"Scott Bowden" Topic

All

I am looking for reading material on the 1805 and 1809 Austrian campaigns, something beyond the Osprey titles which I have already, and I would welcome your views on the merits or otherwise of Scott Bowden's Napoleon and Austerlitz and Armies on the Danube 1809. Thanks

Lasalle

Armies on the Danube is outdated and pretty superficial, although the French OBs are pretty good. Austerlitz was the subject of some acrimony when it came out - the claims he makes to have been remotely near Germanic and Austrian sources are less than truthful. His devotion to the Emperor shine sthrough quite clearly, but he did himself no favours by a stupid rant against Dr. Chandler, which the late Dr. put down marvellously in First Empire mag. SB has no credibility in UK for the above reasons.

Bizarrely, when I raised the point about sourcing on Amazon, someone (anonymously) popped up and claimed to have met Bowden in the KA several years ago - the KA was in its old home in Stiftgasse then and someone who thinks "Derselbe" (ditto in bibliographical list) is a German author is going to struggle with material written in the Kurrent. Then, Todd Fisher openly acknowledged that Bowden's Austrian citations were taken - with permission it must be said - from Duffy.

Two things then - SB should stick with French material as he does an expert analysis of the French army in Boulogne. Secondly, US authors should not make the mistake of trying to inflate their credibility by rants against UK authors (which are both childish and cowardly) nor try to imply that they have been near sources, which they have not as there are plenty of people, who are quite capable of checking them out. The devotion of such authors to the idea that France is marvellous and everyone else is useless is out-dated and based on French claims only. They do themselves no favours.

Dave,
You state that "Armies on the Danube" is outdated and superficial but that the French OBs are pretty good. That suggests the Austrian OBs are not so good. What is your preferred source for the 1809 Austrian OBs?

Thanks,

Jon

[and someone who thinks "Derselbe" (ditto in bibliographical list) is a German author is going to struggle with material written in the Kurrent.]

...lieber Gott.

Dave

Thank you for your opinion. What other titles on the subjects would you recommend ?

Lasalle

Jon - it would be Krieg 1809 - although Bowden does use some from Vol.2 in Italy. Ian gives the right layouts at Teugen and Eggmuhl, but the individual figures are not given anywhere in print and so, it requires some work in the KA. For Aspern, the figures are in Krieg/Ian as SB's OB is 19th May before some units were marched off to Moravia for training and other shuffled around. Wagram - Ian's layout is right, but he opted to use SB's figures - SB's OB is from a French source, which used some Austrian material, as far as I can establish. The KA documents are not great as they obviously did not know the date of battle in advance, but there is a project in hand .....

Lasalle - on 1805, there are some books in progress on 1805 for the bicentennial - one of which is Rick Schneid's assessment, which is a diplomatic/military overview. On 1809, Obviously Gill and Ferdi Wober's books on Aspern and Raab (although only Raab is available in English at the moment). Rothenberg's book is a disappointment although it is much easier to read as a campaign summary than Petre.

@Lasalle,

Unfortunatley the negative aspects of Bowden's Austerlitz book does detract from its usefulness, but I would still recommend them for those with an eye open to critical thinking. The 1809 book is generally useful, in particular for the French, and the Austerlitz book does contain useful information as well - although one further annoyance is that the maps have no scale given! Essentially, if one keeps in mind the point of view of the author (which is hardly disguised) there is still useful information for the wargamer, especially if you compliment the information with further research.

There is simply not a large number of alternatives to choose from.

An alternative "wargaming" source for 1809 is the excellent "Volley and Bayonet" scenario book "Austria Stands Alone" - probably the best scenario book for the Napoleonic period. George Nafziger's collection of OB's is also another way to go. Frankly, although often overlooked, the Osprey "Campaign" series books are probably your best bet - they are really very good, and very useful from a hobby point of view.

By the way ... isn't "Lasalle" a bit nervous about playing the 1809 campaign? ;)

I have found Bowden's books to be useful and I have all four in my library. Every author makes errors, just as every author, unfortunately, has a bias. I would recommend their use being aware of their shortcomings.

I have also found that Scott Bowden is a gentleman and very approachable. He is also very helpful to anyone who askes. I consider him a friend. He is currently working on a translation of Davout's Operations du 3e Corps.

Gandalf,

Do you know how that 3e Corps project is coming?

[An alternative "wargaming" source for 1809 is the excellent "Volley and Bayonet" scenario book "Austria Stands Alone" - probably the best scenario book for the Napoleonic period. ]

You weren't bothered by the uniform guides depicting French artillerists in red trousers? Or by the deadly battle the author seems to have lost against syntax, spelling, and grammar?

Oops. I guess I never actually *read* the uniform guides! I've just noted that they were there, and looked complete ...

Okay, let's revise that statement to "probably the best intentions ..." It still is the only Napoleonic scenario book I know of that tries to do it all: major and (more or less) minor battles, rules-specific and generic OB's, a little historical background, and painting guides. Of coure it could be done better, but it hasn't yet been done.

As for the use and mis-use of the English language, let's just say I don't expect much from the hobby on that score, and in that I've never been let down. I even found Voykowitsch's "Castiglione" readable, but then again I know Linear B. ;)

Sam -

Do you know if the Russian material in Bowden's Austerlitz book is as poor as the German sources? I must admit, I don't know how many western authors and historians are spending time at the archives in Gatchina (outside St. Pete's) but I've always wondered if Scott's contentions that the Russian army strengths were so much lower is indeed accurate. Does anyone know if this is actually true? I thought that was the most interesting thesis of his book that the allied strengths were much less than the original contention of 90,000+ of Chandler and others.

Regards,

Big Erik

Erik - I don't own a copy of Bowden, and only read it about 15 years ago, so I can't say. (Plus, I don't read Russian. I studied it for 2 years in college, but it's all gone now.) Over the years, though, I've come to be very skeptical of Bowden and Nafziger's research, when I kept turning up strange, often glaring errors and contradictions. Then in 2002 I began a new research project, primarily involving Prussian sources, and I began going back to Germany regularly to work in libraries and archives, and I began to realize what an incredible mountain of primary sources are available (often readily available and well-preserved), that are seemingly never touched by English-language authors. I'd be amazed if more than 1% of this stuff has ever been consulted. (When doing a little article on Schill's rebellion in 1809, for instance, I found over 350 books about it in German, among which were about 20 first-hand accounts and memoirs.) Nothing - not one scrap - of this has ever seen the light of day in English.

So if this is how it is with German sources, many of which were available during the Cold War, then imagine how much Russian material is lying cold and dusty, waiting to be seen!

Sam -

Thanks, that is what I was suspecting. I had heard that his claim of use of German sources was suspect, but don't you think it is real odd that an author would go out of his way to start arguments with UK historians when his own research was questionable? Doesn't that just invite scrutiny of primary sources which you would have thought he would have wanted to avoid. Odd.

It is a shame that few historians have had a chance to go through Russian archives. I don't know enough about them to speak, but I can say that the folks I dealt with at Gatchina were very, very helpful. Oddly though, when I was at Borodino in 2000 I talked with a historian there who claimed that there were few good sources that would give unit stengths for that battle and that nothing really existed in any archives. I don't know if that was a blow off as I was an American official or a real statement of the state of the archives or just a lack of anyone having gone through them to find those fabulous nuggets.

Regards,

Big Erik

IMHO, his books are better than his rules.

That's what used to be called a Left Handed Compliment.

;)

Not really, I just found his rules IMHO to have a bias but I stopped getting them several editions ago. So the bias may not be there anymore.

In regards to his books, I have a copy of most if not all of them in my research library at the store. (Clients can just come in and do research on military HY topics without purchasing miniatures.) No negative comments from my clients who have used them.

Rudy. How would you like to move your sore up to Northeastern Pennsylvania?

Cat,
No I don't. As far as I know, it is still in the production phase. I have ordered it and received a letter from the publisher stating that it's on the way but not yet. It's a pretty big and ambitious project, so I'm patient on this end.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Regarding sources and what is available and what hasn't been seen or used yet, I do think it important to understand that all any of us have done with the period and its myriad subjects is skim the surface.

The size of the Allied army is a great source of difficulty and certainly the Austrian archives are not much help as their contingent was cobbled together. From there, the OBs have come through into English language books, baasically via Duffy's Austerlitz. Prior to that, it was a mix of Napoleon's claims and the work of French authors.

The Austrians were providing most of the ataff and it is apparent looking at the partial OB in the KA, that they were just working with the full strength figures for the Austrian and part of the Russian force. There are however post-action casualty lists and the regimental histories do hold some clues. You can see from Duffy that the Allied firgures are all rounded. All this does of course raise an interesting question about Allied planning.

More should be revealed later this year.

On the subject of SB himself, anyone who engages in rants against people (named or implied) in books is both childish and cowardly - as the target cannot be sure of reaching the same audience with a response.

As for his Russian source, the reviews of his book pointed out that in many cases the citations did not even address the point or did not say what SB claimed they said (see First Empire). One of the other pieces of unacceptable behaviour was that, having used a translation of Willbold's book to the extent that I would have done him for copyright infringement, he then slagged W off "for relying too much on Austrian sources". Another failing in the book is that Bowden puts in a legitimate footnote and then goes off on an unsubstantiated claim - one I remember was a note lifted from Willbold about IR20 in a battle around Ulm, which was followed by a paragraph in which he claimed that the regiment was formed in four battalions one behind the other, because it was mostly amde up of Poles, who would run
off (and were impliedly secretly loyal to N and oppsoed to their Austrian oppressors). Had he actually checked his facts, he wold have found that IR20 only ever had four companies of Galicians in its ranks and maybe a quick check on the numbers of Poles, who served in the Imperial army across the period would reeveal his prejudices.

Hi
I`m a wargamer and figures painter in England currently working on an Austerlitz project.SB considers (P101 of `Napoleon and Austerlitz`)that the Russian infantry would still be entirely in bicornes at the time of Austerlitz.Does anyone know when the 1805 uniform decrees would have started to take effect? Is it possible that any Russsian infantry/artilley could have been in shako in 1805? All information very gratefully recieved.Regards to you all.Cheers Ian R

That has been discussed at great length on the Napoleon Series forums. You would have to check it there or in the Rusian army boosk put out by Nafziger - I think the conclusion was that some did, but that equally many French were still in bicornes. Certainly the Austrian Major Mahler, commanding 6th Battalion IR49, says that he ahd to send men out into the fog to see if some units were retreating Russians or advancing French, which suggests it was not that certain.

Thank you very much for your reply.I`ve been interested in Napoleonics for about 30 years now and have always tried to keep up with discussions. However,what made me write to this particular notice board was SB`s assertion that `There is absolutely no way that the Russian uniform changes decreed in 1805.....could ever have been implemented in time for the Russian forces to use them in the Ulm/Austerlitz campaign`.I`ve always assumed that it was unlikely that changes had started to take much effect,but was surprised to see such a decisive comment on the subject and wondered if there was any hard evidence to back this up.
Cheers Ian R

It is an unfortunate trait amongst some US authors writing on Napoleonic warfare that assertions of their own or other recent North American authors are stated as evidenced fact. I will check with some of those who took part in the discussion to see what was concluded.

Incidentally, there are a few books coming out on Austerlitz - fortunately, they take different approaches and so each compliments the others - Schneid (Praeger/Greenwood) covers the whole war with the political background, Goetz (Greenhill) looks at Austerlitz closely especially with Russian material, and there is a third looking at the Napoleon part of the campaign (ie: taking in Ulm), which will be announced shortly. Ian Castle's reworked Osprey would be a very good place to start too as he includes plenty of shots of the battlefield.

I asked some of the esperts on this - and oh, dear, looks like Scotty's fertile imagination is in over drive:

Bowden states that Russian musketeer regiments were still wearing bicornes in 1805, on the grounds that it would have been impossible to implement the change to the shakos authorized in February 1805.

This might have been true had they replaced bicornes and what he fails to appreciate is that these shakos did not replace bicornes but earlier pattern shakos in the musketeer regiments and mitres in grenadier regiments.

The shako authorized for the entire line infantry (musketeers and grenadier regiments) on 13 February 1805 included leather side strainers and strengthening to the top and bottom and replaced an earlier all-felt shako authorised for musketeer regiments on 19 August 1803 and the mitres in grenadier regiments.

Thus, the Russians had approximately two years to implement the introduction of shakos in musketeer regiments before Austerlitz. It is plausible that this 1803 shako was not entirely replaced in musketeer regiments, if at all, by the one authorised in 1805, in time for Austerlitz, but the bicornes had gone. The grenadier regiments were probably still wearing their mitres throughout 1805 as they did not adopt the 1803 shako but retained the mitre. The guards received a shako in 1804.

The only infantry still in bicornes at Austerlitz would be the French.

Hi Dave.Many thanks for looking in to this for me.I have no problem with the 1803/05 changes.-My basic uniform guides (Rawkins/`Pivka`/Murray/Nafziger)that I`ve been using for 25 years or so are quite clear on all this.SB`s commment,however misguided,made me think about the pace of change that the Russians would have been capable of.I assume that in all armies items of equipment would have had a certain service life regardless of regulations and wholesale re-equipment would likely have occured only as a result of campaign/battle losses.(ie post 1805 for the Russians)On P378/9 of `Napoleon and Austerlitz` SB shows illustrations of 3 flags captured at Austerlitz.(Presumably these would come from French sources where he`s on surer ground?)The flags shown look 1797 pattern.So if the Ruskies were still carrying this sort of thing around in 1805 isn`t anything possible?!!
Please let me know which WG show you`ll be at next-the beers are on me.
Best wishes.Cheers Ian R

Whist it is true that kit was lifed - Austrian kasketts and Shakos were supposed to last for 6 years - standards are different as they were usually carried until they fell to bits or were lost, although you do get changes with new Inhabers in Austria. The captured flags may be from Musee de l'Emperi as there are Austrian flags there from Austerlitz (allegedly! - as one still has its Ehrenbande). However, the Russian army had been in action in 1799 in Switzerland and had a few goes with the Turks, the headgear would be changing more quickly. Your first line units tend to have the latest kit too.

The beer would be for John Cook as he gave me the above info - and I would not trust anything SB said on the Allies unless I saw the original source anyway. If there is none given for this claim, then it is likely to be his imagination at work anyway.

Bit more from Robert Goetz:
Changes in the Russian army typically rolled out to the units stationed around st. Petersburg first and then to more remote regions. The Caucasus and the Asian inspections were the last to adopt new changes.

There is an interesting directive dated 23 Dec. 1805 stating that the generals and field and company grade officers of grenadier and musketeer regiments would be permitted to wear shakos "similar throughout to those
worn by the soldiers except with a silver pompon..." The reason given is to "obviate the inconveniences often met with when in battle with the enemy..." - which I take to mean to make the officers less conspicuous target for the
irregular forces in the caucasus who didn't play by western rules of warfare. From this we can conclude that the forces in the Caucasus had already encountered some negative experiences in operations against irregulars during 1805 with officers wearing hats and rank and file wearing shakos, that this experience had been reported.

If shakos were already in use in the Caucasus regiments, it is pretty certain that they were in use in the western regiments, who in all probability would have been issued the new headgear before the Caucasus regiments received them. This convinces me that the 1803 pattern shako was
in general use for a good while before the 1805 campaign against the French.

The 1805 pattern shako was on the same pattern as the 1803 pattern but was not quilted. I'm not sure where the quilting fits in, but going without it sounds like a measure taken to reduce costs. At any rate, the difference
between the two seems like it would be pretty trivial with little (if any) visible distinctions.

I find all this very interesting because I recently finished reading a book by Bowden and Ward about Gettysburg (Last Chance for Victory), which, all in all, I thought was very good. Although he shows a strong bias in favor of Lee he makes a good case that Lee came closer to winning there than he is usually given credit for. He shows a good grasp of ACW sources. I'm sorry to hear that his Napoleonic works are so suspect (I haven't read any of those.)

Clue: The ACW accounts are in English!

Does Scott Bowden come here?
I have his Armies on the Danube & have always liked it but I'm willing to take on the criticism levelled at him and it.
I agree with David Hollins thought that it is childish and cowardly to rant against historians who have no way of replying to the same audience. This is a fair point.

No, I was informed that Bowden does not answer questions because he would never stop. There is some truth in that - many questioners think you have everything at your fingertips and nothing better to do! However, when key questions about the authenticity of your work are raised, it is in your own best interests to respond. Bowden's credibility in Europe was shot to pieces with that 1805 book.

As for rants where the targets cannot answer, yes they are childish and cowardly - Chandler answered him excellently in First Empire, but not everyone will have seen it. Bowden is unfortunately not the only one to indulge in this stupid behaviour.

Raducci,

I have both emailed Scott Bowden and talked to him on the phone. He was most helpful to me and is a gentleman. Any question I had that he could answer, he did. He also helped me with some primary source material which proved to be very helpful.

Are there errors in his books? Sure-just as there are in any and all. Do I agree with everything he says? No, I don't, anymore than I would agree or disagree with anyone else.

I am looking forward to seeing his translation of Davout's Operations du 3e Corps.

David shouldn't you give Scott Bowden the chance to answer your critisisms?
Not that I am saying your ranting and raving but I would like to hear his side. It is only fair, as you said.

Sure - he has had every chance - his book was reviewed by me in age of Nap and by John Cook along similar lines in First Empire. I have made these comments here and on other boards. I also made the point later on Amazon prompting this rather bizarre claim by an anonymous perosn of meeting SB in the KA. I also discussed it with Todd Fisher by email, hence my comments above. There has been no response, which makes you wonder why not - but I find people who indulge in stupid rants and then do not answer on their material, tend to be unable to do so.

I seem to have bought into some long standing feud between you & Scott Bowden which is not my intenshion.
I don't know what a ka or who Todd Fisher is.
I know you authors often trash each others books to increase your sales but flame-wars aren't my thing, so I'll leave this discussion here.

Todd Fisher is the publisher of some of Bowden's work, including Austerlitz. I had no particular view on Bowden, aside from his being pro-N, until his Austerlitz book. It was disgraceful piece of work - as lying about your sources and trying to pretends you have read key Allied works is misleading for readers, who obviously think authors will at least be truthful about what they cite. From there Bowden extrapoltaed into a lot of rubbish about the Austrian army, waged his US Irish flag against the UK and then ranted against Dr Chandler (who was already ill). It was not long after the Hamilton-Williams fiasco.

I and many others tend to think that is not acceptable behaviour. There is no feud - as Bowden has not answered. It was just that rather bizarre note which appeared on Amazon, which came in reply.

The problem with people who write this stuff and deliberately mislead their readership is that a) the readers are given a false view and b) authors who do the work tend to get told "Bowden says this".

Those who do not wish to address hte real problem try to dres it up as some kind of feud. You should ask them about the substantive issue. I'm afraid Kevin has indulged in the same stupid rants (two - one about the Austrian staff!) and is now listing books in his bibliography, which he has not read. He will now tell you that remark was designed to "get back at him" for his Amazon reviews - I would rather ask him what German material he has read to justify his claims about the Austrian artillery, staff and the books he cites.

It is up to he readers ultimately. If you wish to think that Bowden has done his work and would rather no-one pointed it out, fine, but then you may as well play fantasy wargames.

Russian regiments retained the 1797 standards unless
replaced as honors, and it was not until the "1816"
pattern was issued that a full replacement was made.
French claims of captured standards were, as usual for
everybody, inflated, and Bowden accepts them all!-)
Russia was a centralized autocracy and there was probably
more consistency in uniforms than the whimsical French...

Just curious what was the Hamilton-Williams fiasco?

Hamilton-Williams (aka David Cromwell) basically made it up - he was exposed several years ago as a liar with a criminal conviction for obtaining money by deception and a caution for obtaining goods by deception (as the books were recovered). he claimed all kinds of degrees and eventually to be Baronet (this was actually the subject of a House of Lords Baronetcy committee investigation). Basically, he was a liar and a fraud. The publsihers who continue to put out his work should be ashamed of themselves.

re: translation of Davouts operation du 3eme corps.

Is this related to 'Napoleons Finest', the study of 3 Corps? Matt Delamater posted sample chapters of this on the Empire yahoo group website in mid-april. Looks great so far.

Glenn,
Yes, that's the one. I am looking forward to it.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dear Mr. Hollins,

Please refrain from using my name in your postings. You know nothing about me, nor do you know what I have read and what I haven't. You also don't know my experience level or what volumes are on the shelves of my personal library. Every book that I have listed in in the bibliography of Artillery is in my personal library. A few are merely excerpts (two as I recall) but I have the material. If you are ever in the United States, you are invited to come have a look if you wish.

Therefore, please withdraw your inaccurate and demeaning remark made about me in the above posting dated 5 May 2005 at 2:40 AM PST, in which you wrote:

'I'm afraid Kevin has indulged in the same stupid rants (two - one about the Austrian staff!) and is now listing books in his bibliography, which he has not read. He will now tell you that remark was designed to "get back at him" for his Amazon reviews - I would rather ask him what German material he has read to justify his claims about the Austrian artillery, staff and the books he cites.'

You have no right to say such things about anyone. I have asked you to refrain from mentioning me in postings before and I am quite tired of the nonsense. It serves no purpose and certainly does not contribute to the dialogue on the forum. As I have said before, I would gladly engage you in polite conversation withour rancor or degrading postings. However, since you choose not to, I am again asking you politely and sincerely to leave me out of your discourse.

Sincerely,
Kevin F. Kiley

I will say it again - you ahve indulged in two stupid rants aimed at me (as I am the only person writing on the subject) in your book. You claim that "no evidence has been produced that G copied L - well, you cannot even get your facts right on what G even did! You claim the Austrian staff was ineffective at Vienan in 1809 - what this has to do with artilelry frankly defeats me. You write rten pages from Smola without a single German footnote and base it all on Frencha ccounts. You should spend more time doing the reading and less time trying to pass off your opinions as fact.

You hvae also fantasised as Gribeauval's report (in print for at least a century) and made claims to have read German material, which you have not done.

Now, if you think that you can engage in a frankly rather childish campaign on Amazon (where you continue weith your attacks in the cowardly lists as you know I cannot answer directly) and elsewhere and now refuse to answer questions on your own work, you should think again.

Okay for you?

Mr. Hollins, as a health professional for more than 35 years all I can say is have you considered counseling for your hostility issues?

Mr Seery - if that's all you could say, then why bother posting?

'Mr Seery...why bother posting?'
Because he made me laugh.
And he may have a point.

'Because he made me laugh.'

Shame on you, then.