I provided links in my prior posts here.

2. Your modern secondary source also gives the initial Legion organization – not the later one used during much of the Legions' best service (sub-legions then included 2 [line] infantry battalions of 3 companies, a riflemen batalion of 3 companies and a light infantry musketeer company using a weapon provided by Wayne himself – total 10 comapnies). Again the primary sources cover this, including some interesting personnel issues that arose with the change.

Now then we come to your own opinions ….
You wrote,
"As to the comment by another poster that 'Actually, the USA "Legion" looks exactly like the internal security command of a typical frontier (more or less military) governate in Russia.' nothing could be further from the facts of the Legion – it was not a frontier constabulary …. but a combat organization that was both excellently organized and trained and led by an experienced commander who knew exactly what he was doing."

1. Exactly what, in the context of "pacifying" a frontier would make a "frontier constabulary" not a "combat organization"? Exactly why do you think that the typical Russian frontier military Governate command was a frontier constabulary, but not a combat organization – while the USA Legion was not a frontier constabulary, but instead a combat organization?
Let us perhaps try to avoid using a double standard.

2. How would being "excellently organized and trained" be a difference between the two? Please describe the differences between the two formations that make the American one more excellent in organization and training.
To me, and I listed both organizations here for everyone to see, they seem almost identical in structure. Maybe some trivial differences …
-- Russian artillery a little larger and less of a hodge-podge of mixed types and calibres
-- a little more light horse for the Russians in the Perm Governate, but the territory was a little larger
-- the USA Legion did not include their allies among the Native Peoples in their official organization, which makes one wonder how their "excellent" organization worked with such allies
The staffing of the Russian formation was 100% veterans (officers and men). No conscripts and no local militia formations. I do not think that long service veterans of the Russian army would be thought of as less trained than General Wayne's volunteers. The Bashkir cavalry lived a lifetime under arms, exactly as did Cossacks. In the specific example, the Bashkir companies were veterans of the prior war against Napoléon and had otherwise taken their turns on the Orenburg "line" to the south.
So, how can we logically arrive at the conclusion that the Americans were "excellently organized and trained" while the Russians were not? From a jingoistic pro-American point of view, I wish it were true. But I can see no actual justification for American superiority in these categories.

3. Why would being "led by an experienced commander who knew exactly what he was doing" be a difference between the two? Please compare the experience of General Wayne with that of one or more Russian military governors of a frontier region. You will realize that a governorship was a typical command for a lieutenant general who had previously distinguished himself, such as commanding divisions or larger against Napoléon. Do you really think that General Wayne's experience was so much better as to create a real difference between the formations?

Again, we have very broad assertions in your post, without any primary source support or analysis (although I have provided many primary sources for you – free and on-line, via links in my prior posts). It thus remains very hard to agree with your opinions, no matter how many times you repeat them.

One could make a strange, but perhaps amusing "what-if" scenario, but really quite a balanced one ….
American Legion
-- 40 companies of trained infantry
-- 2 companies of light dragoons
-- 16 pieces of foot artillery of mixed types and small calibre
Russian Perm Governate
-- 15 companies of veteran infantry
-- 1 company of heavy dragoons
-- 10 companies of Bashkir light cavalry
-- 12 pieces of 6-lber foot artillery

Amcialement.

P.S. – Without wishing to cause the least offense, may I please note that I do have a name, "Sotnik", and that it might be considered more polite to refer to me by name – instead of as "another poster". It would at least be more personable.

badwargamer

Depends on what you consider a crime. But if Mr. Hollins behaved himself , there would be no need to make such posts. Perhaps you can have a word with him, although I doubt he'll listen.

ps: And I didn't mention Vanity 5 Star Review, well , only to mention that I didn't mention it, so that doesn't count.

XV Brigada

Describing Mr. Hollins comments as 'ill considered' sounds like a political cover up. Just say it as it is – an insult!

By the way, who is this Gazorra?

K,

1) I am happy to concede the (Roman) legionary antecedents of Wayne's army – I have Kohn, Palmer and Elting, and have used all three for occasional reference, but never read all three from cover to cover (I consider myself suitably chastised, and will rectify this omission asap). However, what Wayne planned and what he ended up with were not quite the same thing – and it was the reality that I suggested was not the equal of the European model.

2) At the risk of being pedantic – surely the legionary corps of the AWI were equally descended from the Roman concept (via de Saxe, whom I assume Wayne and Knox would also have read?) and hence not unrelated to Wayne's experiment? To be sure they were much smaller, but then they must be taken in the context of the smaller armies and individual units of the AWI vis-a-vis their European counterparts. Whilst Wayne may not have <<based>> his legion on them, his observations of their employment must have had some impact on his decision to choose that particular path, and certainly his sub-legions bear more than a passing resemblance to, say, the Queen's Rangers?

3) Your figures from the Army of Italy do conflict with my suggestion of typical strength (which, in retrospect, is probably too high for this period – 8-10,000 would be more apt). However, if we're dealing with the concept, rather than what was actually there in the field, then the Army of Italy was notoriously under-strength, and some "divisions" were (as you point out) merely "ad hoc" formations to deal with a particular problem. A paper division should have had four line and one light regiments (demi-brigades if you prefer), each of three battalions, each of those around 700 men. With some supporitng light cavalry and artillery, even at slightly below full strength, one is still looking at 10,000 men.

4) The French, as you say, based their divisions initially on the inspection areas, which included a "mix" of troop types (subject to local factors – eg terrain, town/rural mix, and the character of the people). Thus their "divisions" arise from administrative organisation, rather than tactical philosophy; surely, this was common to many countries at this time – Russian, Spain and Portugal spring to mind – where units from the same inspectoral areas would be grouped together, either as a stand-alone force, or within a larger army.

SM

Try this for the organization of the Legion, as fielded, not as on paper (battalions were of three companies of 50 men each):

Left Wing – Lt. Col. Commandant John Hamtramck
2nd Sub-Legion – Lt. Col. Commandant David Strong
Dragoon Troop
Artillery Company
1st Battalion (one company in Georgia)
2nd Battalion (one company in Georgia)

4th Sub-Legion – Lt. Col. Commandant John Clark
Dragoon Troop
(Artillery Company in Georgia)
1st Battalion
2nd Battalion (one company at Fort Fayette)

Left Wing Rifle Corps
4 cos. (musket) from 2nd Sub-Legion
4 cos. (rifle) from 4th Sub-Legion

Right Wing – Brigadier General James Wilkinson
1st Sub-Legion – Dragoon Troop
Artillery Company
1st Battalion
2nd Battalion

3rd Sub-Legion – Lt. Col. Commandant John Smith
Dragoon Troop
Artillery Company
1st Battalion
2nd Battalion

Right Wing Rifle Corps
4 cos. (musket) from 1st Sub-Legion
4 cos. (rifle) from 3rd Sub-Legion

SM,

Taking a look at de Saxe, he also was impressed with the old Roman legions and his idea was at least partially based on that concept also.

The idea that Wayne might have had the partisan legions on his mind from the War of the Revolution has merit, but those didn't have artillery attached or organic to them and generally they evolved from a shortage of horses and cavalry equipment, which is what happened to the 2d Continental Light Dragoons when they had some of their troops dismounted and equipped as infantry, though retaining their cavalry uniforms, including helmets.

The French organized their territorial divisions in peace time, but they had already employed a division formation in combat beginning in 1759-1760 with de Broglie and Bourcet. De Saxe also talked about it in his writing and that is where the idea for the territorial divisions came from. Russia, Prussia, Austria, and England didn't do that on a permanent basis until much later. The Austrians talked about it, and thought about a 'legion' organization, but that fell by the wayside and wasn't implemented.

On the other hand, the Continental Army formed permanent brigades and divisions in 1777, and both of these formations had their own staffs to support the commanders. (See The Continental Army by Richard Wright, 112). This placed the Continental Army organizationally superior to the British army in North America whose organizations above the regimental were temporary and were provisionally organized to fit the problem at hand.

That being said, Wayne was very familiar with both a brigade and divisional organization when he formed the Legion of the United States in the 1790s.

K

K,

<<The idea that Wayne might have had the partisan legions on his mind from the War of the Revolution has merit, but those didn't have artillery attached or organic to them and generally they evolved from a shortage of horses and cavalry equipment,…..>>

True, but he would have been aware of the Queen's Rangers, which did have organic artillery (IIRC, the British Legion might also have had a galloper gun at some point); equally, the British had been employing legionary units from 1776, with the augmentation of the two light dragoon regiments. I would suggest this impressed the Americans, as their response to the lack of horses/kit was not to feed the excess men into the infantry (which was undermanned), but to find another way of employing them.

The British did, arguably, have a territorial division in the form of the English and Irish Establishments, which contained both foot and horse (there was also technically a Scottish Establishment, but it was just a single infantry regiment). Whilst these never quite translated into war formations in the French manner, it is worth noting that the Irish Establishment was invariably used as a "feeder" for North America (both FIW and AWI, and the "garrison" periods in between) and later for the Egyptian campaign of 1799-1801, with internal drafting of men to units going abroad from units remaining at home etc.

As I said earlier, the 6-battalion Dublin garrison was, in effect, a small division, forming two brigades that were more or less permanent (if not necessarily officially so) for most of the 18th Century, albeit with numerous officers and regiments "rotating through". However, it was unique within the British Army in that respect. Houlding refers to this in "Fit for Service".

SM,

I have Fit for Service and will take a look.

And you are correct for the Queen's Rangers-good catch.

Sincerely,
K

Hopefully this will inspire more 1798 rising figures.
A very intersting and sad period in Irish history and a welcome addition.

Been waiting a long time for this one and like you, would VERY much like to see some 1798 figures

It is actually more revealing to look at what is being produced – Osprey are clearly looking the wrong way for well-known reasons.

We have the French 1796 Bouvier reprint illustrated by Keith Rocco (an American!) link 9third down)

and a new French book on the campaign, focusing on N and his psyops in 1796 link

We have Eureka (Australian) and Adler (British) starting to extend their ranges in to the Rev Wars with Austrian figures to face the French ones.

Then, (another American!) Bill Peters, a scenario designer for John Tiller Software has been on the NSf looking for a map of Archduke Charles' victory at Wurzburg in 1796 link

Still, I am sure that these Americans and others do not have a clue about where the markets is moving and osprey know better!

What ARE you wittering on about, Mister Hollins? That Osprey isn't riding your personal hobbyhorse, so they must be wrong to publish a book?

What IS it with you that makes you sneer so? You can't just be happy that Rocco and Peters and Eureka and Adler and others are doing things you like, no, you must jump in and kick Osprey for doing something else? Seriously?

I'll tell you what will happen – this will not sell, so the response from Osprey to other suggestions will be "sorry, Rev/Nap books do not sell (in the US)".

When you want something covered, maybe along the lines of the works above, Osprey will tell you that they need to do something more on the "Underpants of the 82nd Airborne".

I don't doubt Osprey will put out something very much like that, but the underlying question is still, "why jump in kicking Osprey instead of celebrating the fact that others (Rocco et al) are doing what you do like?"

I mean, I saw your post on the 'Best general history/biography of Napoleon' topic, and that was well-written and didn't takes sides against other posters. THAT Dave Hollins is somebody I would choose to discuss/debate history with.

My problem is the sneering one that posted on this topic. THAT guy doesn't seem to want a discussion so much as an argument. This topic doesn't need an argument, I think you would find more general acceptance of your second post on the point than the first.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your point (the second post).

Cpt Arexu
(I have no dog in the fight, I'm just here for information and debate, not internet fisticuffs)

I will tell you a few things about Osprey, which just seem ridiculous to me – and are uncoinnected with my viewsd on how biographies are written.

One of other interests is supporting the last flying Vulcan bomber XH558. It is the iconic UK aircraft post the Battle of Britain and with its triangular shape, is reminiscent of the later civil Concorde. Millions were raised to put her back in service in 2008 and ever since, she has produced "The Vulcan Effect" increasing airshow crowds by 20% and you can see crowds pushing towards the barriers as she takes off. When she was about to relaunch, I suggested to Osprey that they did an aircraft book on her and perhaps make a donation for every copy sold as they would shift the first run through the supporters' club and one round of air displays. The reply came back that they would not be interested, but they might do for a Yank plane. I nearly threw the whole lot in the bin – this is a British company (no US publisher would behave like that) offered a guaranteed sell-out. When they did produce a book on the V-bombers (three separate designs to deliver nuclear missiles in the 50s and 60s), I suggested that they did a launch with XH558 as she was then hangared not far from Oxford. Nothing. I am off to RAF Waddington on Sunday to see her in the annual airshow – and now I learn that later this summer, she has been invited to a small show at Oxford airport.

A Hungarian publisher contacted them some years ago and wanted to take on at his risk, translating and publishing Ospreys of interest to Hungarians. Aside from quality control – and Hungarians do not seem to present any problems – this was free money. What did they do about it? Nothing.

Since 2007, they have increased the percentage of total turnover in North America (apologies to Canadians, bjut that is basically the US) from just over 50% to 60% of total. While this created an illusion of profit in 2007-8 as the USD recovered from some pretty low values, the story ever since has been that the USD is the only major currency, which has declined against the NW European peso, while the euro currently stands at 1.10 to the UKP, having been 1.24 just a year ago. Sticking two fingers up to the Europeans and putting most of their eggs in one basketcase is the road to ruin.

There is no point praising the efforts of Keith and the Bouvier republishers, the Fremch publishers of a new book about N in 1796, two figfure ranges expanding into the Rev Wars and the US software house John Tiller researching Charles victory at Wurzburg in 1796 (Bill Peters on the NSF), when this bunch of jokers bring out a book like this – to please the Yanks – while leaving key areas ignored.

That is why I am so critical – they could help us and produce something, which would work with other current products, so they could make moneyu out of catching a wave. What do they do? A book few people are interested in and which will be used to justify publishing even less.

I will tell you a few things about Osprey, which just seem ridiculous to me – and are uncoinnected with my viewsd on how biographies are written.

One of other interests is supporting the last flying Vulcan bomber XH558. It is the iconic UK aircraft post the Battle of Britain and with its triangular shape, is reminiscent of the later civil Concorde. Millions were raised to put her back in service in 2008 and ever since, she has produced "The Vulcan Effect" increasing airshow crowds by 20% and you can see crowds pushing towards the barriers as she takes off. When she was about to relaunch, I suggested to Osprey that they did an aircraft book on her and perhaps make a donation for every copy sold as they would shift the first run through the supporters' club and one round of air displays. The reply came back that they would not be interested, but they might do for a Yank plane. I nearly threw the whole lot in the bin – this is a British company (no US publisher would behave like that) offered a guaranteed sell-out. When they did produce a book on the V-bombers (three separate designs to deliver nuclear missiles in the 50s and 60s), I suggested that they did a launch with XH558 as she was then hangared not far from Oxford. Nothing. I am off to RAF Waddington on Sunday to see her in the annual airshow – and now I learn that later this summer, she has been invited to a small show at Oxford airport.

A Hungarian publisher contacted them some years ago and wanted to take on at his risk, translating and publishing Ospreys of interest to Hungarians. Aside from quality control – and Hungarians do not seem to present any problems – this was free money. What did they do about it? Nothing.

Since 2007, they have increased the percentage of total turnover in North America (apologies to Canadians, bjut that is basically the US) from just over 50% to 60% of total. While this created an illusion of profit in 2007-8 as the USD recovered from some pretty low values, the story ever since has been that the USD is the only major currency, which has declined against the NW European peso, while the euro currently stands at 1.10 to the UKP, having been 1.24 just a year ago. Sticking two fingers up to the Europeans and putting most of their eggs in one basketcase is the road to ruin.

There is no point praising the efforts of Keith and the Bouvier republishers, the Fremch publishers of a new book about N in 1796, two figfure ranges expanding into the Rev Wars and the US software house John Tiller researching Charles victory at Wurzburg in 1796 (Bill Peters on the NSF), when this bunch of jokers bring out a book like this – to please the Yanks – while leaving key areas ignored.

That is why I am so critical – they could help us and produce something, which would work with other current products, so they could make moneyu out of catching a wave. What do they do? A book few people are interested in and which will be used to justify publishing even less.

I, for one, would prefer to see and buy the forthcoming title covering the 1798 campaign rather than a book on the Vulcan bomber, as great an aircraft as it is. And, considering in the present economic climate, Osprey are still operating and producing titles, so they must be doing something right.

This is soooooo now. From a post by JeffsaysHi…
"It isn't you who has had a never ending stream of uneducated uncaring unknowledgeable half wits not fit to wipe the crumbs from beneath my feet constantly carping and writing drivel undermining my efforts to bring true enlightenment to the ignorant masses who would worship the ground I walk if only it wasn't for that vicious campaign of some cabal of US military associated deadends jealous of my background in post graduate taxidermy and work experience in high altitude ballooning which gives me such a massive advantage over them in deriving the truth from barely legible half sentences that need to be carefully interpreted with a detailed knowledge that only I can bring to such matters while most of my immensely valuable time has to be employed in writing long diatribes defending myself from innuendos and secondary sources instead of being able to persuade Osprey to allow me to publish a booklet without references or footnotes on a topic few care about or already have a more than decent book about and why would I want references anyway surely my word has to be respected above others unless you belong to that gang of usual suspects who spend their entire lives endlessly haunting me over petty nonsense".

…thank you, …thank you verrry much!

Totally appropriate! Will

, but suggests that Osprey's management are well suited to their target audience.

I look forward to you and your chums doing the research to answer the questions on here.

I am sure that, while the rest of us are enjoying reading the forthcoming Osprey titles on the 1798 Irish Rebellion and Napoleonic Prussian Tactics, some people will be busy drawing pictures of Vulcan bombers. Each to his own, eh?

Mr. H… Loved your early works. Thought them fairly well written and somewhat insightful. Used them during the run-up to our two year 1809 Campaign recreation to build an Austrian Army to fight the Bavarians and French. We finished our campaign fighting a portion of the Wagram action.

As noted, your books were useful, …but I found Gill's work even more helpful.

Your Austrian Series for Osprey was truly your literary high point, …why not leave that as your legacy and fade into obscurity after success rather than the way your writing career appears to be heading, …without historical forums or publishers willing to put up with your behavior.

I doubt you will ever get your Rivoli work published unless you do it yourself, …which by the way is an opportunity you might wish to consider. I can provide a link to an organization that provides an excellent outlet for vanity publications. If you're interested send me a PM and I'll send you the link. Their prices are reasonable and the numbers aren't overwhelming. Your following on TMP alone should be able to provide enough sales to break even, …if not make a shekel or two profit.

I wish you luck in whatever writing challenge you wish to undertake… Will

Forgive me for again, but I have never written anything on Wagram. As for Rivoli, I have pulled an OB from the KA, read Boycott-Brown and part of one book of contemporary correspondence. Writing even an Osprey would require considerably more work – so this has merely saved me a job. As I said elsewhere, anyone could earn what Osprey pay in a low-level job in any UK city in two months without all the hassle.

Now, go back to your games room in the MidWest and answer the questions, which come up on here. I do have additional info on Wagram – shame Gill missed it. I am sure you and your mate Jeff, can do it all – while the USD sinks and Osprey with it. they already are worrying about a new Aviation series cannabalising existing material, but givenm your , I expect .

As for your Scouse chum, XH558 will be seen by over 50,000 people just tomorrow – I doubt this MAA will sell 2000 copies before Osprey remainder it.

Dave

Scouse chum! You assume too much, as usual.

As for 50,000 people seeing it fly, so what? It doesn't mean they will all want books on it or models kits, does it? Thousands of people watched the Sharpe series on TV, but I doubt it made them all want to wargame, buy Napoleonic books or join a reenactment group! I enjoyed the recent TV series the Pacific. Has it made me want to buy 2nd World war books or wargame Americans versus the Japanese. No!

I think you need to get real and accept that, just because you like something, it doesn't mean everyone else does or has to. That also goes for books and book topics. By the way, I think the Vulcan is a beaut. Am I your Scouse chum now?

What is a 'scouse chum?'

K

Kevin

The term 'scouse' usually refers to someone from the city of Liverpool. The chum bit obviously comes from a certain person's conspiracy theory that if you agree with someone who disagrees with him or his views on something, it is because you are his friend. You can't possibly have a mind of your own. Silly, but there you go.

Since the Beatles came from Liverpool does that mean that you like the Beatles? ;-)

Sincerely,
K

Uh, fuzzy bunny, while Hollins has written nothing on Wagram, Gill's coverage of the battle is pretty minimal…

Kevin

I did and do like the Beatles, yes, but I was more a Rolling Stones fan to be honest. It's the rebel in me.

Hews Johns

I wouldn't call Gill employing the whole of Chapter 5, pages 185-264, minimal?

Just watched a video of the mighty Vulcan in flight. vulcantothesky.org Very impressive. But along the bottom ran adverts for dating and marrying Asian and Chinese girls. Is there a connection?

Perhaps 'Hew Johns' you could tell us what is lacking in Gill's account of Wagram?

K

It is pretty obvious Mr. H and Hew haven't really read Gill's books. Typical!

I must also question their basic ability to read. Really, the words are there, …all you two need to do is understand them. No where does it say anything about using your material for anything other than preparing the army for the campaign.

I read a post by another TMP'er that called Mr. H, "he who must not be named". Perhaps a more accurate moniker would be "he who does not understand".

All your bluster, self aggrandizement, criticism of others, etc., etc., would be funny if it weren't so SAD.

My, …how the mighty have fallen! Will

For those interested in the smaller battles of the French Revolutionary Period please can I recommend my own book on Boxtel, Wellington's First Battle which is now available via several retailers, Amazon.co.uk and through my own website caseshotpublishing.com .

I have tried to emphasise the wargame aspects more than the average Osprey while still giving the necessary campaign background. The website also contains the review which recently appeared in Miniature Wargames.

Garry, looks interesting. Thanks, Will

I like that you didn't hesitate to leave the more critical parts of the review as well – the reader gets to see warts and all. I have seen other authors who chose to excise criticism and just post the good reviews, which always seems a cheat.

[and just to nip any carping in the bud, the preceding is not pointed at ANY authors on Napoleonic history, I'm an archaeologist and I see a LOT of history books in the course of my job. You guys I just look at for fun.]

I see the 'stalkers'' tag team are out and about again with their 'comedy' double act.

Bill