"Thoral's 'From Valmy to Waterloo' (2011)" Topic

Hi all,

Just got this book and the very first page I noticed (p.16) says:

"The transformation in combat tactics was accompanied by a change in weaponry. No civilised country in the eighteenth century would have armed its soldiers with a weapon judged as primitive or uncivilized as the bayonet, use of which was left to countries considered backward by the standards of western civilization, notably Russia. After 1792, however, side arms, the bayonet particularly, reappeared on the battlefield on the French side."

What a stupid error to make.

Has anyone else read it, and if so can you encourage me to persist?

Persist in what exactly? It is stupid, to be sure, and with that kind of error at the beginning of the book, it does make you wonder about the rest of the tome.

Unfortunately, such 'mistakes' are more common than one would like to believe. Wawro in his book on the Austro-Prussian War states on page 8 that the French column shock tactics routed the Prussians at the battle of Valmy…

I can understand mistakes in any book… no one or book is perfect, but these kind are laughable, and by supposedly professional historians… sad.

Persist in what exactly?

He means persist in continuing to read the book.

What a stupid error to make.

Indeed!

That is not a mistake, it is willful ignorance. I would put the book down. Life is too short.

The book is a 'war and society' study, focussing esp. on the Frenchman's experiences of the FRW and Napoleonic Wars.

I perfectly understand the limitations of what's now derisively called the old 'bugle and drum' straight-narrative approach to military history, but too many so-called 'military' historians these days seem to be social historians trespassing on ground they know far too little about.

If he refers to arming troops with the bayonet he's wrong.

If he's referring to troops relying on the bayonet rather than firepower, he's also wrong; ask Frederick the Great how that worked out for him when he tried it.

If he's referring to Souvorov with the Russian comment, he's clearing wrong about the section in the Nauka Pobezhadt, since he doesn't understand what Souvorov was trying to achieve, namely to prevent an attack stalling out at about 40 yards and becoming a musketry duel.

As a historian it is always good to have something that is utter rubbish so you can disagree with it – there might be something usable in the rest of the book. It claims to derived from French eyewitness accounts so they might be useful just skip this guy's analysis.

Always nice to hear of a book that I don't have to add to the old reading list ;)

The author's French – she is a Senior Lecturer in modern European History at Sheffield Hallam Uni.

I'll persist with the book but am hugely annoyed that a professional academic historian claiming to be authoritative on the FRW and Napoleonic Wars could say something so stupid about C18th warfare.

She wrote it in French and it was translated into English, but I can't think that would explain the mistake.

First chapter's here, if anyone fancied reading it:
link

Leiven author of the book on the Russian Campaign and Befreiungskriege has pointed out that we have a problem with military historians in academia.

YouTube link

Basically the study of campaigns and the technicalities of war are not considered respectable or original and will not help your career. This has two consequences; professional historians tend to shy away from things we are interested in. Because they don't study the details they make careless mistakes we can jump all over.

Since military history sells this means that a lot of books are written by "amateurs" – either they have backgrounds in other fields or are retired military men. These authors may know their field very well but are prone to other mistakes, some which undermine their credibility. Classic example little Scotty Bowden's "Napoleon and Austerlitz" where in the bibliography there is an entry by an author called Derselbe, who apparently wrote Die Schlacht bei Austerlitz. `Derselbe' actually means `the same' or `ditto' in German. The only explanation I can think of is that he has simply lifted the entry from somebody else's bibliography without knowing what it meant. This tends to raise questions about the provenance of large parts of this book and probably explains mistakes in information extracted from German material and should automatically cast doubt on the historic accuracy of what seems to be shoddy research.

Yes, I know that there are some good historians write military history. Yes, there are some excellent works written by people who are not primarily military historians, Stephen Summerfield springs most readily to mind. I have yet to read any of his works that is other than excellent.

I agree 138Squd. The quality of military history writing in the Napoleonic era is generally poor by the standards of "mainstream" history. As you say the academics who are used to weighing evidence and the types arguments it might raise don't get into the military details – it does nothing for their academic careers. We are left with raconteurs who want to write novels or people with narrow expertise, neither of whom are good at weighing evidence. And when they then try to be controversial to sell the book…

Even academic types tend to ignore some types of evidence – such as that which could arise from simulations – which attempt to reconcile the physical evidence.

There are exceptions. Rory Muir's book on Salamanca is a delight. Gill is very good too.

I am currently studying military history at post graduate level and have actually been criticised for 'relying too heavily' on campaign histories and 'not engaging with the historiography' -that means jawing about what other historians have written on the subject. Can't help thinking they have got the wrong end of the stick…

Actually the historiography is really interesting. The way ideas developed about column versus line tactics, based on interpretations of the Napoleonic wars, is a wonderful case study. And that has shaped the way wargamers approach the topic today.

But, granted, there's more to it than that!

Hi

' The only explanation I can think of is that he has simply lifted the entry from somebody else's bibliography without knowing what it meant.'

There could of course be countless other reasons why this appears as it is though – a copy and paste error, poor proof reading, a lack of concentration when producing the bibliography … who knows?

'Since military history sells this means that a lot of books are written by "amateurs" ' & 'This tends to raise questions about the provenance of large parts of this book' & 'undermine their credibility'

Is the work of Mt Bowden considered so?

I had/have a few of his books/rules – I always thought of him as being someone who contributed positively to the hobby.

A single error, no matter how laughable does not negate the rest of the book. As an author, I have made my share of howlers, that crept past me and all my proofreaders and editors. I have also found some mistakes in many books which have clearly crept past someone. In one respected WWII tome the authors refer to the B-17 dive bomber, oops is all you can say.