"Hof's Prussian Napoleonic Tactics" Topic

Whirlwind

There is an ongoing 'battle' between professional historians and military regarding which of the two professions is better prepared to research and analyze military history. When I say 'battle' mind that most of the times is very polite and both parties try to learn one from the other's experiences and skills.

I agree with you, though. Modern experience of battle do not prepare you to understand Napoleonic battle better than having none experience at all

This is so bizarre, I feel as if I am trying to write an essay to demonstrate the self evident, that yes, warfighting equipment and techniques change, but that the stresses and strains of operational decision making dont….

Speaking for myself, I can only say that as an avid child amateur historian, I would always agree with historians who could carefully demonstrate that Gen X, in possession of such and such a despatch by 15:13 (because thats when the chief clerk signed it) should have realised that such and such a corps, assuming a rate of mark of y mph, could have been in position Z in order to block the possible movement of enemy corps Q so that they didn't….You know the type of writing I mean, I'm sure….

It was only after working for many years in an operations room or Headquarters environment, initially as a junior and then senior sailor, that I began to see what Unit and Formation level decision making, in peacetime or in low intensity operations, did to commanders, how the information they recieved was filtered, concentrated, and how in many circumstances the pressure to delay a decision until the next piece of information came in was overwhelming…

This business of making decisions on which mens lives depend, on which the future of nations and empires might depend, is timeless…The speed and amount of information has changed, but the pressures, and the human interaction remains universal.

Hence I treat the historian with no such experience, armed only with a time line and a pair of dividers, with caution.

Later on I was commissioned, and experienced the Staff from the inside of the Green Baize door, which previoulsy I had assumed was all brandy and cigars…Well it wasn't, if anything the atmosphere can be even more fraught and tense, since the need to put on a calm front is reduced…

Indeed it is true that modern operational methods have changed, but often it is the military man, with the key insight into the traditions and personal standards that has been largely preserved intact within certain militaries, that has a better understanding of how things used to work and what past mores were like.

I had a gent on here a few years ago tell me that the Waterloo Despatch, the first formal report of the Battle penned by the Duke of Wellington, was not really a source because it contained formal language and was expected to mention all the allies. He was right up to a point, but missed the key insight.

The Duke would indeed be expected to report the prescence and gallantry of other Sovereign's forces, but it would have been considered gross lese majeste for him to comment on their performance to his own sovereign. Thus the fact that he broke protocol to praise the conduct and staffwork of the Prussians betrays how immensely relieved and grateful he was when they turned up.

So yes, by all means pooh pooh the contribution of a military man if he refers to anachronistic weapons or procedures, but I invite you to consider his inside knowledge of the stresses and strains of operational decision making as something that is better experienced than merely empathised!

Surely I am not alone in beleiving that having made decisions in an operational environment gives one a unique insight into that particular frame of mind?

Sparker,

No, you're not alone in that belief.

That being said, military experience is not necessary to be an excellent military historian. However, it doesn't hurt, either.

Having experience as a staff officer, to my mind, does give insight into how a staff works and what a staff is for.

Being a commander at almost any level also gives useful insight into commanding and leading troops. Combat experience is also invaluable in understanding warfare at any time, as does militiary occupation specialty experience. For example, having been an artilleryman gives experience in gunnery and ballistics from an education and practical viewpoint. And, as a practical viewpoint, artillery crew drill has changed very little since 1800, the two differences being the round is loaded from the other end and a lanyard is used to fire the piece instead of a linstock. Guns are still loaded and rammed one at a time and the tube is swabbed between rounds.

Lastly, having experience with horses, especially their care and feeding, is invaluable when studying and writing of armies that were horse-powered. Too many of those skills are lost and the understanding, respect, and love that can develop between a man and horse is lost too many times which is unfortunate.

Experience of these types is invaluable when studying and writing military history and I see too many times that idea being denigrated or ignored by those who have not had the fortune to have those levels of experience. Warfare has changed, but man has not, and that is the one constant in warfare through the ages. Those who have not either led troops or been one cannot really understand what it is like, but againg, that doesn't disqualify anyone from being an excellent historian.

Sincerely,
Kevin

One thing that I have seen, however, over the past eleven years is the idea that reenacting an historical period takes the place of both military service and is a valid historical study of the period being reenacted. Fortunately, I haven't seen that attitude promulgated very often-in fact I have read very few instants of someone having that attitude.

Not many reenactors on the different forums have acted or believed that way, only a vocal minority. But the idea or premise that reenacting is a valid substitute for actually living in that period is a false one. In short, it isn't soldiering and reenactors aren't soldiers.

That being said, I do believe that reenacting and reenactors are very valuable for the study of history as well as the making of historical movies. I have a lot of respect for the overwhelming majority of reenactors with the time and expense put into the hobby as well as the materail being recreated and constructed.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Experience of these types is invaluable when studying and writing military history and I see too many times that idea being denigrated or ignored by those who have not had the fortune to have those levels of experience.

I understand what you say. I just disagree with it. Not because I believe you are wrong regarding the stresses that modern military men must bear on a battlefield, but because I think that each period has its own ways to deal with stress and pressure, and that if you try to extrapolate the modern experience to the past, your analysis will end being less useful that it could have been.

Warfare has changed, but man has not, and that is the one constant in warfare through the ages.

I can't agree with you here. Mankind has changed a lot in the last two hundred years. Their mentalities, uses, mores, everything has changed. A change that universalized with the French Revolution, to be sure. We can't even start to grasp what meant to be a soldier in Napoleon's armies. To be used to darkness when the sun went down; to be used to cook your own food, your own bread; to be used to think of shoes as a luxury item; to know that if you went sick most probably you would die; to know that there was no social security nor pensions for you once you ended your service; nor psychologists that would listen to your PTSD issues; nor evacuation if you were wounded; nor…

Modern experience of battle is so different, so alien to Napoleonic experience that there are more things in common between a soldier of Napoleon and a phalangite of Alexander the Great, that between the former and a present-day soldier.

Best

Sparker

If you disagree or challenge some people's views, you will automatically be classed as being rude or worse. It is a very weird reaction to one's posts but you get used to it.
Sadly, some people just can't seem to cope with people disagreeing with them and having different viewpoints. You stick to your guns mate. Ignore the clowns!

I invite you to consider his inside knowledge of the stresses and strains of operational decision making as something that is better experienced than merely empathised!

Surely I am not alone in beleiving that having made decisions in an operational environment gives one a unique insight into that particular frame of mind?

I'm more than happy to agree with this. But actually criticism of commanders under pressure forms a very small part of most miitary history? This thread was (initially) about Prussian Tactics – and that type of appreciation of command stress is neither here nor there in that subject, nor in many others. I daresay the same argument applies to football managers and coaches – I would be very interested in what they had to say about the pressure of the FA Cup Final or the Superbowl, I would be less sure they automatically knew everything about the tactics and business structure of the game 70 years ago.

Regards

@ Kevin,

I think your points about horsemastery and artillery are excellent – but I think that they also show its limits too. The type of expertise you mention could be gained by re-enactors – or anyone, in fact – and would be a useful guide to the art of the possible at the lowest level – but commanding a modern artillery battery is not comparable to commanding an RHA Troop in the Peninsula.

Those who have not either led troops or been one cannot really understand what it is like

I agree with Basileus – there is no logical reason why commanding or being commanded in a modern military force and a napoleonic military are in any way similar – so many things are so different.

Regards

Interesting. Whilst I maintain that the raw emotions of fear and the stress of desperately wanting to make the right decision, as human emotions, have not changed in intensity or in their power to slow down, speed up or even prevent rational decision making, I will concede that the triggers to these emotions may have changed as warfare and society has changed.

But would the sniggers and jeers of Parliament and Court been any less of a terror to a General returning sans army than the displeasure of Congress and being the butt of the J Leno show? Grounds for a thesis perhaps….

And surely Kevin's point about 'steam' gunners is a vivid example of how the nature of warfare is universal – sure those Napoleonic gunners were probably fitter and more inured to hardship and thus had greater stamina than those of today (USMC Gunners excepted, natch!) But fatigue itself remains as debilitating, and the self discipline and leadership required to overcome it also remains a constant, surely?

In short, one who in their youth has known what is required to push men to their limits, no matter where those limits are found, is in a better position to assess another man who had to do so in an earlier age. I really do think that ought to be self evident.

However I will concede of course, as Kevin says, that operational experience is a bonus rather than a prerequisite to good military history. Subjectively, I have found my favourite historians all to have had such experience.

The one exception, the late great Jac Weller, was a firearms expert of the period and this, instead, gives his work particular value. And he retained an essential sympathy and understanding for those making decisions under pressure that some more modern historians would do well to emulate.

military experience doesn't qualify automatically for writing good history, this is prooven again and again.

And all those – who have military experience know this by heart, there are good and bad officers, NCOs and soldiers.

You need much more than military experience to be a good military historian, language skills, being able to reflect on sources and have a critical mind.

And I also agree with Basileus – man has changed and is constantly changing – of coures he still must eat and drink.
;-)-

But would the sniggers and jeers of Parliament and Court been any less of a terror to a General returning sans army than the displeasure of Congress and being the butt of the J Leno show? Grounds for a thesis perhaps….

I would dare to say yes, it is. After all, the worst you can expect from being in the receiving end of Mr. Leno is professional disgrace… In earlier times a firing squad or an apointment with Madam Guillotine wasn't unheard of.

In short, one who in their youth has known what is required to push men to their limits, no matter where those limits are found, is in a better position to assess another man who had to do so in an earlier age. I really do think that ought to be self evident

Not necesarily. Let me elaborate.

This line of argument has some problems. First of all, it starts on the assumption that the individual that occupied the command position was well under his own incompetence threshold, and therefore that he learnt how to motivate troops and extracted the correct lessons from his mistakes. This kind of soldier is less common than imagined. Actually is uncommon enough that those who fit the parameters are usually hailed as outstanding soldiers.

Second, it assumes that the hypothetical soldier had experience of war; otherwise he wouldn't be more prepared than, say, the CEO of any civilian company to understand the stresses of command.

Third, it parts from the idea that military history -and I strongly disagree here- must judge the past in terms of wrong/good choices taken by commanders. In my opinion, anyone that does something like that is writing bad history, his background being irrelevant. Even if you believe that a general made a poor choice, your duty as historian is not to say that you think so, but to explain your readers which the consequences of the decission were -at least, up what you have been able to learn from the sources available-. It would be even better if you are able to put the decission in context: political as much as tactical, economical, social or even cultural (this is something that many dilettante historians forgot: that culture plays a key role on how humans behave in public, and nothing was more public back in the early XIXth Century than a battle! Wellington's remark on the similarities between battles and balls run deeper than most people realize)

The historian should not show sympathy -or vice versa- towards its subjects of study. He MUST try to understand what drove them, how they made decissions, what influenced them, how their public image and public expectations affected their decission making proccesses, ecc. Sometimes he won't have sources reliable enough to answer those questions; then he should try imagine, after explaining his readers what he is going to do, what the answers COULD be, basing his judgement on what he knows about the period under scrutiny. In this moment is where personal experience of command CAN be handy, but it's more important to KNOW the period of study than to have that experience; otherwise the picture will be too much distorted.

(A certain amount of distortion is unavoidable. The fact itself of asking questions about things that were subsumed in the psyche of the person of the period, and that they took for granted, will introduce a distorsion in the final analysis. As long as the historian is aware of his limitations and makes his readers aware of them, the final result will be still valuable).

military experience doesn't qualify automatically for writing good history,

That being said, military experience is not necessary to be an excellent military historian. However, it doesn't hurt, either.

However I will concede of course, as Kevin says, that operational experience is a bonus rather than a prerequisite to good military history.

In this moment is where personal experience of command CAN be handy, but it's more important to KNOW the period of study than to have that experience; otherwise the picture will be too much distorted.

Wonderful – Consensus at last – it must be Christmas! I hope you gentlemen all have a merry and peaceful one!

Sparker,

The Iron Kingdom arrived yesterday and I've been loking through it particularly the sections on the Napoleonic period. It is a substantial part of the book, a little over 100 pages, and the information on pages 373-374 is refreshingly accurate. Well done on your recommendation.

Unfortunately there is a prejudice against English speaking authors on Germany in general and Prussia in particular that is voiced from time to time and I don't see the basis for it.

Kingdom of Iron is excellent and I'm going to enjoy reading it both for information and for pleasure.

And a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and all of the forum members.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Colonel Elting was not an historian of the Prussians or the Germans. He was an historian of the Grande Armee and of US military history.

He was, however, comfortable in French and did a lot of his work in that language, and some of the works on the Confederation of the Rhine units was in French, such as the material by Commandant Sauzey.

However, I diverge. The historians to whom I was referring were Gordon Craig, Charles White, William Shanahan, and Peter Paret, all of whom are at home in German, along with Greg Pedlow and Chris Bassford. Shanahan was able to work in the German archives before War II and Chuck White being invited to work in German/Prussian archival material made available to him in the now defunct East Germany in the 1980s.

Pedlow, et al's, work on Clausewitz's 1815 work is particulary creditable.

Sincerely,
K

From the Author's Preface to William Shanahan's Prussian Military Reforms 1786-1813, page 7:

'In Berlin extensive use was made of the erstwhile library of the Kriegsakademie and the Great German General Staff, the Deutsche Heeresbucherie. Materials were also derived from the Preussische Staatsbibliothek and the Preussische Staatsarchiv. Among German university libraries that of the University of Leipzig proved most useful.'

Sincerely,
K

I never said the Kriegsarchiv-I said the German archives and that is evident from the passage I quoted, especially the Deutsche Heeresbucherie and the Preussische Staatsarchiv.

And you didn't mention before your last post the 'Kriegsarchive', you said the 'Prussian archives.'

So it appears that I have proven my point in this little exercise.

Better luck next time. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Sincerely,
K

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for the feedback, glad you found it useful.

I do take your point about the prejudice!

Keep fighting through the light QRM, the QNH at origin must be high!
(the rest of us are enjoying it!)

Merry Christmas to you and yours…

Kind Regards,

Sparker

John,

Great advice. And a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and yours.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Turner,

Have you tried the forums at the Armchair General yet? They really are excellent and some of the posters used to be here, I think.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Sparker,

There is a very illuminating explanation of what the German Empire, declared at Versailles in 1871, actually was.
It's on pages 556-557 of The Iron Kingdom and reads:

'In formal terms, Prussia's place within the new Germany was defined by the imperial constitution of 16 April 1871. This remarkable document was the fruit of a complex historical compromise. A balance had to be struck between the ambitions of the sovereign entities that had come together to form the German Reich. Bismarck himself was mainly concerned with consolidating and extending Prussian power, but this was not a program that held much appeal for the governments of Baden, Wurttembert or Bavaria. The constitution that resulted was emphatically devolved in character. indeed, it was not so much a constitution in the traditional sense as a treaty among the sovereign territories that had agreed to form the German Empire. This was made abundantly clear in the preamble, which opened with the words:

His Majesty the King of Prussia in the name of the North German Confederation, His Majesty the King of Bavaria, His Majesty the King of Wurttemberg, His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Baden, His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Hesse […] for those parts of the Duchy of Hesse that are south of the River Main, conclude an everlasting federation [Bund] for the protection of the territory of the federation and the rights thereof-as well as to care for the welfare of the German people.

In accordance with the notion that the new Empire was a confederation of sovereign principalities (Furstenbund), the member states continued to operate their own parliamentary legislatures and constitutions. The power to set and raise direct taxes rested exclusively with the member states, not with the Reich, whose revenues derived chiefly from indirect leview. There remained a plurality of German crowns and courts, all of which still enjouyed various privileges and traditional dignities. The larger German states even continued to exchange ambassadors with one another, as they had within the old German Confederation. Foreign powers, by the same logic, sent envoys not only to Berlin, but also to Dresden and Munich. Therre was no reference to the German nation and as yet no official German nationality, though the constitution also obliged the federal states to concede equal citizenship rights to all members of the new Empire.'

A very interesting excerpt indeed. This was explained to me at a conference a few years ago by Chuck White, but this is the first time I have seen it in a book and so well explained.

So for the first time there is a unified German state, but it is really only a confederation and not yet a nation in the modern sense.

Sincerely,
M

Better than he deserves

the articles on this site: grandmabarbara.wordpress.com

make me concerned about the authority of his books.

very strange blog. concerns over the evidence that is not published. very one sided.

i might be confused about the source though because i cannot work out whether it is by his mother or by him?

It always amazed me why Osprey continued producing books by Otto von Pivka and now by Peter Hofschroer when many people question their work ?

To say that they sell well, therefore people must like their work is a bit disingenuous. If you go into a book shop and you want a book on a subject and the only one is by Osprey, then you would buy it.

Secondly I tend to think that wargamers make very good amateur military historians, as we look a paragraphs from historians and pull them apart, as we try to relate how they fit into a wargames situation.

>It always amazed me why Osprey continued producing books by Otto von Pivka and now by Peter Hofschroer when many people question their work?>

Digby Smith has not used the pen name Otto von Pivka for years.

How 'many' people, other that a half a dozen or so that do it here and on Amazon, really do criticise PH's work?

Furthermore I think one has to ask what their qualifications and motives are.

It always amazed me why Osprey continued producing books by Otto von Pivka and now by Peter Hofschroer when many people question their work ?

Because there are very few people who have made the Napoleonic Wars (in Digby Smith's case) and the Prussian Army of the period (in Peter Hofschroer's case) their life's study?

Regards

How 'many' people, other that a half a dozen or so that do it here and on Amazon, really do criticise PH's work?

Furthermore I think one has to ask what their qualifications and motives are.

I do hope the questioning of motives is a two-way street…

Old Bear

Same old story I guess. If you find fault with the work of some authors, it can't be anything wrong with the book, oh no, you must have a 'motive' for finding a fault. Plus, it seems your 'qualifications' for buying, reading and criticizing what you have just bought, must be questioned! Obviously, anyone who writes a negative review or disagrees with the author most love throwing their money away.

Thankfully, Amazon and other book sellers don't make such requirments when you buy titles. And I'm sure the authors don't mind you buying their books, negative reviews or not.

@Whirlwind,

Indeed. I'd take notice of Stephen Summerfield or Oliver Schmidt I think, but that's about it really.

Even the former has had a bit in internet bullying from vested interests and others who, in the words of Dr David Starkey, "make a noise to fill the space between their ears".

Whirlwind & XV Brigada

I think there might be a difference between 'life's study' and obssession. Especially an obssession that might cloud the author's mind from accepting they might actually be wrong in certain areas and prevent them from accepting that others will still have a different viewpoint, no matter how many decades they've spent studying the topic.

Indeed. I'd take notice of Stephen Summerfield or Oliver Schmidt I think, but that's about it really.

Even the former has had a bit in internet bullying from vested interests and others who, in the words of Dr David Starkey, "make a noise to fill the space between their ears".

Stifled or not, you really are a silly old fool.

Gazzola,

Well, as you say. But it doesn't really get us anywhere does it? PH might be wrong about every single subject regarding the Prussian Army. But then, Col Elting might be wrong about every aspect of the French Army, or Charles Oman about the British Army, or David Chandler about every aspect of the Napoleonic Wars, or Dave Hollins about the Austrian Army, or Kevin Kiley about every aspect of Napoleonic artillery. Only consideration of each particular in detail can let us know. Who is to say before detailed consideration who amongst them is obsessed and who retains their dispassionate judgement?

What I imagine PH gets upset about is when he gets told, oh PH must be wrong/biased, it doesn't say 'this' in Chandler or Bowden doesn't say 'that', when it is he, not they, who has studied all the German sources in detail. I also imagine that he accepts that people have a different point of view, but if they are going to debate with him about it on a public forum then they are going to have to know their stuff in detail and be prepared for him to tell them they're wrong.

Regards

Whirlwind

Some interesting points you've made but I doubt all the people you mention are wrong about everything they write. I certainly don't think so. And most of them, I'm sure, will welcome debate over anything considered incorrect or concerning suggestions made by others who have different viewpoints.

I think the problem is that some authors just cannot take someone suggesting someone else has written something different, on the same topic, which might be correct, so they either insult anyone who has dared to question their wisdom or they create a false air of someone picking on them.

As for PH, I've not seen him debating with anyone and if all the 'suspect' insulting postings have been made by him, they clearly indicate he might not be capable of doing so.

Of course, my apologies go to him, should he not be the one using false names and making the insulting postings etc. I have his books, enjoy reading them and will continue to do so. I will, however, continue to write reviews, positive or negative, should I agree or disagree with some of his work, as I will with the work of other authors.