"Drum-Majors in Action during the Napoleonic Wars " Topic

Gazzola

It's not about single missing footnotes, it's about research methods and how results are being conveyed.

I just want to see statements resulting from solid basic research and I want to see recognizable lines of argument I can trace back to contemporary sources. Can't get enough annotations which serve this purpose. And I also do not mind at all if someone tried but wasn't successful – and just admits it. In short, I want academic honesty. No cheap copy and paste, no suppression of results – both positive and negative -, no vain claims and opinions, etc. Instead, meticulous research, openness and transparency.

Not everybody's cup of tea but I really don't care for those who feel different and surely it's not anybody else's business to tell me to be satisfied with lower standards.

Thanks

Then you have missed the point yet again.

The immediate point would seem to be whether Elting's assertion, that it took five years to bring a French drummer to a basic level of competence, is at all credible.

Since Elting cites no reference for this claim and you offer no evidence to support it or explain why you believe such a state of affairs might have been likely, we are left considering the points made by Eamonn and Scharnachthal. Taken together these suggest fairly convincingly that around six months would have been a more probable time span in which to train a drummer from scratch.

It would be interesting to know what your thoughts are on Eamonn and Scharnachthal posts: 20 Jul 2016 9:23 a.m; 21 Jul 2016 10:30 a.m; 21 Jul 2016 11:38 p.m.

It's not about single missing footnotes, it's about research methods and how results are being conveyed.

I just want to see statements resulting from solid basic research and I want to see recognizable lines of argument I can trace back to contemporary sources. Can't get enough annotations which serve this purpose. And I also do not mind at all if someone tried but wasn't successful – and just admits it. In short, I want academic honesty. No cheap copy and paste, no suppression of results – both positive and negative -, no vain claims and opinions, etc. Instead, meticulous research, openness and transparency.

Not everybody's cup of tea but I really don't care for those who feel different and surely it's not anybody else's business to tell me to be satisfied with lower standards.

Have you read the book?

According to Elting drumming on camp kettles – as usual no source given to back up such a claim – thanks to Scharnachtal – he most likley used Segur.
Segur clearly states bidons de fer – clearly no camp kettles – but water bottles, he is silent if they used the small or the big ones – but not camp kettles.
The English translation of the memoires provides "iron cans"
The next question would be – was Segur present at the epic French defeat at Dürnstein / Loiben? In his memoires it sounds like it – citing direct speach of Mortier – or did he just retell camp fire stories??

Segur clearly states bidons de fer – clearly no camp kettles – but water bottles, he is silent if they used the small or the big ones – but not camp kettles.
The English translation of the memoires provides "iron cans"

Thanks. That's what I meant…

The next question would be – was Segur present at the epic French defeat at Dürnstein / Loiben? In his memoires it sounds like it – citing direct speach of Mortier – or did he just retell camp fire stories??

Actually, I have asked myself this question too as it is essential, of course, not only to verify whether or not quotations can be traced back to contemporary sources but also to check the value/importance/credibility of those sources.

Luckily, in this instance, the memoirs make it clear that Ségur had been with Napoleon at Sankt Pölten and was not near Mortier or Dürnstein at the time. On p.227 we read:

"…Enfin, le lendemain 12 novembre, vers deux heures du soir, le retour de Thiard et Lemarois venait de calmer son [Napoleon's] anxiété, quand un aide de camp de Mortier arriva.
La veille au matin, dit-il, le maréchal Mortier et le général Gazan avaient poussé l'ennemi depuis Diernstein jusqu'en vue de Krems;…", etc., etc. (follows the narrative about what had happened at that battle, including the "bidons de fer" story)

So, evidently, Ségur just quoted what Mortier's aide de camp had reported (with or without embellishments on the aide de camp's or Ségur's side…).

oh yes and the heroic Mortier hacking away at the enemy and refusing to leave his units (forgetting to mention that he escaped on a boat to the right side of the Danube for a while and re-crossed when the situation was clear)

And do we know how long it took to learn to play on the bidon de fer?

And do we know how long it took to learn to play on the bidon de fer?

Actually, we do.

Exactly twenty years and one day, of course.

Why? Well, your drum had to last twenty years:

link

So, you just had to wait twenty years till your drum was ready to be trashed and the next day you would have learnt to play on your bidon de fer.

So evident, isn't it?

Scharnachthal

You seem to be suggesting that Elting did not do proper research and that those who admire his work accept that? if so, then you are dismissing a work considered as a masterpiece by other historians, and which, as already stated, contains 69 pages of notes and a considerable bibliography, which suggests his research or the amount of research undertaken, is not at fault.

Your last post made me wonder if you actually believed that there was a title out there that does not contain errors and of which the author employed every source material possible during research? I'm asking because I believe authors try their best, but they are not prefect. And if you are waiting for the prefect, faultless book, I fear you will be waiting forever.

And he didn't answer the question put to him: Did he actually read the book?

All this huffing and puffing with each other about each other may be entertaining for those involved but meanwhile some contributors have come up with interesting perspectives on the question of drummer's training, which certainly justify a degree of scepticism about Col.Elting's assertion on this matter. Might it not be more rewarding to discuss those?

Since, in this instance the author provided no evidence to explain his statement it is not possible to gauge whether or not in this instance he is in error. That is not a moral failing. It is a simple fact. Or lack of, rather. I have read general works of this kind with glaring errors. I have read works, some probably known to more than a few here, like as not, with footnotes and glaring errors. It happens. No reason why, on these occasions, we shouldn't club together and try to ascertain something closer to the truth. Or you can keep on bickering.

Carpe diem

A drummer needs to learn a few beats in one drum. I can't see that taking 5 years.
Yes it might take years for some one to learn how to play a modern drum kit (which has 5-8 drums and cymbals on it + kick pedals and the like… So yeah when musicians say 5 years to train a drummer (rock/jazz/blues/pop) it's completely different to learning to play 1 drum. Given that a soldier will most likely spend most of his day learning the same beats and practicing them after I think 4-6 weeks would be enough to get most drummers to a standard to take up his drumming role. They weren't training up to be Bill Ward or John Bonham.

Brechtel, as 42flanker suggested, could you comment your toughts on Eamonn and Scharnachthal posts: 20 Jul 2016 9:23 a.m; 21 Jul 2016 10:30 a.m; 21 Jul 2016 11:38 p.m. ?

as Elting's and it would seem your own source of evidence of a five-year training period for French drummers, I thought you might be able to provide a reference as to which of the 25 volumes had in mind. It would be good if you could help us here.

As it is you and some others that don't agree with Col Elting it is up to you to disprove his assertion. I'm satisfied with it as Col Elting and I shared many hours together in his study discussing the Napoleonic period.

He and I were good friends for over ten years and using the terms 'nonsense' and 'absurd' to describe his work is monstrous. He was a recognized authority on the period in general and the Grande Armee in particular.

The volumes of La Sabretache that are in my library average at least 400 pages each-they are actually hardbound books and not 'magazines' and at least half of the material is from the period 1792-1815. If I come across anything on 'music' when I use them, I'll post it. But I'm not going to spend the time going through all 25 volumes meticulously in order to satisfy the doubters.

Again, it is up to those who disagree to provide information that proves Col Elting wrong-good luck!

Hi Brechtel198,
I'm not sure who you are, but it would seem that I and several other members of this thread have already disproved Col. Elting's assertion that "it took approximately five years to produce a drummer capable of beating all the different signals…and some ten years to produce a real expert."
You repeatedly asked for contrary evidence from those who questioned this claim, which has now been provided to you in spades. Several other members have asked for your opinion on this new information but you have completely ignored them.
I personally have absolutely no problem with Colonel Elting as a scholar but it seems clear that he was wrong on this point – the number of pages in his bibliography isn't immediately relevant to the validity of his unreferenced claim on the training period for drummers. If you wish to contribute constructively, by all means do, but please don't waste everyone's time heckling other members.
If you are going to continue posting on this thread, please first let us know what you think of the reams of contemporary French and British evidence already presented here suggesting that drummers could be trained in the essential rudiments and duty calls in a matter of weeks or months.

As it is you and some others that don't agree with Col Elting it is up to you to disprove his assertion.

Again, it is up to those who disagree to provide information that proves Col Elting wrong-good luck!

Grossest distorsion I have ever seen – to claim that the one who has not procured a single piece of evidence, has not mentioned a single authoritative reference – actually no reference at all – for his claims should be the one who has to prove nothing while those who have endeavoured and checked and procured all kind of evidence which shows that those vain claims not only cannot be proved but are even contradicted by first class contemporary sources are repeatedly called on to prove their views. And whenever a piece of evidence has been presented it is just ignored and a hare started instead. Not exactly a professional historian's approach but, definitely, an infantile, self-opinionated ideologist's.

I didn't know Elting but I doubt he would have appreciated the conduct you engage in here. Actually, if he was the person and the proficient historian you say he was, he would certainly have admitted his negligence and had been more than unhappy about your ridiculous intransigence which only does him a bad turn and, in essence, is very much suited to further damage his, Elting's, reputation. Yours cannot be further damaged.

Brechtel, I'm curious:

Do you concede that it's possible that there might be an error in Elting's book?

And if so, how much evidence would you have to see, to admit it ?

Perhaps a thread should be opened with a critical look at Swords Around the Throne. Perhaps Elting's tome is more floored than we think. I personally reckon that Elting only referenced his information if it had good, solid evidence but not referenced that that had no more than hear-say attached to it. E.G the story of the 69th's colour and the alleged attempted cover-up. He does not reference where he got the information to make his allegation. He actually got it from the tome by Corporal (private at Waterloo) Morris of the 73rd.

Paul :)

Eamonn1812

I don't think someone being taught the 'essential rudiments and duty calls' in a few weeks or months, is quite the same as them being considered as experts, is it?

And if you read Elting's work correctly, you will see that he states 'it took approximately five years to produce a drummer capable of beating all the different signals (batteries) correctly, day or night, under the stress of combat, and some ten years to produce a real expert.' (page 336, paperback version)

I think the important line is 'under the stress of combat'. I can imagine it may be fairly easy to play the drums when no one is firing at you and trying to kill you, and you are not surrounded by the noise of battle, and having to march into a storm of fire and while comrades are being killed and mutilated around you as you try to play. And I certainly don't think such combat requirements would be found in modern day drumming guidebooks, do you?

Scharnachthal

I think Elting would be both sad and disappointed that people like you are rambling on about a musical item and trying to dismiss him as a reputable historian due to it.

dibble

Did Elting tell you the source where he obtained the information or are you just assuming that?

Also, if we are to consider dissecting Elting's tome, then perhaps we should also consider dissecting every Napoleonic title. After all, every title will contain errors of some sort or level, due sometimes to material not becoming available until after publication of the authors work.

Gazzola and Brechtel198…

Are they twins?

Or rather the Jekyll and Hyde variety?

Pointless to go on…

Scharnachthal

Gazzola is Brechtel's hip-joint. If one moves, the other has to follow.

Paul :)

Gazzola

Did Elting tell you the source where he obtained the information or are you just assuming that?

If he didn't get it from Morris, then he must have got it from a British source that has never been tapped to this day.

Seeing as he didn't source the 69th 'cover-up' in his book, makes his tome just that little bit more suspect.

Also, if we are to consider dissecting Elting's tome, then perhaps we should also consider dissecting every Napoleonic title. After all, every title will contain errors of some sort or level, due sometimes to material not becoming available until after publication of the authors work.

I see that you back up to the hilt Brechtel's critique of Correlli Barnett's tome on Napoleon?

Paul :)

Scharn, as your quite new here, allow me to bring you up to speed. Gazz, and Brech are two VERY learned people on the Napoleonic Wars, They could be a very useful resource, as they are very free with imparting their collective knowledge. HOWEVER, there is a price, Their Knowledge is very Napoleon/French based, they both worship the little Corsican, he did no wrong, was just responding to foreign (usually British) aggression. This, combined with their, frankly appalling, social skills, and complete lack of common politeness on these boards, makes for unpleasant threads, much like this, as you have no doubt found. Now, you seem quite well read in the period, so expect them to try to beat you down like two spotty mathletes, eyes closed, and swatting at you like a blind hare, as you dare to question them. Oh, and Gazz's love of the word 'LOL' is really like watching your dad dance at a wedding. Me, I'm quite knowledgeable on the British Light Cavalry of the Napoleonic wars, but would I offer any opinions in this toxic bullying nerd-fest? nope.

John

Do you concede that it's possible that there might be an error in Elting's book? And if so, how much evidence would you have to see, to admit it ?

I have said many times on this and other forums that there is no history book of any period that is without error.

And I have posted on this thread that Col Elting posted errata for Swords naming the errors that he found in his own book.

That errata was published in a now-defunct Napoleonic magazine, the name of which escapes me at the moment.

I'm not sure who you are, but it would seem that I and several other members of this thread have already disproved Col. Elting's assertion that "it took approximately five years to produce a drummer capable of beating all the different signals…and some ten years to produce a real expert."

My name is clearly observable on my member profile.

And, no, you haven't demonstrated at all that Col Elting is wrong.

We are talking the time required to train a drummer, not a soldier…

In the Grande Armee the drummers and trumpeters, as well as the fifers, were all soldiers, as were the drum majors, drum corporals, trumpet majors, and trumpet corporals.

I agree with Scharnachthal

pointless to go on …

@ dibble

Nice metaphor, thanks.

@ John 54

John, thanks a lot for your input and for bringing me up to speed. I fully understand your resignation and I will do as you do. Very learned people those detractors may be but, evidently, not learned enough to learn something knew. Neither in terms of scholarship nor in terms of social behaviour. Why waste your time fighting malevolent smarty-pants? Thanks again.

"I have said many times on this and other forums that there is no history book of any period that is without error."

Okay, so then why can you not acknowledge, when presented with multiple primary sources, that these gentlemen have found an error in Elting's book?

Is there some specific problem with the sources they cite? Even the citation from Napoleon himself?

Or do you have any primary sources that contradict them?

Because all I've seen here thus far is: You making a claim based on an uncited passage in Elting, others disproving that claim with multiple primary sources, including Napoleon's own instructions, and you refusing to acknowledge them.

I ask this in all seriousness: What would be required in this case, to change your mind?

Oh, A 'malevolent smarty-pants' is a great name for a spy 'B' movie!

John

Too many syllables…

Clearly, unsourced statements in a secondary work do not alone constitute evidence. I would hope David Fischer has something to say about that.

Perhaps you could point out any and all applicable sections of David Hackett Fischer's book on the subject? I have my copy to hand and would be able to follow you in the reference.

…others disproving that claim with multiple primary sources, including Napoleon's own instructions, and you refusing to acknowledge them.

The only French primary source cited, and material on the Grande Armee is the only material that is applicable here, is the directive by Napoleon for a five-month 'course' which quite evidently is to be done in a hurry to fulfill a particular immediate need. It does not outline or dictate a particular course of study for drummers.

This appears to me to be one of Napoleon's directives that he 'wanted done yesterday' and it is apparently being done because new infantry units were being formed. And it is being done in 1811, not 1800.

Further, it is apparent to me that those five months would be basic training, not training in full by the regimental drum majors as those new drummers were not as yet in their regiments. Their training would continue once assigned to their permanent units.

It does not contradict Col Elting's statement at all. And it should also be noted that Col Elting made the comment on French training for drummers in two other publications, one being Volume I of Napoleonic Uniforms published in 1991 (Swords was originally published in 1988).

The other publication is Military Uniforms in America: Years of Growth, 1796-1851 (published by the Company of Military Historians in 1977) regarding military musicians in the US Army in the War of 1812:

‘The music normally available to an American infantry regiment of the Regular establishment during the War of 1812 was its ‘Field Music,' consisting of the two ‘principal Musicians' authorized in 1808 and the drummer and fifer in each of its ten companies. Most regiments found it difficult to maintain even this number. Contemporary French experience proved that it took approximately five years to train a drummer capable of beating all the various drum signals correctly under the stress of combat and that it took ten years to produce a real expert. In the United States Army of 1812 there were hardly that many weeks for such training.'-26.

This was published in 1977. And it also shows that Col Elting's research for Swords was done over a long period of time and the knowledge gained from that research was used in more than one publication.

Grossest distorsion I have ever seen – to claim that the one who has not procured a single piece of evidence, has not mentioned a single authoritative reference – actually no reference at all – for his claims should be the one who has to prove nothing while those who have endeavoured and checked and procured all kind of evidence which shows that those vain claims not only cannot be proved but are even contradicted by first class contemporary sources are repeatedly called on to prove their views. And whenever a piece of evidence has been presented it is just ignored and a hare started instead. Not exactly a professional historian's approach but, definitely, an infantile, self-opinionated ideologist's.

I didn't know Elting but I doubt he would have appreciated the conduct you engage in here. Actually, if he was the person and the proficient historian you say he was, he would certainly have admitted his negligence and had been more than unhappy about your ridiculous intransigence which only does him a bad turn and, in essence, is very much suited to further damage his, Elting's, reputation. Yours cannot be further damaged.

Your lack of judgment as well as common courtesy and the use of ad hominem attacks is noted. Instead of getting personal in the discussion you should stick to the subject. Making pejorative personal comments is an indicator that you are losing your argument and have to resort to petty schoolyard behavior. It is very safe to make comments such as those from behind the safety of a keyboard.

Clearly, unsourced statements in a secondary work do not alone constitute evidence. I would hope David Fischer has something to say about that.

Perhaps you could point out any and all applicable sections of David Hackett Fischer's book on the subject? I have my copy to hand and would be able to follow you in the reference.

If you read the cited sentence again, you may see that I was hoping you, being in possession of Fischer's book, might be able to turn to any and all applicable sections on the subject; assuming such exist.

…

Your lack of judgment as well as common courtesy and the use of ad hominem attacks is noted. Instead of getting personal in the discussion you should stick to the subject. Making pejorative personal comments is an indicator that you are losing your argument and have to resort to petty schoolyard behavior. It is very safe to make comments such as those from behind the safety of a keyboard.

Your lack of judgment as well as common courtesy and the use of ad hominem attacks is noted. Instead of getting personal in the discussion you should stick to the subject. Making pejorative personal comments is an indicator that you are losing your argument and have to resort to petty schoolyard behavior. It is very safe to make comments such as those from behind the safety of a keyboard.

So, once again, you have nothing of value to contribute?

It is said, though, that mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery…

dibble

So Elting did not tell you his source, as I guessed, and you are just doing what you always do, assuming things that fit into your biased viewpoints. Typical dibble. LOL

Scharnachthal

So you agree with dibble that there is something wrong with members holding the same viewpoint? What does that make you and dibble then and anyone else that agrees with your viewpoints?

Yes, I agree, it is pointless making posts or debating with you, more so if you take 'advice' from the likes of John 54. People like dibble and John 54 just can't cope with those who dare to have different viewpoints and challenge what they post. And the fact the poor souls have to make up excuses for those disagreeing with them such as hero worship, is just hilarious.

By John 54

So why do you come to this 'toxic bullying nerd-fest?'

LOL

I believe the issue to be simply that some on the forums find it puzzling that anyone can be sympathetic to Napoleon and to admire him and the Grande Armee. And because they are not agreed with they turn hostile or make casually or measured stupid remarks such as:

Their Knowledge is very Napoleon/French based, they both worship the little Corsican, he did no wrong, was just responding to foreign (usually British) aggression.

Then the repeated ad hominem comments follow and then they blame those with whom they disagree with causing problems on the forum, which at the very least is intellectually dishonest.

Brechtel198

Our 'hip-joint' seems to be working well. LOL

I think both Napoleon and Elting's sides must be aching with laughing so much at such desperate posts. And perhaps that is probably the best thing to do with some of those posting here, especially those that don't debate or offer anything to the discussion.

Brechtal, leaving aside for the moment that you argued that:

"material on the Grande Armee is the only material that is applicable here…"

And then immediately referenced something that had nothing to do with the Grande Armee:

"The other publication is Military Uniforms in America: Years of Growth, 1796-1851 (published by the Company of Military Historians in 1977) regarding military musicians in the US Army in the War of 1812:"

OK, fine we'll ignore that contradiction and assume that material on things other than the Grande Armée is applicable, when you want it to be.

Fine. So: what primary source does he cite for the assertion, in that publication?

Well, allow me to retort.
Gazz, (lol), and Brech, can't you see that your just as guilty, as those who decry everything Napoleon ever did, as bad/evil/hitler/etc? By cherry-picking facts about him, and the French, never criticizing anything he ever did, it makes people doubt the rest of your, no doubt, slavishly researched stuff. This, coupled with your superior, condescending attitude, is why you two always get into these long slanging matches with a rotating array of other members. Your also both as guilty as anyone of refusing to accept any views that differ from your own, were those kettles black? Or did they use pots? A debate, is no debate when you state your opinion, then refuse to budge on it, hiding behind academic sandbags, stating things about no need to footnote everything, then demanding sources before admitting the sky is actually blue. As to why I frequent these nerd-vests, like many others, I click on Napoleonic, see which boards have a fast 100+ posts, knowing full well the two of you will be on them, doing what you do, get a beer, read, and laugh, this latest nonsense about 5 years to train a drummer? ludicrous, but your dead-eye blinkered refusal to accept any other view is great reading!
In closing, sorry for going on, if you two cannot read back your posts, and see any condescension, sarcasism, or snarky behavior, if you feel you are just two very clever scolars, with balanced, fair views, then go at it, us unworthy, great unwashed plebs, are loving the new bedlam.

John

OK, fine we'll ignore that contradiction and assume that material on things other than the Grande Armée is applicable, when you want it to be.

It isn't a contradiction. Did you read the entire quotation?

It references the following:

'Contemporary French experience proved that it took approximately five years to train a drummer capable of beating all the various drum signals correctly under the stress of combat and that it took ten years to produce a real expert.'

Contemporary means during the same period does it not? And like it or not the War of 1812 was contemporary to the Napoleonic Wars, and was, in fact, part of them. And the reference in the quotation to 'contemporary French experience' includes it in the period.

"Contemporary means during the same period does it not? And like it or not the War of 1812 was contemporary to the Napoleonic Wars, "

Indeed. You dissed other people's primary sources as being not applicable, even though they were also contemporary. You argued that only material on the Grande Armee was applicable:

"The only French primary source cited, and material on the Grande Armee is the only material that is applicable here"

…and then one inch down the screen you referenced another secondary source, on something other than the Grande Armee.

But fine, whatever. Back to the main point: what primary source does Elting cite for the assertion, in that publication?

…can't you see that your just as guilty, as those who decry everything Napoleon ever did, as bad/evil/hitler/etc? By cherry-picking facts about him, and the French, never criticizing anything he ever did, it makes people doubt the rest of your, no doubt, slavishly researched stuff. This, coupled with your superior, condescending attitude, is why you two always get into these long slanging matches with a rotating array of other members.

If you had actually read the material that I have posted I have criticized Napoleon for Spain, the Continental System, and for Russia. And in this thread, the statement that Napoleon wanted some missions accomplished too soon is also a criticism.

If you were in any way of a fair state of mind you would criticize all those guilty of what you assume Gazzola and I are in your opinion.

All you are doing is engaging in the usual ad hominem nonsense that others are and have no actual desire to engage in any historic discussion.