"Governing by the Rule of Law" Topic

My dear Kevin, I was interested by this response "'Curiously enough, Kevin's (other) hero, Elting refused to use referencing to support his arguments, as some kind of anti-Historian stance, it would appear. Kevin in threads gone by defended this stance, yet his use of double standards is apparent here as well, as he appears to demand full referencing from any poster arguing against him.'

I would really like to see you support this as it is completely wrong.

As for 'heroes' neither Napoleon nor Col Elting are my personal heroes. Col Elting was a good friend for over ten years and taught me much; Napoleon I do admire as a soldier and head of state and very much admire the Grande Armee."

So I took the time to track down the posts I was referring to, which you wish me to support "as it is completely wrong".

They are here, where you appear to have two identities, "10th Marines" and "Kevin Kiley" TMP link

I am not a expert on the Napoleonic period, I have not studied it as academic, I am a wargamer who finds the period enjoyable. As such my reading is largely restricited to popular works (like most of us, I suspect) and books on uniforms and tactics. .

My first point of departure on Napoleon and the Grande Armee was, like many of us I guess, Chandler and Elting. Their works are probably way out of date and fairly superficial in academic terms, but they both wrote beautifully about the basics in a way that was accessible to the amateur gamer and history buff like me. They are good and well researched books, nevertheless. I'm just looking at Elting's "Swords" – it is extremely well referenced in the notes. Col. Elting was a great writer of histories – like the excellent Charles Esdaile (I'm reading his "The Peninsula War" now). Chandler was an leading academic who also write great popular histories. They both had their personal opinions and biases – I forgive them both those – after all I'm a big boy and can make my own mind up. And they were after all human, and affected by the world around them: Chandler taught at Sandhurst (whre Wellington is righly revered as one of the greatest British commanders), and Elting grew up in the meritocratic ethic of the US Army (which he saw paralleled in the Grande Armee). They both respected each other greatly – indeed David Chandler called Swords 'a masterpiece'.

If you take Chandlers 'Campaigns" and Eltings "Swords" (and his wonderful atlas of the Napoleonic wars – which is sadly out of print), they are remarkably complimentary. Chandler gives you a great rundown of the history of Napoleons strategy and battles, whereas Elting gives a a great insight into the workings and organization of the Grande Armee. They are probably not the cutting edge of academic research, but i don't need that. I want to enjoy reading some good books that give me plenty of high quality information on the periods I'm interesting in gaming.

I think a lot of this thread is assuming some sort of spurious academic tone. As if we are all Sam Mustafas. That debate is probably best had on an academic forum somewhere (where there are folks who know what they are talking about!). Wargaming generally is a convivial pastime – involving beer and good chat with like minded folks. Personal insults are not part of that spirit, even if one disagrees, one can do it in a spirit of friendship. I rather suspect one of two posters actually want an argument, and think TMP is the right place to have it. That is plain selfish. We others come here to seek advice from our collective knowledge of our chosen pastime, and indeed to partake in enjoyable debate. Not to feel that if we voice an opinion were are likely to be insulted.

I hope the point is understood.

Actually, as was noted in the link above, Elting isn't very well referenced at all, and appeared to be almost an anti-historian. Both Chandler and Elting taught at military academies, Chandler through an academic route and Elting through a military route (I do find your "and Elting grew up in the meritocratic ethic of the US Army" a curious statement). Neither, however, were teachers of History, or of Historical skills, or of the skills of the Historian, both were instructors, not lecturers or tutors. Both, as far as I can see taught "Applied History", not History. That is they taught students set lessons drawn from History, not the arguments, not the controversies around perceptions of events, not how to interrogate and question sources and evidence, not the synthesising of evidence, but almost gradgrindian facts, to military people who were there to complete their military training, not to students of history who wanted to learn History for it's own sake. The products of their instruction, for want of a better word, are likely to have been expected to produce essays that mirrored their instruction, not new ideas that challenged the accepted truth. Would soldiers benefit from being taught that Buonaparte may not have been such a great leader after all, if the purpose of the teaching was to show how and why Buonaparte could run such a successful campaign as that of Italy? They were both, I assume very good at what they did. However,Elting at least seems to have taken some level of pride in not producing Historians. It therefore seems curious that his work is regarded with such respect, as History, when it isn't History as such, in the sense of seeking the truth, but History with a purpose, hence Applied History.

Archeopteryx,

I disagree a little in that I think this thread is just about arguing. Otherwise I think you are dead on in your opinion.

To everyone,

There are people who habitually pick on Napoleon to get a rise out of those who habitually defend Napoleon. Someone else picked on Nappy a bunch in other threads so the OP started this thread as a retort and the cycle continues.

My problem is that few of the arguments are honest or accurate. Posters bounce from generalizations to specifics back to generalizations again and since no one respects each other's replies the result is mostly people talking to themselves.

Was Nappy a tyrant?

By the dictionary definition most certainly, course so were quite a few US presidents who are pretty well thought of. Based on the opinion of the majority of his governed populous unlikely, but they were all biased by patriotism and internal propaganda. According to his critics of course but why would they say otherwise. Do any of these litmus tests resolve the intent of the question, nope.

Lastly, I hate when people chose to sign in under X number of different names and never sign a standard at the bottom, I am uncertain how it can be seen as doing anything but attempting to evade the reader as to who is speaking.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Nothing wrong with applied arts or science! It give us penicillin, laptops and ipads (well yes and Ikea furniture too – umm), and indeed my day job is applying academic research (and mostly practical experience) to the thorny issue of resolving modern day conflicts. Why should we discount these wonderful books. Do you have much better (and readable) alternatives? I'm struggling to understand "gradgrindian" (bullpoo baffles brains). Churchill said use short words first, and best of all short old words, and he wasn't a bad 'applied historian' either (he was awarded the noble prize for his writing).

I think that yours is a rather tough analysis of two great writers = i certainly could not have dedicated the, love time and energy to produce these works. We should be grateful that these guys did. Yes they were primarily writers of popular works, but both were undoubtedly historians and both undertook meticulous research (as writers do!) – indeed Chandler had a D. Phil in history from Oxford, which I certainly don't. Elting used primary sources – and his works are about the organization of an army, not politics.

But that is my point really. We don't need academic works as wargamers unless they are technical stuff on the units we are building or battles we are figting. I for one am seeking the truth in terms of which units were where when, or which uniform was this unit wearing – not definitive analysis of Napoleons motivations etc. And I'm perfectly aware that I shouldn't go to either Chandler or Elting if that was what I wanted.

Both of them were hired to produce soldiers, so its not surprising they did not want to produce historians.

Not sure why my comment on Elting is curious. The US Army prided itself on being meritocratic and so did the Grande Armee (even if it was a bit of a fiction).

James (in deference to Bandit!) – I always forget!

Archeopteryx,

James (in deference to Bandit!) – I always forget!

No worries, I was directing at people who post under various screen names and never sign a name or screen name at the bottom (Kevin does this but he is far from the only one).

Cheers,

The Bandit

For gradgrindian see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradgrind much on the minds of History teachers in the UK at the moment given our Secretary of State for Education's view of what History should be.
I just thought it curious that you felt the need to mention that the US army was (theoretically) a meritocracy.

"I think that yours is a rather tough analysis of two great writers = i certainly could not have dedicated the, love time and energy to produce these works. We should be grateful that these guys did."

Perhaps, but we work in the real world, they worked in a world where their research time was paid for. One of the perks of working in either their milieus or in academia is that one has the time to do research, indeed, in academia it is a requirement.

"Yes they were primarily writers of popular works, but both were undoubtedly historians and both undertook meticulous research (as writers do!) – indeed Chandler had a D. Phil in history from Oxford, which I certainly don't."

Well, I disagree there, they were both primarily instructors in military academies, who also wrote popular History. They did indeed carry out meticulous research, but usually for very limited ends; military operations, military uniforms, military actions, military numbers.

"Elting used primary sources – and his works are about the organization of an army, not politics."

Yet he also presented plenty of opinion on political matters, but as facts rather than opinion, rarely supporting his opinions with evidence that could be referenced, which is one of the reasons why I think him a poor Historian.

Yes, I'm with you on the teaching of history. One of my best mates is an academic involved in something called continual professional development (what is that?) for teachers and goes on about it all the time. Dates and facts are not what its about – and everything is relative anyway (as the postmodernists say – of which sadly I am one)…

And I agree with you that military historians are often better at analyzing military strategy and tactics (and all those nuances), rather than social issues and politics (and indeed soldiers are better at fighting wars than trying to resolve conflicts – as I have come to understand in my line of work!).

I just think that these old but very readable and entertaining books are more about getting us enthused than establishing the gospel. And indeed who really needs definitive truth when wargaming… You can end up with way too much pedantry and not enough fun.

James

On Elting, I was just trying to explain his love of all things Grande Armee and little peccadilloes that annoy anglophiles. I take it with a pinch of salt. Its like reading D'Este on Anzio and Normandy – his a bit Anglophobe, or at least critical of the British military – which can get under one's skin if you are a British reader. But nevertheless, I really like his books and writing, and just shrug off those bits of opinion if I disagree. The whole is often better than the sum of the parts. That's surely the case with Elting, despite all his inaccuracies and funny opinions, its still really entertaining writing.

By the way, my favorite all time popular history is Barbara Tuchman's "Guns of August". Man I loved that book.

James

I also disagree slightly too. Many academics produce research and books. Not many gain the fame (and notoriety) of Elting or Chandler. They were undoubtedly successful military historians – or writers on military history if you prefer – but of their time.

They were not primarily 'instructors' – they were hired for their writing on military history and no doubt expected to produce books. Like John Keegan or David Glanz. But they were military historians and not political or social historians. Its a bit nuts to judge them on their opinions on those subjects. I would not judge a neurosurgeon on their political or social opinions – even if they espoused them.

What they did do is popularise and summarize complex subjects in narrative form for boneheads like me (and i studied at two pretty good Universities and it still did me no good).

Flecktarn

Brechtel198 is not the self-appointed expert, Chouan is -

see his post-Media thread-A History of waterloo by Bernard Cornwall, 22nd May, 3.15am 'I would consider myself an expert…my MA dissertation would suggest this…'

Do try to get it right!

Brechtel198

Great posts.

'They are here, where you appear to have two identities, "10th Marines" and "Kevin Kiley"'

I changed because I couldn't find or remember my password so I merely changed my username, but always put my full name on the information listing that can be seen by clicking on the username.

So, instead of thinking something nefarious is going on, perhaps you could just ask instead of insinuate.

B

Col Elting and I were good friends for over ten years until he, unfortunately, passed away in May 2000.

I spent many happy and useful hours with him in his study discussing the Napoleonic period and I found his breadth of knowledge much wider than anyone else I have read or discussed the subject with. He researched Swords Around A Throne for thirty years, and I was given a good portion of his library by his widow and have done quite a bit of research of his source material for the past thirteen years and continue to do so.

You don't have to footnote every couple of sentences in order to write accurate history. And Col Elting produced errata for at least two of his books (Swords and Amateurs, To Arms!) which is most helpful. I have found his mistakes to be few and far between and he is still the English language authority for the Grande Armee.

There are excellent Napoleonic historians that are writing presently and I've been fortunate to meet and talk to quite a few of them. I've also been privilieged to present three papers over the last six years at academic conferences where I have met these fine historians and gentlemen.

Col Elting was a professional soldier who taught at West Point for eleven years and rose to be an associate professor teaching military history. He also wrote the Napoleonic text (the Esposito/Elting Atlas) for the senior course in military history in 1964, which was updated and republished in 1999.

The bottom line is that Col Elting was one of the best military historians in the US regarding the Napoleonic period and the US Army. Criticism of him for 'sourcing' is somewhat hypocritical, as Swords has over 700 footnotes and the sourcing is quite easy to check.

And instead of carping and criticizing, perhaps writing your own books on the subject and the period would be in order-and we can see how you do.

B

I quite agree, and my heart is always warmed when I refer to Swords Around the Throne (a delightful title)for any number of wargaming research needs. I suppose I am a fan, for I really do feel something nice when I see his signature and dedication inside on the title page. Sometimes I wonder why it it so hard for some to be academics without being critics.

Brechtel,

Your name does NOT appear on the information listing for Brechtel198:

Member Name:
Brechtel198
Status:
Basic Member
Location
United States of America
Email Address
Verified
TMP Zones of Interest:

General
Fantasy
Ancients
Medieval
Renaissance
18th Century
Napoleonics
American Civil War
19th Century
World War One
World War Two – Land
World War Two – Sea
World War Two – Air
Modern
Toy Gaming

First Visit:
25 July 2012
Membership Started
25 July 2012
Membership Length
360 days
Most Recent Visit:
18 July 2013
Trusted:
Yes
Good Trader Score:
unrated
# of Posts:
466 (as of 3 a.m. PST)
# of Characters Posted:
497,848
Average Characters per Post:
1068
Date of Last Post:
17 July 2013
# of Stifles:
141
Stifle Ratio
3.30 posts per stifle

Perhaps you would like to revise the misleading and inaccurate statement that you made above:

"I changed because I couldn't find or remember my password so I merely changed my username, but always put my full name on the information listing that can be seen by clicking on the username."

Have you lost or forgotten your password so many times that you need to have used 3 different usernames?

Jurgen

Well Kevin, you still haven't responded to my response to your "I would really like to see you support this as it is completely wrong.".
I've given you chapter and verse, I suppose that it would be too difficult to refute what you said then, under whichever identity. It was pointed out there that Elting's "referencing" was more in the way of footnotes, not referencing as a Historian would understand it. I'm very pleased for you that you inherited part of his library. That you've presented papers doesn't mean that your work, your standard of argument, sourcing and referencing, as evidenced in this forum, is any better than a poor under-graduate. No insult or offence intended, just an honest appraisal of your work so far, from a professional viewpoint.

Gazzola, do please get it right, and try not to quote out of context or give partial, edited, quotes to give a different impression. Even A Level examiners wouldn't be impressed by that. Perhaps you'd like to give the full quote? Or would you rather I did?
My MA really gets up your nose doesn't it.

The full quote: "No, I have no literary pretensions, I would consider myself an expert, acknowledged, on the Revolution, my MA dissertation would suggest that, but that isn't an issue in this either. He's just a crap writer. Compare O'Brien's language, dialogue, plot construction and authenticity in "Master & Commander" with any Cornwell pot boiler. Indeed, even O'Brien's weaker, later books are still much better than anything in Cornwell's oevre."
Just to put things in perspective.

Chouan,

Presumably you had your MA edited? all that pretentious language would certainly put off any examiner.

MA's are ten a penny, kiddo. I should imagine half the posters have one, and those who don!t the equivalent in experience. Grow up.

I don't know why I'm letting myself be dragged into this.

Enuff.

James

I agree that an MA does not, in itself, make one an expert. In many fields an MA is becoming almost an entry criterion for what were once graduate level jobs as more and more people gain an undergraduate degree.

A doctorate would indicate some level of expertise in a particular topic, although possibly not always enough to support a claim to being an acknowledged expert. I include myself in this "not a real expert" category although I have a doctorate which was based on a military topic.

Jurgen

'Perhaps you would like to revise the misleading and inaccurate statement that you made above:'

It most certainly was inaccurate, but it wasn't misleading as I thought that I had posted my name which I had done before if I recall correctly.

Now, what is your problem or do you just enjoy being a marplot?

B

'…I would consider myself an expert…'

Incredible, absolutely incredible-egocentricity run amok.

From all the schooling and studying I've done in the last 45 years or so, I have never seen an 'expert' in history. And the first hint I had on that topic was from Col Elting, who took the time to explain that phenomenom to me.

He told me that all any of us had done was to scrape the surface of the subject. In short, there are no historical 'experts' self-proclaimed or no.

B

"My problem", which is actually your problem, is that your approach to Napoleon is both partial and intellectually dishonest. You are highly prone to distortions of both fact and interpretation in order to defend your position.

You forgot your password (twice?), thought that you had posted your name when you had not; you do seem prone to forgetfulness.

Jurgen

Kevin,

I changed because I couldn't find or remember my password so I merely changed my username, but always put my full name on the information listing that can be seen by clicking on the username.

That's great, but if you wanted people to know that Brechtel198, 10th Marines and Kevin Kiley were all you, wouldn't you just consistently write some version of your name at the end of your posts? That is what bugs the heck out of me (not only about you).

Jurgen,

"My problem", which is actually your problem, is that your approach to Napoleon is both partial and intellectually dishonest. You are highly prone to distortions of both fact and interpretation in order to defend your position.

I don't entirely disagree with your characterization of Kevin's debates on TMP but his opposition commonly does the same, though the opposition's arguments are more commonly poorly made than intellectually dishonest.

Cheers,

The Bandit

'That's great, but if you wanted people to know that Brechtel198, 10th Marines and Kevin Kiley were all you, wouldn't you just consistently write some version of your name at the end of your posts? That is what bugs the heck out of me (not only about you).'

I thought that I had put it in the information page. I have also posted my home email on the forum more than once. If it was confusing, I do apologize, but there was nothing nefarious about it.

Interesting, though, how this thread has gone from the subject to the personal so quickly.

B

'"My problem", which is actually your problem, is that your approach to Napoleon is both partial and intellectually dishonest. You are highly prone to distortions of both fact and interpretation in order to defend your position.'

Nonsense, or, if you prefer, 'bags of bull.'

Your accusations made above are both incorrect and way out of line.

I have supported my historical contentions with both sources and quotes, and if you cannot accept them, that is your problem, not mine. Nor have I been intellectually dishonest, though that aspersion can be used with others.

I haven't seen you support any of your contentions with facts or source material, and it seems you spend most of your time here attempting to cast aspersions upon people with whom you disagree.

Glass houses, etc.

And you should not accuse others of what you are guilty of yourself.

B

'You forgot your password (twice?), thought that you had posted your name when you had not; you do seem prone to forgetfulness.'

I am absent-minded and finally have resorted to having a notebook on my desk where I write things down to remember, such as passwords.

It's the price paid for getting old.

B

'No insult or offence intended, just an honest appraisal of your work so far, from a professional viewpoint.'

Right. And I could care less about your 'honest appraisal' based on the nonsense and errors you've posted here, especially regarding Napoleon's civil reforms. You just don't know the subject matter you believe you do no-and you're certainly no 'expert.'

And I do believe both insult and offense were intended from both your tone and the manner of your delivery.

In short, you're more full of it than a Christmas goose.

B

Kevin,

Interesting, though, how this thread has gone from the subject to the personal so quickly.

Don't lay that on my doorstep – I criticize your opponents for the consistency of their arguments far more then I send criticism your direction.

And if you have concern over people knowing that you're you, I will say again: consistently write some version of your name at the end of your posts, then no one can complain about you using several usernames.

Cheers,

The Bandit

My MA was, of course, supervised and examined, including a Viva, and was awarded in 1994 by the University of York. The dissertation is available from the University to those wishing to use it for research. I am indeed part-way through a D.Phil, when time from my full-time job allows.
Arrogance and egocentricity? Or merely an absence of false-modesty?
However, in what way does my perceived arrogance disqualify my arguments?

Finally, "Interesting, though, how this thread has gone from the subject to the personal so quickly.". Indeed.

Chouan

If you can't take it don't dish it out.

I could respond with "he did it first……" but I doubt that it will make any difference.

As an educator, I am always glad to see the first class minds of Napoleonic Scholars at work, and I learn a good deal from the resources and information you gentleman share, as well as from the opinions, differ as they may. I do wish these discussions and debates, conducted I would say by gentleman, were more gentlemanly in nature, and minds were more open, rather than closed, by the end of a thread such as this. Wouldn't it be fair to say that history is no stranger to bias, and bias can be quite revealing, in a healthy and instructive way regarding the material,of any historians attitudes and paradygms? Perhaps we could accept each others differences of opinion as an educational experience, and move on to something more productive?

However, in what way does my perceived arrogance disqualify my arguments?

Broadly speaking such makes it more difficult for a neutral party to accept the arguments as valid. Are your arguments disqualified? They shouldn't be but the audience becomes more suspect of them.

Same thing happens to Kevin.

The other thing that happens is many who don't disqualify them take them as gospel without examination which might actually be as bad.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Chouan,

I could respond with "he did it first……" but I doubt that it will make any difference.

It wouldn't, I'd criticize both of you for it, it is like a shooting war, once it starts everyone is a participant.

Cheers,

The Bandit

"Broadly speaking such makes it more difficult for a neutral party to accept the arguments as valid. Are your arguments disqualified? They shouldn't be but the audience becomes more suspect of them…… The other thing that happens is many who don't disqualify them take them as gospel without examination which might actually be as bad."

Good points which I will bear in mind.

Again, to put my "arrogant" and "egocentric" comments in context. I am not an expert on things Napoleonic, nor am I an expert on military History. I don't have a military history background, neither do I have a military background, although I do have a maritime background, some military, some, most, civilian. However, I have studied an aspect of the Revolution exhaustively, and I have been a Lecturer and a Tutor at the University of York, and other less prestigious universities, in Modern European History, specialising in the Revolution. I do not have the specialist military knowledge that other members of the forum have; I ask questions from time to time although I will also contribute bits of information occasionally. However, I do have some knowledge of French political History, in an academic professional historian sense, in that I was "doing History" for a living, so I will tend to involve myself in a subject that I know something about, not as much as "The Travelling Turk" with regard to Buonaparte and the Law, but enough to recognise fallacies and weak and biased arguments when I see them. I can also recognise poor History, poor use of sources and poor use of evidence when I see it, as assessing undergraduate essays was part of my job for several years. Does that make me arrogant? or is it the explaining of my position that makes me arrogant?

And to take your advice further,

Thanks,
Peter

So ….. Has this entire thread been posted by only two or three people under various names? I'm confused.

Actually, all by one person:).

Jurgen

Only one of me… Foolishly allowed myself to get drawn into this swamp. Mostly concerned about he lack of manners, although I too became tetchy, Apologies. Back to the cricket.

Cricket! That is one English thing that I just do not get! Still, I guess it must be nice to have a sport where losing to Germany is not a regular event:).

Jurgen

The last page or so has been largely like three of us conversing with the original two, I think. Hard to know, the name thing confuses the crap out of me, I've sometimes pondered if anyone (no one in particular, just the possibility of someone doing it) post under multiple names to fight with or support themselves in debates in order to control a thread's direction. It'd take one heck of an effort and thus likely prove impractical.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Can't stand cricket. Or baseball.

Both tedious and extremely boring events.
Football and rugby for me. American football seems fun. I think I'd get to love it of I could learn it. Seems a very tactical game.

Fleck "actually all by one person" – that made me chuckle!! At least I know it wasn't me :)

A multi-poster arguing with himself – I like that too.

And I agree with Peeler.

(Er …. Posted by someone else …. )

I have bad eyesight now and I can't paint my soldiers like I used to. I have too many soldiers, so many in fact that I have giant boxes of them at a pal's warehouse. There is rarely anything new that I want professionally painted. My point is that I use TMP for light relief and I have to say that this thread is pure gold.
I'm no academic, though I have a clatter of letters in front of my name and an even bigger clatter behind it. I recently said to someone that their problem was that they thought they were a genius but were only half as smart as they thought they were and were actually half witted.
Keep this thread going.
The answer to the question is that Napoleon did not govern by the rule of law. You can discuss it if you want.

'Don't lay that on my doorstep…'

I wasn't-it was merely a general comment, but not directed towards you at all.

B

"Rule of Law" is the source of some debate, but the commonly accepted view is that "Rule of Law" is a principle by which states (or communities) establish means to govern themselves and provide a means to enforce legislation. In more recent times, since Blackstone, it has taken on a gloss that includes that the government must obey its own laws, that courts are without political influence and that the executive portions of government cannot act in an arbitrary manner.

If you accept the post Blackstone theory then I think you would be hard put to prove that Napoleon governed by rule of law.

And yes, I am a barrister.

'I could respond with "he did it first……" but I doubt that it will make any difference.'

Go ahead, I would expect you to; however, that isn't accurate.

You might want to take a look at your own postings.

B