"Austrian artillery?" Topic

Gentlemen,

I think it is apparent that Brechtel198 has an agenda which is based on glorifying the French military of the Napoleonic wars and its leader. He will use every dishonest academic stratagem to pursue that agenda including quote mining, misrepresentation and partial quoting.

I do not have anyone on stifle but he may become the first as there seems to be very little point in engaging with him other than to prevent his nonsense being accepted by others.

The only 'agenda' that I have is to be historically accurate based on facts, not wishful thinking.

Instead of making personal comments why don't you at least provide material to discuss, especially if you believe me to be in error. I research my material-it certainly does not appear that you do.

And accusing someone of being 'dishonest' is not only wrong and inaccurate, it is also defamatory and only shows your actions to be bankrupt and the only abilities that you apparently are demonstrating are those of ad hominem fallacies, which are historically irrelevant.

If you begin to accuse people of things which they are not guilty of, that is actually conceding the discussion/argument to your opponent. You have no right to say what you have personally about me or anyone else. It should be withdrawn and an apology rendered. That you won't do it reflects badly on yourself.

If you actually wish to discuss something based on factual material, then post it. Otherwise, it is apparent that all you are doing is playing the marplot.

Perhaps this will help you, as you continually engage in it-this is from Historians' Fallacies by David Hackett Fischer, pages 290-291:

'The fallacy of argument ad himinem occurs in many different forms, all of which serve to shift attention from the argument to the arguer. Among its more common varieties are, first, the abusive ad hominem, which directly denounces an opponent. The classic example, perhaps apocryphal, is a note passed from one desperate lawyer to another: 'No case; abuse plaintiff's attorney.''

'A second variety of argument ad hominem is circumstantial. it consists in a suggestion that an opponent's argument is merely a reflection of his interests. Adlai Stevenson attacked the arguments of the Republican party in 1952 with the assertion that it was 'out of patience, out of sorts, out of office.'

These two types of ad hominem attacks have been used in this thread, and in others, in a desperation move when there is nothing else to say, as happened here in the past few days. If you don't accept what I have posted and written, that's fine. but there is no reason, or excuse, to get personal with pejorative personal comments against anyone's character. What you have written and accused me of is nothing short of despicable.

B

Brechtel198,

The problem with your rant is that you are guilty of the faults of which I and others accuse you.

The comments are not about your character but about your partial, biased and misleading approach to the history of the Napoleonic era. I know nothing of your character but I do recognise when an individual is unable to deal with historical information in an objective manner. You as an individual are not being abused; your approach to history is being held up to scrutiny.

Falsifying history to support an agenda is despicable; on that we can maybe agree.

If you are stating or implying that I have 'falsified' anything, then you are not only wrong, but you are falsely accusing me of something that hasn't been done.

And as I have already stated, your actions in this matter are not only incorrect, but despicable.

I can back up all of my points with more-than-adequate documentation.

All I've seen you do is falsely accuse when you disagree. I would suggest you change your ways, especially when talking to me.

If I make an error, I'll admit it. You really should read Fischer's book. A lot of it applies to you.

It is easy to accuse from behind a keyboard. You might want to think that over also.

B

Oh dear, he's back. So much for the Napoleonic boards being civil and informative.

Have the Napoleonic boards ever been civil? I think they're still informative though, if we can sift through all the partisan bias (from both sides).

Pas de Charge/Colin Jallen, whatever your name is, I think your being a bit harsh. If you don't like B's evidence then you should probably try to de-construct it rather than cry foul about 'dishonest academic strategems'. Glass houses and all that.

They had been much nicer lately. At least IMO.

TelesticWarrior,

In another thread I have repeatedly pointed out to Brechtel198 that his own posts contradict the claims that he is making. In this thread he has cherry-picked and misrepresented quotes and ignored better sources that contradict his views and his agenda. That is why I have stated that he employs dishonest academic stratagems and I stand by that statement.

For the final time, I would like to point out that I am not the person that you seem to think I am.

Fair enough Pas.
I just thought that the attacks on B by a number of members were a bit harsh and could be construed as bullying (not that he really needs me or anyone else to defend him). I know you are a good guy but Von Winterfedlt likes to bully people and he has a recent record of forcefully taking the opposite view to anything B writes without actually deconstructing his argument in constructive manner. It's not good when others jump on the band-waggon & do the same.

TelesticWarrior, why don't you dig up those quotes for Serago, like you said you could. Then, when you have actually made a technical contribution to this discussion like von Winterfedlt has, you can go back to bashing him and not sound like a spiteful hypocrite.

Since when was defending someone from a bully a 'spiteful' act? And speaking of hypocrisy, your contribution to this thread hasn't exactly be monumental either, Hew John.
I'll provide the quotes in my own good time, and not when prompted by s.

'…I would like to point out that I am not the person that you seem to think I am.'

That quote should be pasted on this website for all the judgments made and accusations thrown around here. Perhaps you should take heed of your own comment? It's an excellent one.

B

Good old KK wherever he goes bitching follows!

"Von Winterfedlt likes to bully people and he has a recent record of forcefully taking the opposite view to anything B writes without actually deconstructing his argument in constructive manner"

TW – Odd you see it that way – whereas the way I see it previously and now is the complete opposite.

Are there some sort of Napoleophile coloured glasses that I must buy ?

Btw thanks for some very interesting information to all those who contributed.

Well, you might see it that way from now on. Obvious things are sometimes only obvious once they have been pointed out to us.

Thanks for your comment.

p.s the Napoleophile coloured glasses that you seek are available in all good shops, one aisle up from the Napoleo-phobic ones and right next to the Germano-phile ones.

It is a real shame that this discussion upon Austrian Artillery ended as it did. Alas academic discussion can be rough at times.
Stephen

"Alas academic discussion can be rough at times. "

Academic discussion is rarely rough. I've seen plenty of academics disagree strongly, without causing a dustup. Chest-thumping on a wargame chat-site is a different matter.

I think as you say I should have said robust but I hope my meaning was understood.
Stephen

I have started a new thread titled 'Russian Artillery firing too high at Borodino', in which I give some quotes in response to Seroga's earlier request.
TMP link

Is anyone going to provide a reference to when Christopher Duffy admitted he had misunderstood technical aspects?

Or are we simply going to accept the casual knocking of a great historian's work when he is no longer able to defend himself?

"Is anyone going to provide a reference…..Or are we simply going to accept the casual knocking of a great historian's work when he is no longer able to defend himself?"

Well, that seems to be the way things get done around here, especially by the likes of Von W & Colin Jallen. The level of disrespect towards established Historians, usually without intelligent deconstruction of their arguments, is incredible. Now, I am all for tackling established beliefs, but only if it is done with good evidence and strong argument. The "casual knocking" is what I find so poor. Your post is spot-on Sparker.

Dear Sparker
Read my books and the SOJ. These are fully referenced on the Austrian and Prussian Armies. I have gone back to the sources and much that he was not aware of at the time. Hohrath is a wonderful book and going through the series of Bleckwenn. My books do not say that an authors is wrong etc…. Just stating what I found.

Prussian Musketeer Regiments
link

Austrian Cavalry and Artillery
academia.edu/576177
/Austrian_Seven_Years_War_Cavalry_and_Artillery_Uniforms_Organisation_and_Equipment

Austrian Infantry and Engineers
‌link

Saxon Army
academia.edu/999899/Saxon_Army_of_the_Austrian_War_of_Succession_and_the_Seven_Years_War

SOJ-6 on Prussian C18th artillery with papers by Christian Rogge are eloquent enough.

I am not going to throw stones for authors live in glass houses. Most are subtle changes and upon ephasis. I hope that explains. I am not being adversarial.
Stephen

I can't see that anyone is knocking Duffy's work. Pointing out that he made errors in one particular area is not knocking; it merely illustrates that knowledge advances and we all err.

All historians err. I had been avoiding reading a good friend's most recent work but was finally persuaded to do so. Having finished it, I composed a very long email to him pointing out the errors; I then deleted it as the quality of his research did not deserve such nit-picking.

As for TelesticWarrior's response, von W may be slightly obsessed with one book on Waterloo, but he is a mine of often untapped information from a wide range of German sources.

"von W…..is a mine of often untapped information from a wide range of German sources".
That has never been in doubt. I greatly appreciate the information he brings to the forum, and that is the main reason I don't have him on stifle.
It his constant bullying, inability to de-construct another Member/Historian's viewpoint in a gentlemanly way, and biased trumpeting of all things German that bothers me.

I have never seen von W bully anyone on here; he can be forceful in his opinions and views but he is not a bully. I would go so far as to say that I have not seen any bullying on here from anyone.

But your first visit was only 2 and a half months ago Lol.

Indeed it was, and in that time I have never seen any bullying.

What's your definition of 'bullying?' Or should I more accurately say 'cyber-bullying?'

B

Rhetorical questions?

The UK has no legal definition of cyber-bullying, but it seems that this is a US definition:

"actions that use information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm another or others.

use of communication technologies for the intention of harming another person

use of internet service and mobile technologies such as web pages and discussion groups as well as instant messaging or SMS text messaging with the intention of harming another person."

Also, the National Crime Prevention Council (USA) defines it as:

"the process of using the Internet, cell phones or other devices to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person."

I can safely say that I have never seen anything that meets those definitions on here.

I have never seen any Cyber-bullying on TMP.
You should see what goes on on the likes of Facebook and Youtube Forums. Serious levels of Trolling.