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

You still just don't get it, do you?
I said you two were just as bad as those who are entrenched in the opposite view. The difference being your attitude to everyone else.

Oh, and, 'If you were in any way of a fair state of mind'

Classy.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of 'projecting?'

And the definition of ad hominem might also help you:

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

-David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, 290-291.

Before accusing others, make sure your own house is in order.

By the way, are you actually going to contribute to the discussion or just play the marplot?

Take your own advice. And watch those stones in your glass house.

John

Brechtal, I'll try asking for a third time:

What primary source does Elting cite for the assertion, in that publication?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

oh, and refuting my assertion that your condescending and somewhat superior in your own mind by talking to me like I'm a 10 year old, and asking me to look up big words in a dictionary is, frankly, ing hilarious! point proven, I believe.

And ok, I've given my view once, I'll expand. As a drummer in the Boy Scouts, my brother from nothing, became very proficient on the side drum, practicing 4 hours a WEEK, in about 2 months. Now, allowing for everything that's been spouted on here, five years is totally ridiculous, five months, maybe, but given the 7day week nature of army training even that is pushing it. I think it's a year/month typo, nothing more. There, contribution, although 'debating' with you is rather like mud wrestling a pig, you both get covered in shit, then you discover the pig is enjoying it! Not that I would ever call you a pig, it's just the analogy, hey! I done used a big word, those 20+ years as an Aircraft technician weren't wasted!

John

Well, apparently, one problem about Brechtel198 (he uses several identities on this forum: I've seen his real name "Kevin F. Kiley", but also "10th Marines"; there may be others, I didn't care to check) is that he is a "supporting member" at the time. This seems to indicate that he contributes to this website financially. While I know of many people who do the same because they are honestly interested in keeping alive a forum of open and impartial debate, such a motivation hardly is to be expected from a character like Brechtel198 & alias. I think he's one of those who expect a return service. Evidently, he is buying himself in in order to keep the editor from interfering with his, Brechtel's, malicious attacks on other members. I don't blame the editor as I understand that he wants to keep his website alive but, on he other hand, I must admit that, personally, I'd rather forgo my website than make it dependent on characters like Brechtel198.

" I think it's a year/month typo, nothing more. "

That was my assumption as well. But then Brechtel wrote that Elting had used the "5 years" assertion in an earlier article.

Hence my multiple attempts to get Brechtel to elaborate on what Elting's source was. Unfortunately he has chosen not to answer.

" Evidently, he is buying himself in in order to keep the editor from interfering with his, Brechtel's, malicious attacks on other members"

Very doubtful. The Editor has Dawghoused both Gazzola and Brechtel countless times. I've been on this forum for about 8 years and seen it happen many, many times. A supporting membership does not protect one from being DH'ed.

There's nothing to suggest that the information published by Col. Elting in 1977, that infers that the French took five years to train drummers, wasn't based upon a mistranslation of Napoleon's directive from 1811. If Elting read that directive mistakenly and transcribed it as years and not months. It's unlikely that he would then go back later to the source, realize his error and correct it for Swords. It seems possible that he simply remembered his initial research as being five years and repeated it. The lack of original citation doesn't help. If the 1977 work cited the 1811 directive it would prove the error.

Very doubtful. The Editor has Dawghoused both Gazzola and Brechtel countless times. I've been on this forum for about 8 years and seen it happen many, many times. A supporting membership does not protect one from being DH'ed.

@ Garth in the Park

Thanks for proving me wrong and my apologies to the editor for even suspecting that Brechtel198 & aliases could exert that much influence…

Please, let me emphasize that I've not meant to claim that the editor actually would have given in to potential pressures of the named kind but just allowed for the possibility that Brechtel198 could have expected him to do so. Still, I'd rather not accept "support" from character's like Brechtel198……

Gazzola

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

What? You post a childish comment "Did Elting tell you the source where he obtained the information or are you just assuming that"

Swords Around the Throne Page 352 (Trumpets and Drums and Cuckoos): "The 69th at once ordered its regimental tailors to make up a new flag, and denied any loss. Unfortunately, Napoleon had already announced the capture."

In: Recollections of Sergeant Morris (Page's 250/251 of the original 1845 edition but omitted from the 1858 edition): Morris had this to say whilst the British army was encamped outside Paris.

" The 69th regiment, in order to remove from themselves the disgrace of having lost their King's colour, at Quatre Bras, set their tailors secretly to work and manufactured a new colour and then contradicted the statement of their having lost one. But unfortunately for them Napoleon, in his dispatches to Paris, had noticed the capture of this colour; and the colour itself was forwarded to Paris and exhibited there."

I say yes! Elting did get it from Morris because there is no other account that states that the 69th tried to cover-up for the loss of their Kings colour at Quatre Bras. This was supposedly 'attempted' according to Morris in July 1815, some three weeks after the battle. And let it be known that the 69th still had their 'new' regimental colour, a replacement for the one lost the previous year, and they fought under it during the rest of the Waterloo campaign and if a British regiment lost one or both of their colours, replacement colours would be made up anyway! Between the officers from the 69th and other regiments mentioning the loss of the colours in their correspondence home in the early hours of the routing and destruction of Nappy's Waterloo hoards and in the march to Paris, It would be dead certain that the whole army had already known, so the alleged order to covertly make new ones in July was hardly "at once", and if new colours were made by the regimental tailors, hardly a 'cover-up'

Elting hanging on every word that Morris stated in his memoir was the only straw he could clutch, as do most Nappy fawners like yourself.

And the suspicion of dodgy accounting would have been allayed if Elting had sourced his accusation, which is what it amounts to.

You should be careful, Brechtel is getting old. It wouldn't be a surprise if he needed a replacement hip-joint.

"If the 1977 work cited the 1811 directive it would prove the error."

For that we'd need to see the article, and whether or not there's a citation.

Unfortunately the person with that booklet is refusing to answer, which in my experience usually means that either (a) He can't admit that he doesn't know, or (b) He knows, but the answer would be disadvantageous to him.

He certainly has a copy of it and could easily answer if he wanted to, because he reviewed the text here:

link

This thread reminds me of this one.

TMP link

Scharnachthal

Kiley also goes under the name of Massena, over on the Armchair General forums.

Paul :)

Well, apparently, one problem about Brechtel198 (he uses several identities on this forum: I've seen his real name "Kevin F. Kiley", but also "10th Marines"; there may be others, I didn't care to check) is that he is a "supporting member" at the time. This seems to indicate that he contributes to this website financially. While I know of many people who do the same because they are honestly interested in keeping alive a forum of open and impartial debate, such a motivation hardly is to be expected from a character like Brechtel198 & alias. I think he's one of those who expect a return service. Evidently, he is buying himself in in order to keep the editor from interfering with his, Brechtel's, malicious attacks on other members. I don't blame the editor as I understand that he wants to keep his website alive but, on he other hand, I must admit that, personally, I'd rather forgo my website than make it dependent on characters like Brechtel198.

You shouldn't judge or accuse others by your own low standards.

The supporting membership was given to me unsolicited by another member.

And your false accusation against the Editor is a glaring example of your own intellectual dishonesty.

As for the different names that I have used on this forum, that was done because I had forgotten my password and couldn't recover it. Your insinuation that it was something odious or conspiratorial is absolute nonsense and says much more about you than anything else.

Again, you should look up what ad hominem means as you use it enough. You should also look up the term '.'

Kiley also goes under the name of Massena, over on the Armchair General forums.

Well, I do not actually rebuke him for using a different nickname on another forum but using several nicknames on the same forum, that's really off the charts…

Hello again Brechtel. Could you please tell us:

What primary source does Elting cite for the assertion, in that publication?

You should also look up the term 'Bleeped text.'

Done. The meaning of "bleep!" is: "bleep!".

As for the different names that I have used on this forum, that was done because I had forgotten my password and couldn't recover it.

You used "Kevin F Kiley" on 26th/27th June and 7th July 2008, and "10th Marines" on 26th August 2008. In the same thread.

Sorry you couldn't remember neither your password nor your real name within the month.

dibble

You do you realise that you have just admitted that you are assuming Elting made that statement about the 69th colours because you yourself have only been able to find one source that mentions it. That does not mean it was incorrect or that Elting did base what he wrote on Morris' statement alone or in connection with other sources.

Unfortunately, as you know, the author is no longer with us and we are therefore unable to request his possible source or sources, so any questions regarding his sources or choice of sources, if they not recorded in his work, is basically pointless – a bit like the drumming debate.

By John 54

If someone disagrees with you or offers a different viewpoint, it just means they disagree with you and have a different viewpoint. It does not mean they feel they are superior to you in any way. I think that is all in your head.

As for your brother playing the drums in the scouts, did he manage to play okay under fire, marching towards the enemy, and while his comrades were killed and blown to pieces around him? As far as I know, there is no badge for that?

Sharnachthal

Quite a few members have been dawghoused over the years, including your buddy dibble.

Brechtel198

I don't know about you but I think this thread has reached its end, especially when some of the members are just posting insults now. And how 'loud' some of them try to be against an author who is unable to reply to them. Very brave indeed.

And it does not seem to matter that a link was posted in which musicians stated anyone can learn the basics of drumming in a few months, but it takes years to become good at it, and that's without being in combat and under fire. But they are musicians, what do they know compared to the 'musical experts' posting here?

But the amusement wears off when the thread becomes infested with those who just want to throw out insults and those who state they only come here for a laugh.

Gazzola

You do you realise that you have just admitted that you are assuming Elting made that statement about the 69th colours because you yourself have only been able to find one source that mentions it. That does not mean it was incorrect or that Elting did base what he wrote on Morris' statement alone or in connection with other sources.

Unfortunately, as you know, the author is no longer with us and we are therefore unable to request his possible source or sources, so any questions regarding his sources or choice of sources, if they not recorded in his work, is basically pointless – a bit like the drumming debate.

Elting got his accusation from Morris, and Morris' statement is rubbish, as was his 'amongst other things' so called Eyewitness account about Corporal of Horse Shaw,which again can be found in the 1845 edition but not in the 1858 one. There are eyewitness accounts a plenty of both Shaw and the 69th that shows Morris to be unreliable, I would say a fantasist in some of his quotes. Elting used Morris without proper research. He used one statement and ran with it in his book and didn't reference it because he knew that the information was just hearsay from one source.

Anyway! I have posted Morris' quote alongside that of Elting's and it can be seen that Elting got his quote from Morris.

Paul :)

@dibble
Thanks for that interesting information. In my view, pure opinion – Elting cannot be used as reference, there he is not transparent providing sources and – as you prooved – using out of date sources.
There brech seemingly regards Elting's swords as tablets of stone – there is no use in discussing with him such subjects – regardless what arguments and solid sources you will bring up – they are ignored.
In case, seemingly also, the learning curve of brech – is linear – or better parallel to the y – axle.

Over 700 footnotes and an excellent bibliography is not transparent?

Give us all a break.

And your continued misrepresentations of what I have said and posted is ludicrous. Perhaps if you had the character to actually stop referring to people in the third person and actually address them might make it a more interesting and honest discussion.

And the bottom line here, as always, if you disagree with something then post material that negates it. That hasn't been done here with any type of source material.

And, as a reminder, reenactor 'material' is not usually accepted as source material and may, in fact, be ahistorical. It is on the same level as Wikipedia-sometimes useful but not something to use to back up a historical position.

dibble

Firstly, again, you DON'T KNOW where Elting got his source from. You only believe or rather, want to believe it was from Morris. You cannot possibly say where Elting obtained his source when he has not mentioned it and he has certainly not told you. You clearly DON'T KNOW. Admit it? Sorry, but guessing his source is just not good enough.

Now I know you don't like negative things being said about the good old peace-loving-non-empire-making Napoleonic Brits, and like to put down any author that does so, but your list must be growing by the day. Here's another one for you to have a groan about. And dear oh dear, guess what, he appears to be agreeing with Elting. The very nerve of the man. LOL

'However, if a sense of shared identity could be put to positive use in preventing misconduct within the regiment, it also led to attempts to minimize or conceal misdemeanours of which the efforts by the 1/3rd after Albuera, and by the 2/69th after Quatre Bras, to cover up the loss of their colours are a somewhat extreme example. Although the Buffs were able to fudge the issue since the regiment had recovered the flags if not the poles, the loss by the 2/69th, only eighteen months after losing a colour at Bergen op Zoom, resulted in a doomed attempt to disguise the loss by producing a homemade replacement.'
(page 54. Sickness, Suffering, and the Sword. The British Regiment on Campaign 1808-1815 by Andrew Bamford, 2013)

Don't worry if you do not own the book to check it out, page 54 can be found on the online extract. By the way, he appears to have marked Haythornthwaite as his source, not Morris, although, of course, Haythornthwaite's source might well be Morris? If I find out, I'll let you know.

"..if you disagree with something then post material that negates it. That hasn't been done here with any type of source material."

The statement in question hasn't been demonstrated with any source material.

"And the bottom line here, as always, if you disagree with something then post material that negates it. That hasn't been done here with any type of source material.

And, as a reminder, reenactor 'material' is not usually accepted as source material and may, in fact, be ahistorical. It is on the same level as Wikipedia."

Thank you Brechtel, for reminding us of the importance of sources. For the fifth time:

What primary source does Elting cite for the assertion, in that publication?

Why don't you take a look at the publication? You might actually learn something…

And, no, there is not a source listed for the statement. However, if you don't agree, which you obviously do not, then post something that proves Col Elting wrong.

Personally, I don't believe that you'll find anything. And the five-month training for drummers as stated by Napoleon does not negate Col Elting's statement, as Col Elting stated that it was French practice and Napoleon's decree was for a particular time and place.

"no, there is not a source listed for the statement"

My God, two days of Huff 'n Puff just to get to that admission. You could have saved everybody a page of insults if you'd just admitted that from the outset.

So, to recap the discussion:

1. You made a claim based on one undocumented sentence in a secondary source written in the 20th century.

2. Other people refuted it by providing multiple primary, contemporary sources.

3. You claimed that their sources weren't valid because they weren't specifically about the Grande Armee. You then offered as additional evidence, another undocumented secondary source by the same author, which was not about the Grande Armee.

4. When called on the contradiction, you replied that your secondary source was OK because it death with a "contemporary" war (and you helpfully defined the word "contemporary" for us.)

5. However, you hold that other people's actual contemporary (as in: from the period) primary sources are still no good.

6. After avoiding the question for a day and being asked five times, you finally admitted that the entirety of your position rests upon a single, undocumented sentence written in a secondary source in the 20th century, with no citation of any primary source.

--

I'm not a glorious accomplished historian like you, but if I might make a suggestion based upon my limited knowledge:

As I understand, it is considered good professional practice, when one can't verify a source, to admit up-front the limits of one's information, like this:

"This is according to Elting in Such-and-Such-Book, page Z, however, I don't have any primary source and can't verify it, therefore I can't say with 100% certainty."

A bit more honesty and humility, a bit less insecurity, anger, and mean-spiritedness, would go a long way, methinks. After all, what is at stake? What is more important? Knowing how long it took to train a drummer? Or having dozens of people think one is a… well, to use your word, "Bleep." ?

The statement in question hasn't been demonstrated with any source material.

The statement 'in question' is the source which is something I suppose you have not been able to comprehend.

And that is, unfortunately, the sort of reaction that we all expected.

I'm tuning out now, to prepare a feast consummate with my august duties here. I leave the carnage to you.

Other people refuted it by providing multiple primary, contemporary sources.

Having looked over the thread more than once, there was only one French primary source provided and that did not prove or disprove Col Elting's statement. Napoleon's comment was made in 1811 and was for a specific 'mission' to supply new units with drummers. It did not support nor negate Col Elting's assertion.

A bit more honesty and humility, a bit less insecurity, anger, and mean-spiritedness, would go a long way, methinks. After all, what is at stake? What is more important? Knowing how long it took to train a drummer? Or having dozens of people think one is a… well, to use your word, "Bleep." ?

That is nothing but a load of nonsense and if you wish to criticize anyone for 'insecurity, anger, and mean-spiritedness' I suggest that you take a look at some of the other posters here, including yourself.

In my view, pure opinion – Elting cannot be used as reference, there he is not transparent providing sources and – as you prooved – using out of date sources.
There brech seemingly regards Elting's swords as tablets of stone – there is no use in discussing with him such subjects – regardless what arguments and solid sources you will bring up – they are ignored.

If you wish to be taken seriously, I would recommend avoiding misrepresentations of what others have said.

And if a comparison is to be made regarding Col Elting's work, I most certainly would take the scholarly opinions of recognized Napoleonic scholars such as Don Horward, Owen Connelly, and Gunther Rothenberg over yours.

There is no comparison between those gentlemen and your own postings.

Perhaps you and some other critics here should at least attempt to write a book on the period. It isn't easy and takes much time and effort, although the products themselves are the reward at the end of the project(s).

It takes a little more effort than just making personal attacks on a forum against people with whom you disagree.

So we must ignore my link where modern day musicians state it could take years to become a good drummer?

But Colonel Elting does not just say it takes five years to learn to play the drums, he states, rightly or wrongly, and we will never know without knowledge of his source, that it took five years to produce a drummer who could play all the different signals correctly, day or night, under the stress of combat. The important aspects of his statement, which seems to be ignored by some, is the day and night and in combat. It is not just about knowing the correct beat to play, it is about being able to do so with all the horrors of war going on around you.

Not quite the same but look at soldiers constantly learning to load and fire their muskets. It did not matter how slow or quickly they learned to do so, soldiers still fired off their ramrods when in combat.

Why am I not surprised that the given citation was taken out of context and then misinterpreted?

Perhaps some have a problem, if they are English-speakers, with their mother tongue?

yes the usually boring reaction – I move one as well, the fail of brech and elting on more than one occasion was more than adquately explained

But Colonel Elting does not just say it takes five years to learn to play the drums, he states, rightly or wrongly, and we will never know without knowledge of his source, that it took five years to produce a drummer who could play all the different signals correctly, day or night, under the stress of combat. The important aspects of his statement, which seems to be ignored by some, is the day and night and in combat. It is not just about knowing the correct beat to play, it is about being able to do so with all the horrors of war going on around you.

Absolutely – and (to finish what Elting said) ten years to produce a real expert. This struck me as the nub of the argument right from page 1 of this nasty little "verbal melee". My wife used to work in the music industry and would manage US artists – both individuals and bands – coming to the UK. I never knew her to contemplate hiring a "session" musician with less than 10 years' playing experience under his or her belt, because it takes (at least) that long to master not just the instrument per se, but the ability to play different genres of music to an acceptable standard.

The only reason I didn't jump in earlier to support you is because with your constant Brit-bashing straw men (when did anyone on here ever deny the British were trying to build an Empire, for heavens' sakes?), and Brechtel – who can be a fount of useful knowledge when he wants – is who seems to think stonewalling (or not answering at all) qualifies as reasoned debate whenever he is challenged. I suspect that there are many others on here who would also have jumped in to defend fellow members with a sound argument, were they not such like you two.

Supercilius Maximus

Thank you for the support over the topic. I do hope you don't receive any hostile posts over it.

However, I am surprised you have taken some of my expressions ever so seriously. They are clearly made tongue-in-cheek and I did think members were grown up enough to realise that.

As to 'defending members' – really? I thought this was about discussing and debating items of interest brought up by members and improving our overall knowledge, not defending the actual members. Or is that just how you see it?

And the British bit (or Brit-bashing as you prefer) came in response to dibble claiming Elting had it wrong and that he apparently 'knew' that Elting had obtained his information from the memoirs of Morris. I suppose I should have kept quiet and let him get away with such a ridiculous statement.

But if a matter comes up in which I believe someone may be incorrect or I might just have some evidence to argue against something, then I will make it. If some people are petty minded and silly enough to consider that every time something negative is said against the Napoleonic British it is Brit-bashing, then that is their problem, not mine. I can't change the way they think and I've yet to see the same level of complaining when what could be considered as 'Nap-bashing' or 'French-bashing' is going on.

Gazzola

Burnham got his info from Haythornthwaite who in turn had referenced it in his book, Redcoats and he got the quote from?

There were at least two officers not of the 69th who knew of the loss of the Kings colours before the 18th June. They are Ensign William Thain of the 33rd, who knew on the 16th and and Edward Macready of the 30th, who was told by Major John Watson of the 69th, on the 17th. And we have at least one letter home that was rushed off to his parents, of Captain Charles Cuyler of the 69th.

So if those three knew of the loss of the colours, how many how many others knew? And even if they were the select few who knew, did they keep their mouths shut, thus becoming part of a conspiracy? Did the whole army know but tried to keep it quiet until Morris found out the disgraceful truth?

It's .

From 07:50 to 08:40 in the link below

YouTube link

Paul :)

I

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.

and Napoleon's decree was for a particular time and place.

The important aspects of his statement, which seems to be ignored by some, is the day and night and in combat. It is not just about knowing the correct beat to play, it is about being able to do so with all the horrors of war going on around you.

Ok, let's discuss these claims.

What "hurry"? What "particular immediate need"? What was the "particular time and place"? Typically, we are not told what Brech had in mind when he claimed that. Possibly, he hadn't in mind anything at all.

Actually, these new regiments, including the drummers, were destined for the Armιe d'Allemagne. As the war of 1809 had been over for quite some time and the campaign against Russia was to take place not before mid 1812, one wonders what would have obliged Napoleon to raise new drummers for new regiments of the Armιe d'Allemagne in a hurry. I hate to be forced to give a possible answer myself as I have a feeling that Brech will arrogate to have had that in mind without having given tongue to it to himself. Can't prevent him from doing so, so the heck with it!

I suggest that the reason Napoleon would have wanted to raise new regiments, including new drummers, till 1st September 1811, could have been the threat, by no means imminent but probably considered real, that the Russians could start an offensive – via the Duchy of Warsaw – sometime in 1811. As far as I know, Russian plans to do so existed by February 1811 and Napoleon gained knowledge of these plans quite soon.

He may have estimated that the Russians would not have been able to attack before autumn 1811, or he may just have hoped that they wouldn't be able to do so. Anyway, he may have reckoned the new regiments he wanted to form in order to reinforce the Armιe d'Allemagne and to counter a possible Russian offensive would not be ready before September 1811. So, early September would have been the deadline for the new regiments being at the ready. And, of course, they would have to have their drummers with them until that date at the latest.

In other words, the deadline of 1st September was not set by the timespan needed to train new drummers, it was set by the date the new regiments, including their drummers, had to be fully operational.

So, in my opinion, it can be concluded with safety that when Napoleon, on 5th April 1811, wanted the new drummers for the new regiments being instructed in a way they could join their regiments until 1st September 1811 at the latest, he expected them to be fully operational as well. That is, the new drummers would have been "capable of beating all the various drum signals correctly under the stress of combat" (Gazzola), otherwise they wouldn't have been of any use to the new regiments and the regiments would not have been operational on 1st September 1811.

To sum up, Napoleon considered it perfectly feasible that one could be ready to correctly beat the drum signals "with all the horrors of war going on around" (Gazzola) within five months, or less.

What "hurry"? What "particular immediate need"? What was the "particular time and place"? Maybe others know more than I do?

The day and night in combat – what a farce, most times the army wasn't in combat – which was rather the exception than the rule and then the battles were not fought 24 hours around the clock.
They had to stand the rigours of campaign as any other soldier as well, the survived already their early childhood – where the death toll was immense – just by disease and malnutrition.

And to take combat – what was the task of the drummers in the French Army there?
Much less to do than in camp, in camp a lot of duties were anounced by drum signals – while in combat it was more or less drum roles or beat the pas de charge.

Scharnachthal provided excellent sources and excellent arguments.

An infantryman had to load his musket in combat as well, not an easy taks when in rank and file, did it take 5 years to give basic training to a musketeer??
Drummers are much different to the music bands – which is an entirely different topic.

In case maybe gaz can tell what signals a French drummer had to beat in combat how many myriads of drum signals did they have to remember?

…and Brechtel – who can be a fount of useful knowledge when he wants – is who seems to think stonewalling (or not answering at all) qualifies as reasoned debate whenever he is challenged. I suspect that there are many others on here who would also have jumped in to defend fellow members with a sound argument, were they not such like you two.

While the temptation is almost overwhelming to answer your very gracious posting and comments in kind, I don't believe that it would be of any advantage to the forum as a whole if I attempted to do so. It would also once more lower the tenor of scholarly ability that you show ably demonstrated, as others of a critical mindset, in the discussion so far.

I would surely not be able to match either your astuteness or your mastery of the vernacular, though I do have some difficulty in understanding your difficulty with easily spelled words. Does that indicate a lack of mastery of what is supposedly your mother tongue or merely a tactic to get around the Editor of this site?

Perhaps in the future you would be able to engage in conversation without adverse personal comments and be able to discuss historic topics by staying on the topic.

To sum up, Napoleon considered it perfectly feasible that one could be ready to correctly beat the drum signals "with all the horrors of war going on around" (Gazzola) within five months, or less.

I disagree. And if the choice is between your interpretation of the situation and Col Elting's (who is much more authoritative on this subject in particular and the Grande Armee in general), then you come in a very poor second.

Further, as previously stated to another forum member, the opinions of such Napoleonic scholars as Don Horward, Owen Connelly, and Gunther Rothenberg, as compared to your opinions, overshadow anything you may have to say on the subject of the Grande Armee and the Napoleonic period.

I had the near-frightening experience over twenty years ago of delivering a paper at a Napoleonic conference with both Col Elting and Don Horward present. It is something to consider, I think.

Further, why don't you identify yourself on the site's personal reference page?

By the way, I would be interested in what you may have written on the Grande Armee, or for that matter, any military history subject?

@ Supercilius Maximus

Best description of , so far. Thanks!

The statement 'in question' is the source which is something I suppose you have not been able to comprehend.

No. 'The statement in question' was contained in what might be termed a 'secondary work', quoted by you, which, however, did not in turn provide source reference for the statement in question; a source being an original point from which other things flow.

I comprehend that perfectly, in the same way that I comprehend that unsourced statements in a secondary work do not constitute evidence.

…in the same way that I comprehend that unsourced statements in a secondary work do not constitute evidence.

I disagree completely. So, we'll have to leave it at that.

Ah, I did wonder. And what is David Fischer's position?

Do you have the book?

If you actually have a copy, check pages 40-63. If not, then your continued reference to the work is meaningless.

Or are you just trying to pick yet another argument?

No, dear chap. You have the book. You refer to it fairly often. It seems to have some sort of Mosaic authority. I am simply asking what Fischer has to say on the value of unsourced statements as evidence.

As far as I can see, he doesn't. I could have missed it, but I don't think so.

Perhaps you should invest in a copy?