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

Chapeau, Ben Avery!!

Ben Avery

Perhaps you should consider seeing someone about those voices you keep hearing? Mind you, at least they are Napoleonic. LOL

By John 54

As I say, it really is hard to take anyone seriously who has claimed they only come here for a laugh while drinking beer.

And if you feel that someone with a different viewpoint is 'talking down' to you, that is a problem you need to resolve, after all, it is not their problem that you appear to have an inferiority complex, is it?

I believe members can remain or leave a thread and make posts whenever they want, they don't need your permission. If someone leaves a thread that you wanted to er, 'continue debating' with, tough, man up and get over it.

In terms of the actual drumming question, if you had read my posts you would have seen that I stated I had no idea how long it would take. You would also have noted that I made a link to musicians who stated it could take years.

Anyone can learn anything in peacetime and become good at it, but that does not mean they would automatically be able to retain that level, or, in fact, remember anything, when actually under the stress of combat. I am sure you have read about 'trained' soldiers freezing up.

Was John Elting' statement correct, an incorrect translation or a just publishing error? Who knows? Without being able to contact the renowned author who sadly is no longer with us, and without knowing the source from which he obtained his information, we will never know. But it is disgusting when people attempt to use this topic as an excuse to try and tarnish the reputation and work of a renowned author.

As I have stated before, other renowned authors have called his work a masterpiece, so I suggest, if anyone has the courage to do so, they should contact those authors and challenge their viewpoints. Don't fret though, I'm sure they won't 'talk down' to you, if they even bothered to talk to you at all. LOL

Gazzola,

Given that a Napoleonic infantryman could be trained to do his job under fire in a short space of time, I fail to see why you think that this would have been so much more difficult for a drummer.

As I stated earlier, a Royal Marines drummer, expected to do his job in action both ashore and afloat, would be fully trained and competent in a very few months.

Regarding Elting, his book on Napoleon's army is a great read. However, his bias clearly shows through while his reliance on secondary sources and, often, his lack of sources, throw doubt on the reliability of a fair amount of the contents.

Your rudeness and unpleasantness towards others on here are unnecessary, give a poor impression of you, and render ineffective any occasional useful comment that you make.

I suspect that I am not the first person to say this to you, but you really do need to grow up.

Oh yes……..LOL

Again Gazz, cherry picking which parts of a post directed at you to answer, doesn't bode well for your increasingly desperate position. Unlike you, I'll happily take issue with each of your bizarre points.

The 'laugh and a beer' still? Really? Are you actually, you know, ok?

Secondly, you and Brech were on here, throwing out the usual, 'show me sources' 'your argument is void' then, when an increasing number of people did just that, scurried off, declaring 'I see no reason to continue this'

Next, someone disagreeing with me is no problem at all, and l certainly have no 'inferiority complex, what does bother me is when pseudo intellectuals condescendingly ask other posters, not just me, if they can read, if they know the meaning of certain words, if they have ever read a book, and ignoring people's valid questions by constantly repeating the same counter question, like a 10 year old, or suggesting that any 'real' author wouldn't even talk to you. Classy.

And then, your still clinging to '5 months to learn the side drum, 61 months to learn to play it under fire' again, really? Ignoring all the evidence, and primary sources offered?

So, you finally admit Elting may be in error? But it's hard to know, of course it's hard to know when his source is secondary, or just non-existent? Which leads me to……..
playing the 'outrage' card, it's 'disgusting' against Elting? Come on, questioning historians is what you and Brech were doing on here from day one. Now you don't agree with a differing view, or people questioning an authors sources, makes it 'disgusting'? Please, no one was abusive about ,Elting, they just thought his pro-French bias, and lack of primary sources, in this instance, clouded their and my, view of his excellent 'swords' book.

Your clearly a clever bloke, but, as said above, your snotty, sniffy attitude makes people unable to digest any good information you may have.

Oh, leave it out with the LOLs, it's a little weird.

John

By John 54

So, you finally admit Elting may be in error? But it's hard to know, of course it's hard to know when his source is secondary, or just non-existent? Which leads me to……..
playing the 'outrage' card, it's 'disgusting' against Elting? Come on, questioning historians is what you and Brech were doing on here from day one. Now you don't agree with a differing view, or people questioning an authors sources, makes it 'disgusting'? Please, no one was abusive about ,Elting, they just thought his pro-French bias, and lack of primary sources, in this instance, clouded their and my, view of his excellent 'swords' book.

Notice that it's OK to slag-off an eminent historian

TMP link

But woe betide anyone questioning the likes of Elting.

Oh! Brechtel (aka Massena) had a go at another poster with this

link

From this thread

link

And this little gem

link

Paul :)

in a nutshell – in case it is a pro Boney propaganda book, brecch will like it – in case it is a balanced view, taking also in account the many bad sides of Napoléons rule or art of war (starvation camp) – then the author is naff – elting – tablets of stone and not to be questioned.

Aberrant

Complaining about someone while ignoring others is considered being a hypocrite. But I am sure you are aware of that?

And please, do try to be original. LOL is mine. Find your own abbreviation. LOL

By John 54

I'm fine, thanks for asking.

However, your posts imply that you are just not reading what I put in my posts or more likely, just ignoring it. Or perhaps it is the effects of too much beer? Come on, be honest now? LOL

Firstly, I have never stated that Elting's statement was correct. Like I keep saying, I have no idea how long it would take. That's why I linked the opinion of musicians, who I would accept anytime over members who state they only come here for a laugh while drinking beer.

And I am really sorry you find my attitude 'snotty and sniffy'. That really amused my fellow wargamers. I think they are now coming here to have a laugh at your posts. They'll be wanting to drink beer next! LOL

Anyway, I am beginning to believe that you may be suffering from an inferiority complex. And they do say that some people who suffer from it turn to drink to compensate. By the way, that is just a thought, not an accusation. But you have stated you consider people 'talk down' to you and have a 'snotty and sniffy' attitude. Heck, you even seem upset because I put an abbreviation in my posts? LOL

You take care now.

dibble

I noticed that, in the Corelli Barnet debate which you linked, other members posted they disliked and dismissed his book, yet you only seem to have a problem with Kevin doing it? Why is that? It sounds very much like someone is stalking and picking on one member to me.

Gazz,
I made one joke comment about seeing which posts on the Napoleonic boards had 100+ posts, settling down with a beer, to watch and laugh, knowing you and Brech (or Brech and 'his puppy') as another thread put it, and you just won't leave it alone, like a dog (or puppy 😳) with a bone. 4
paragraphs, all with mentions of me having a beer? It's the 'Wellington with a traffic cone on his head all over again, all a bit obsessive compulsive, and seriously, your crossing a line.
And, again, for the last time, l have no 'inferiority complex' give it a rest, it's boring. With your blunt refusal to accept the overwhelming evidence, and you getting more and more, well, strange, now Brech has scurried off, I'm out.

John

Funny thing, but despite the obvious interest, drum majors are notoriously lacking in TOTS (The One True Scale) anyway.

Indeed we get loads of drummers, the odd light horn blower, but bands etc are just missing. An exception must be that marvellous Oniria miniature from Plancenoit. I always did think I would order the entire series but somehow……….

Would the last one out please turn off the lights?

Don't front rank do a French band with drum major?

This one
link

Whale oil beef etc………..say it fast….

I never saw him before! Nice, if typically beefy. Love the jingling johnny too.

Thanks

Gazzola, was that a flickering of self awareness on your part? Oh no, of course it was not.

How old are you? 12? 14? Please tell me that you are not an adult! Your insulting and offensive comments to By John 54 (07 August 2016 4:19am PST) are the output of someone who is nothing more than a troublemaker and a somewhat disturbed individual.

Oh yes…..LOL

Gazzola

I noticed that, in the Corelli Barnet debate which you linked, other members posted they disliked and dismissed his book, yet you only seem to have a problem with Kevin doing it? Why is that? It sounds very much like someone is stalking and picking on one member to me.

You see Gaz, you brought up more than once…

"Also, if we are to consider dissecting Elting's tome, then perhaps we should also consider dissecting every Napoleonic title.

"But it is disgusting when people attempt to use this topic as an excuse to try and tarnish the reputation and work of a renowned author."

…that it is so nasty of us terrible Nappy naysayers and 5 year drummer deniers, to have the cheek to question Elting.

So I, with the knowledge and experience of many a contretemps with Brechtel over the years and the understanding that you are ‘to put it milder than the last comment upon your association with Brechtel' his mouthpiece, to remind you of his slating of not only Correlli (note the spelling of his first name)Barnett but others too, which were posted over on the ACG site and on this site too, within the links I posted above.

I have a good memory, especially with his reply to a poster in regards to Elting, where he stated quite clearly "And which 'basic errors' are those?" which highlights his double speak as he admits on this thread that he had published Elting's errors somewhere some time ago. Perhaps he could be so kind as to publish those errors again as he seems very adept at posting errors quite readily of other authors with whom he has perceived faults with.

As for stalking. Your association with Brechtel on this site is very strange indeed.

Paul :)

Don't make me start telling the tale of Sergei the Russian drummer and his friends… No mollycoddling for them:

'You, carry the drum, you, carry the drumsticks, you, follow behind and when one of them gets shot, pick up his stuff.'

dibble

That is my viewpoint. If you don't agree with it okay, that's your choice. If you have a problem with it, tough, you need to get over it.

And yes, there is no problem with questioning any author/historian. That is a given. But it was more like attempts to destroy Elting's reputation and book, which, as you know has been described as a masterpiece by other renowned authors, than 'question him. Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with Kevin admiring him, could it? I'm sure that never entered anyone's head? LOL

Anyway, I'll be interested to hear from those, what did you term them, of yeah, 'dummer deniers' (you included of course) who will have contacted the renowned authors (not forgetting the musicians I linked) who praised Elting and his work, and 'convince' them of your viewpoint concerning the author and his work. Yes, that should be really interesting, don't you think? Let me know when you are contacting them?

But you have to admit, you and others jump on Kevin whenever you can, that is clear for all to see. But that, apparently is fine. You are not being 'strange' but, somehow, if someone should dare to support his viewpoints on any matter, that is 'very strange'? Yep, hypocrites just about sums it up. Unless, of course, you admit that everyone supporting you and attacking Kevin like you are strange? LOL

Oh yeah, many thanks for pointing out I missed out a letter in the author's name. Well spotted. I can see you have not been drinking beer while attending this site? LOL

Aberrant

You really are funny. By the way, concerning you bizarre continuation of copying my LOL. They do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. So thanks for that. LOL

Gazzola, I am delighted to note that you are so easily amused. However, you should have been able to understand that using LOL is not an imitation of your usage but ridiculing it.

LOL

I have not seen anyone attempting to destroy Elting's reputation and book. In fact, I have a copy of it and it is a very fine read; however, it is poorly sourced and very much of its time, so is not particularly useful for those seeking an objective source of information rather than a ripping yarn.

LOL

Yes, it is true that some historians described Elting's book as a masterpiece; most publishers manage to drum up supporting similar statements for their authors' work. Even David Irving's books received similar comments.

No LOL for that one because it would be inappropriate when mentioning such a repellent little Neo-Nazi falsifier of history as David Irving.

As to the ex-US marine, people jump on him because he frequently makes inaccurate statements and, when challenged, tends firstly to respond with references that do not quite say what he implies they do and, secondly, to run away declaring that it is up to those disagreeing with him to prove that his claims are inaccurate rather than him proving them to be accurate.

LOL

Eric (sat happily in the sun with a decent bottle of wine and a good book)

Gazzola

That is my viewpoint. If you don't agree with it okay, that's your choice. If you have a problem with it, tough, you need to get over it.

Nothing to "get over" but a lot to see through!

And yes, there is no problem with questioning any author/historian. That is a given.

But you have shown that it isn't "a given"

But it was more like attempts to destroy Elting's reputation and book, which, as you know has been described as a masterpiece by other renowned authors,

Elting's book isn't a be all and end all and it's open to criticism like any other book.

than 'question him. Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with Kevin admiring him, could it?

Have a deep long search on the net to find that I have had issues with Elting since 1981. In fact, I recall telling Brechtel about it in a roundabout way some years ago.

I'm sure that never entered anyone's head?

Well that depends who's circle you frequent. And for you to know what is in "anyone's head" I bow to your sensory perception.

Anyway, I'll be interested to hear from those, what did you term them, of yeah, 'dummer deniers'

No! To correct you I posted, "5 year drummer deniers"

(you included of course) who will have contacted the renowned authors (not forgetting the musicians I linked) who praised Elting and his work, and 'convince' them of your viewpoint concerning the author and his work. Yes, that should be really interesting, don't you think? Let me know when you are contacting them?

Why should I have to contact people who I have no issues with? Now if you would like to send me a We-ja board, I'll do my utmost to contact Elting and ask him why he didn't source his drummer and Colour cover-up claim.

But you have to admit, you and others jump on Kevin whenever you can, that is clear for all to see. But that, apparently is fine.

Well of course I from time to time jump on Kevin. But as Aberrant put it "As to the ex-US marine, people jump on him because he frequently makes inaccurate statements and, when challenged, tends firstly to respond with references that do not quite say what he implies they do and, secondly, to run away declaring that it is up to those disagreeing with him to prove that his claims are inaccurate rather than him proving them to be accurate." I agree with his statement.

You are not being 'strange'

Thanks for agreeing that I'm not 'strange'

but, somehow, if someone should dare to support his viewpoints on any matter, that is 'very strange'?

The key point in that quote above that makes you strange is that you admit to support him "on any matter" Hmm! Even I have supported Brechtel on one or two occasions.

Yep, hypocrites just about sums it up. Unless, of course, you admit that everyone supporting you and attacking Kevin like you are strange? LOL

Your paranoia is showing through your delusions and your hypocrisy is only second to that of your friend.

Oh yeah, many thanks for pointing out I missed out a letter in the author's name.

Thanks! I thought it a bit much though, that you not only act as Brechtel's mouthpiece but also copy his misspelling of someones name…Very strange.

Well spotted. I can see you have not been drinking beer while attending this site? LOL

I must inform you that the last time I partook of any alcohol was on the night of the 25th June at my Ex Wife's 50th Birthday party. I had four pints and took a taxi home. When I go out normally I either have water at dinner or I partake in lemonade and lime, Coke and maybe a lager-shandy at the pub. You say you aren't strange but in you post you have twice alluded to knowing what others do

You really are funny. By the way, concerning you bizarre continuation of copying my LOL. They do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. So thanks for that. LOL

So when was 'LOL' first released to the internet world by you? Or is it another of your delusions kicking in again?

Paul :)

But as Aberrant put it "As to the ex-US marine, people jump on him because he frequently makes inaccurate statements and, when challenged, tends firstly to respond with references that do not quite say what he implies they do and, secondly, to run away declaring that it is up to those disagreeing with him to prove that his claims are inaccurate rather than him proving them to be accurate." I agree with his statement.

Yes, that. Although the "I challenge you to prove my opinion wrong" thing is silly and immature, I am partly to blame for naively assuming that he meant it honestly and sincerely. So, like many others before and since, when he demanded "proof" or "sources" I provided: Proof and Sources.

Of course I realized what so many others had already figured out: it doesn't matter. No amount of proof or sources will ever change his opinions on anything. He doesn't actually want the proof and sources that he demands; in fact, they're an inconvenience because they force him to do more work trying to ignore or discredit them, or trying to change the subject. Or he'll eventually just vanish for a while and then restart on some other thread and it all goes around again.

If all else fails, just fall back on the "Everybody's picking on me and Napoleon" defense. "It's all rigged," as a current public figure likes to say.

So now I don't bother responding to those challenges from him about offering proof or sources. The only proof he accepts are people agreeing with the opinions he came in with, and which apparently haven't changed in 30+ years.

Aberrant

You with the wine, John 54 with the beer. LOL

So glad you admit people 'jump' on Kevin. LOL

And your reasoning for continuing to copy me by using LOL is just hilarious. LOL Get over it! Life really is too short to worry about abbreviations.

Enjoy your book. Ladybird is it?

I am quite enjoying Elting (gulp). A great read and an unexpected pleasure. I always thought the title was purely about Napoleon's Marshallate.

You do have to forgive some of the phraseology as anachronistic for Europe 200 year ago eg "bushwhacking" but there are moments of great humour, an easy writing style and I loved his coverage of the Restoration and the Imperial Household….usually ignored.

Must ask this though………….What does a half-trained drummer do for the five years it takes, as we are told? Does he line up with the rest and pretend to hit his drumskin, or does he risk putting everyone else out of step and if, let us say, at least half the complement are likely to be less than five years in (allowing for retirement, desertion and "natural wastage") what kind of row do they make when required?

dibble

You claim you have issues with Elting's work for some time yet make a feeble excuse not to contact those who praise his work. That really says it all about you. LOL

So glad to see you at least are not drinking while posting on this site.

I think you will find the correct statement was 'if someone should dare to support his viewpoint on any matter', not I agree with him on any every matter. Do try to get it right before making any further silly posts?

But thank you for admitting you also 'jump' on Kevin. So nice to see the truth for a change.

Oh yeah, concerning the spelling. To make out I have made a spelling mistake because another member made it, is just hilarious. I missed out a letter, get over it. But anyway, talking of spelling mistakes, I think you will find the we-ja board should be spelt – Ouija board. See, we all make mistakes or where you copying a mistake by someone else? LOL

I never claimed to own LOL. But if a three letter abbreviation upsets people, that's their problem and I do believe there are more serious problems in the world than someone using LOL, don't you?

deadhead

I don't think a drummer would just be learning to play the drums. He may well have had other duties to learn, as well, including drill etc.

And as I keep saying, no matter what a drummer, or in some cases any other soldier, is taught or at what level of proficiency they reach, there is no telling how they will react under the stress of combat. They can only be 'taught' that by actually being in combat. I am referring to Napoleonic soldiers here, not modern day ones.

It was nice to see your post actually address the topic, rather than use it to attack members and authors, but considering others only appear to want to do the latter, I feel this topic is at an end, well for me anyway.

I feel this topic is at an end, well for me anyway.

Oh good!

You claim you have issues with Elting's work for some time yet make a feeble excuse not to contact those who praise his work. That really says it all about you. LOL

So glad to see you at least are not drinking while posting on this site.

I think you will find the correct statement was 'if someone should dare to support his viewpoint on any matter', not I agree with him on any every matter. Do try to get it right before making any further silly posts?

But thank you for admitting you also 'jump' on Kevin. So nice to see the truth for a change.

Oh yeah, concerning the spelling. To make out I have made a spelling mistake because another member made it, is just hilarious. I missed out a letter, get over it. But anyway, talking of spelling mistakes, I think you will find the we-ja board should be spelt – Ouija board. See, we all make mistakes or where you copying a mistake by someone else? LOL

I never claimed to own LOL. But if a three letter abbreviation upsets people, that's their problem and I do believe there are more serious problems in the world than someone using LOL, don't you?

I refer you to my last.

All the best,

Paul :)

Still you do make an interesting point. The idea that after a few months you can play the drum, yes, but it takes 5 years to be a fully trained drummer with all that entails. the correct rhythm for every possible occasion and immediately "to hand".

Maybe that is after all the whole point and it would satisfy either camp, the 6 monthers or the Elting 5 yearers. Despite all the abuse, I think it has been interesting at times, but must agree with you, it is surely now best "put to bed"

and my Bottle of Spitfire is still in the fridge (for now)

Gazzola,

When I go out for my morning run, after about 1km I cross a lovely little humped back bridge over a small stream that runs into my bit of land.

I promise you that one morning, I will stop off to have a chat with you in your home under that bridge.

As to the book, it is a biography of the Dowager Empress Cixi, a person about whom I knew absolutely nothing when I started reading it, but who turns out to be one of the most amazing people that I have ever encountered either in person or in print. Unfortunately, it is not the sort of book that requires the use of crayons, so I will not recommend it to you.

I am still intrigued as to why it took the French five years to train a drummer, while the Royal Marines could train one for land and sea action in a very few months.

Eric

Oops, I nearly forgot…….LOL

and my Bottle of Spitfire is still in the fridge

I have no idea how long it took to train a drummer but I am damn certain that you shouldn't keep a bottle of Spitfire in the fridge.

SJDonovan

I have no idea how long it took to train a drummer but I am damn certain that you shouldn't keep a bottle of Spitfire in the fridge.

So where does Elting say that about a bottle of spitfire? Does he give a source?

Paul :)

Regarding Elting, his book on Napoleon's army is a great read. However, his bias clearly shows through while his reliance on secondary sources and, often, his lack of sources, throw doubt on the reliability of a fair amount of the contents.

I would suggest that the idea of Col Elting's ‘reliance on secondary sources' is a misnomer. If you take a look at both the endnotes and the bibliography you'll find both primary and secondary sources listed and used.

Among the primary source material are letters from various officers and soldiers which can be found in La Sabretache from 1893-1928; memoirs and other material of the period from Blaze, Preval, Allix, de Brack, Parquin, Coignet, Barres, Boulart, Rapp, Bougogne, Caulaincourt, Girault, Steininger, Lejeune, Prince Eugene, Fain, Fezensac, von Funck, Odeleben, Bourcet, Avril, and others.

Excellent secondary material, which is perfectly fine to be used, can be found in Lynn, Oman, Quimby, Phipps, Morvan, Rousselot, Martinien, Adams, Fallou, Hollander, Fabry, Chelminski, Connelly, Martin, Duffy, Glover, Rothenberg, and many others.

I don't believe that you can argue with the source material or his endnotes.

Have you actually seen the book's bibliography? Further, have you read the book and looked at the endnotes? Lastly, have you read anything in the bibliography? I have-and have much of the material that is in the bibliography and the endnotes.

And what ‘bias' are you referring to?

That Col Elting greatly admires the Grande Armee? As one of the great armies in military history a professional soldier would have great admiration for that army if it is studied in great detail as Col Elting obviously did. In point of fact, Col Elting was thinking about writing a second volume of Swords when he died suddenly in 2000. He had asked me what he might write-a volume on the French and Indian War or Swords II. In my opinion Swords II would have been a great idea. I have some of his notes and material that he was collecting for the project.

you and Brech were on here, throwing out the usual, 'show me sources' 'your argument is void' then, when an increasing number of people did just that, scurried off, declaring 'I see no reason to continue this'

If anyone is going to argue a ‘lack of sources' and dispute a point in a book, then it is valid to ask for source material that contradicts the point in disagreement. That wasn't done here. And the use of reenactor material isn't valid unless the period source material is listed.

The only valid source shown was the decree by Napoleon for training drummers in 1811. And that in itself was not definitive. It was an order by Napoleon for drummers to be quickly trained and provided for new units in 1811.
And the comments regarding the five years training for drummers to be complete was not a referral for basic training. It was the French practice of the time and after initial training in the depots or at the Invalides, when the new drummers joined their regiments their training while on active service would be continued by the regimental drum major and drum corporal. It seems to me that was evident in the quotation offered from Swords. In no way did it infer that drummers would be trained for five years and then join their regiments.

Steininger began his training as a drummer when an enfant de troupe in the Piedmontese Army and continued as a drummer for years. He joined, and remained with, the Grande Armee from 1805-1814.

The years that the Grande Armee spent training in the Channel camps before moving into Germany in September 1805 against the Austrians and Russians definitely gave the infantry drummers and cavalry trumpeters time to perfect their skills that would be needed in action. And that training began after the Treaty of Luneville in 1801 which would give the drummers and trumpeters almost five years of instruction and training before moving east.

Notice that it's OK to slag-off an eminent historian…

Corelli Barnett was not in his element with his ‘biography' of Napoleon. The book is rife with error, as well as psychobabble, and too many of his ‘assertions' were not supported by any facts at all. Wasn't that the complaint about Swords in the first place? Perhaps there is a double standard here?

It seems to me that books that are over-critical of Napoleon, such as Barnett's book (which isn't well-sourced either) and Schom's error-ridden diatribe, are either agreed with here or presented as fact, when facts are in short supply in both and the level of historical error is great.

I would sugges that if Swords was over-critical of Napoleon, those here who are denigrating it, as well as its author, would love it. These posters evidently don't like it because it is sympathetic to Napoleon and praises the Grande Armee.

The following comments in Barnett's ‘biography' are unsourced without notes or supporting documentation. Your neglect of commenting on that demonstrates clearly a double standard and bias against Napoleon and the French. And these are just a few that can be picked out from a plentiful group in the volume and that doesn't count the myriad statements in the text that are historically inaccurate.

That doesn't speak well for an ‘eminent historian' who is not a Napoleonic authority and I have read some of his other work which is excellent.

-Page 11: Napoleon a ‘hater of religion, the reactionary.'
-Page 21: ‘…perhaps they offer an early example of his ability to assume different roles, different personalities, according to the occasion.'
-Page 22: ‘They reveal indeed not one character, but two, and those discordant to the point of paradox.'

-Page 30: Napoleon acquired ‘a lifelong disgust with and contempt for the common man in action.'
-Page 43: ‘Like the Schlieffen Plan of 1914, the Italian offensive of 1796 was, in terms of overall national interest, a seductive folly.'
-Page 67: Refers to Napoleon as a ‘toady' and a ‘rootless wanderer.'
-Page 79: ‘This psychological insight did not move him to look upon humanity with compassion and charity, but rather with contempt.'
-Page 81: ‘…social and national misfit…'
-Page 104: ‘Yet this advance to the Danube constituted at the same time the retreat from Boulogne; the aftermath of the greatest strategic reverse Bonaparte had so far suffered. More, it was the consequence of the crassest blunders he had so far committed. For in addition to provoking England's renewed belligerence and then failing in his foredoomed attempt to crush her by invasion, he had needlessly stirred up Russia's enmity again-and finally Austria's as well.'
-Page 106: ‘The coming campaign against Austria was therefore even more needless in terms of the real interest of the French people than those of 1796-1797 and 1800.'
-Page 108: ‘In Berthier, his chief of staff, Bonaparte possessed the perfect instrument for his style of command: a kind of super chief-clerk, untiring at routine work, but in no sense the equivalent of a modern chief of staff who proffers strategic advice or takes decisions on his own responsibility.'
-Page 154: [At Wagram] ‘the Archduke came close to one of the great victories of history.'
-Page 166: ‘…for as usual he employed his subordinates merely as errand boys.'
-Page 173: ‘But ready cash-that is, French ready cash-was the very thing revolutionary and Imperial France had always lacked; the very thing therefore that Bonapartian or Guibertian warfare was designed to dispense with as far as possible.'

Brechtel (aka Massena) had a go at another poster with this…

All that I did here was ask two questions, which still remain unanswered. And the poster concerned here has posted too many inaccurate statements which is why the questions were asked in the first place.
And posting this without the rest of the thread, in essence being out of context, is next to meaningless.

As to the ex-US marine, people jump on him because he frequently makes inaccurate statements and, when challenged, tends firstly to respond with references that do not quite say what he implies they do and, secondly, to run away declaring that it is up to those disagreeing with him to prove that his claims are inaccurate rather than him proving them to be accurate.

First, there is no such animal as an ‘ex-Marine.' There are Marines, former Marines, and retired Marines. And ‘Marines' is always capitalized. Those are your first two errors.

Perhaps you can give examples of the ‘frequently made inaccurate statements.' And there are times when answering some postings is a complete waste of time.

It isn't ‘running away' it is ignoring the vulgar uproar caused by those few who disagree with personal insults attached to their comments.

Although the "I challenge you to prove my opinion wrong" thing is silly and immature, I am partly to blame for naively assuming that he meant it honestly and sincerely. So, like many others before and since, when he demanded "proof" or "sources" I provided: Proof and Sources.

I would suggest that if there is a disagreement on stated facts, then facts that support that disagreement should be forthcoming. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen often and it certainly didn't in this thread. Offering up ‘reenactor experiences' is not factual, but what is being interpreted.
And my comments about providing supporting documentation was definitely sincere. The problem lies with those who failed to provide any and only ‘supported' their disagreement with personal attacks.

Of course I realized what so many others had already figured out: it doesn't matter. No amount of proof or sources will ever change his opinions on anything. He doesn't actually want the proof and sources that he demands; in fact, they're an inconvenience because they force him to do more work trying to ignore or discredit them, or trying to change the subject. Or he'll eventually just vanish for a while and then restart on some other thread and it all goes around again.

Providing actual evidence from credible source material, both primary and secondary will always be accepted. Unfortunately, that isn't the usual method of posting by a scattered few, three of whom were ‘doghoused' for their behavior, comments, and false accusations.

If all else fails, just fall back on the "Everybody's picking on me and Napoleon" defense. "It's all rigged," as a current public figure likes to say.

No one said here that they were being ‘picked on' so that is a misrepresentation of what was said and written. What was said is that ad hominem personal attacks do not support an argument and merely demonstrate that person making those attacks has forfeited the argument in question.

And what, pray, is ‘rigged?'

You might wish to add the following term to your vocabulary, which definitely describes the behavior of the few naysayers on the thread:

Trumpery

1.a : worthless nonsense.
b : trivial or useless articles; junk.
2. archaic : tawdry finery.

‘Trumpery derives from the Middle English trompery and ultimately from the Middle French tromper, meaning "to deceive." (You can see the meaning of this root reflected in the French phrase trompe-l'oeil-literally, "deceives the eye"-which in English refers to a style of painting with photographically realistic detail.) Trumpery first appeared in English in the mid-15th century with the meanings "deceit or fraud" (a sense that is now obsolete) and "worthless nonsense." Less than 100 years later, it was being applied to material objects of little or no value. The verb phrase trump up means "to concoct with the intent to deceive," but there is most likely no etymological connection between this phrase and trumpery.'

And it should be noted that this term has nothing to do ‘a current public figure' to which you alluded.

So now I don't bother responding to those challenges from him about offering proof or sources. The only proof he accepts are people agreeing with the opinions he came in with, and which apparently haven't changed in 30+ years.

That's your call. I accept any evidence that can be supported with credible primary and secondary evidence. If you cannot accept that premise, then I feel very sorry for you.

It seems to me that you and a few others just can't stand to be disagreed with on your 'fixed opinions' and then become more than frustrated when you cannot support your argument with facts.

Historical inquiry is the assembly of facts and then coming to a logical conclusion based on those facts. You and a few others haven't done that and whatever 'methodology' you might be using is greatly flawed as both inaccurate and illogical.

Wow!

You really answer all questions Kevin!… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

hello? I made a post but a link to a wargame show came up instead? Is there another bug?

How odd? That one worked okay? I think I will take it as a 'sign' and not make any more posts in this thread.

Synchronicity?

(Just as you thought it was safe to go back in the water..)

link

42flanker

Thanks for this link.

O my God! Another wisdom from, well – "Senarmont198" -, this time…:

"What is being referred to is the drum major's mace. It was a large 'instrument' with the head of it being loaded with lead and it made an excellent club or baseball bat depending on how it was used in combat."

"Loaded with lead" – I don't believe it!

All one needs to know about French Napoleonic drum majors' maces:

link

…including the material used for their heads:

"POMMES DE CANNE : « Sortes de pommes dont le nom est fort mal choisi, puisqu'elles ont une forme de poire. Elles sont considérées surtout ici comme une des parties des cannes qui servent à donner les signaux aux tambours ; elles sont en argent, au titre du commerce ; leur partie inférieure forme douille ; avant d'être fixée au jonc, elles sont, pour plus de solidité, remplies de résine bouillante. Leur forme et leurs dimensions étaient gravées dans un projet de règlement (1818, B). Elles se distinguent en pomme de canne de caporal-tambour et en pomme de canne de tambour-majour. » (Bardin)"

The material the heads were "loaded" with was resin, not lead…

…and, of course, drum majors' maces were not meant to be used as weapons. That was just what was at hand for self-defence at a given time, place, and moment. If that drum major hadn't had his mace or an actual weapon at hand, he would have used a branch, or a stone, or whatever…

"Loaded with lead" – I don't believe it!

Whether or not you believe it or anything else is entirely irrelevant and makes little or no difference to any discussion or conversation.

"It's…aliiive!"

thanks Scharnachthal for this valuable information