"Polish artillery, Napoleon, Prussian guns" Topic
74 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile ArticleThe gates of Old Jerusalem offer a wide variety of scenario possibilities.
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Pages: 1 2
Brechtel198 | 22 Sep 2017 3:23 p.m. PST |
‘If there is no one to make gunpowder for cannon, I can fabricate it; gun carriages I know how to construct. If it is necessary to cast cannon, I can cast them; if it is necessary to teach the details of drill, I can do that.'-Napoleon. It is essential for the officers of technical arms to get formal, professional education in those arms. If they don't, then knowledge of the technical arms will not be passed on and the knowledge will then be lost. It is a measure of the skill of artillery and engineer officers that they have professional schooling/education in order for the arm to perform efficiently in combat. That is as true in the Napoleonic period as it is today. |
McLaddie | 22 Sep 2017 3:48 p.m. PST |
It is a measure of the skill of artillery and engineer officers that they have professional schooling/education in order for the arm to perform efficiently in combat. Don't you mean that the measure of their education is the skill in which they efficiently perform in combat? |
von Winterfeldt | 23 Sep 2017 12:02 a.m. PST |
in fact a lot of French officer did not have the schooling and education in the the French Revolutionary Wars, see volume I Alembert and Colin about this topic. |
Le Breton | 23 Sep 2017 3:08 a.m. PST |
Not just during the Révolution era. In 1811, 47% of the French artillery officers had higher ("university level") education of any type – and none of the officers of the artillery train. See the État-militaire d'artillerie for that year. |
Brechtel198 | 23 Sep 2017 3:43 a.m. PST |
The officers of the French artillery train were not artillery officers. They were train officers. Train battalion commanders were captains and company commanders were lieutenants which made them de facto subordinates of the artillery companies with which they were brigaded. |
Brechtel198 | 23 Sep 2017 3:45 a.m. PST |
There was an interesting situation that developed in the Guard artillery between the school-trained artillery officers and those that had risen through the ranks and learned their trade the hard way-on campaign and in combat. The senior Guard artillery officers wanted them to be transferred to other Guard units and out of the artillery because they were not school-trained. The decision reached Napoleon and he found on the side of the officers to remain in the Guard artillery. |
Brechtel198 | 23 Sep 2017 3:50 a.m. PST |
Having higher education of any type was indeed valuable for an officer. For an artillery officer, however, the most important formal education to have was in the excellent French artillery schools, which were the best in Europe. The first French artillery school was founded at Douai in 1689, predating any other military technical school in Europe and setting the template for other nations' artillery schools to follow, especially Woolwich in England (1741) and Budweis in Austria (ca 1754). After Douai's founding, the other French artillery schools followed in 1720. The French engineer school at Mezieres was also excellent with high standards for graduation and with practical as well as theoretical training. See Frederick Artz, The Development of Technical Education in France. |
Le Breton | 23 Sep 2017 4:15 a.m. PST |
"It is essential for the officers of technical arms to get formal, professional education in those arms." "The officers of the French artillery train were not artillery officers" Yes, everyone know that French artillery train officers were not French artillery officers, by your oft-repeated posting of this fact. However, in other armies the officers performing these function *were* artillery officers. And you have posted that "officers of technical arms" should have "formal, professional education", that it is "essential". But the French did not provide this to artillery train officers. So, were French artillery train officers not officers of a technical arm? or were the French remiss in not providing them "essential" "formal, professional education"? It is perhaps relevant that the French artillery train failed to remove more than – at most- a handful of pieces from Russia in 1812. By contrast, the Russian artillery was still an intact fighting force and battle ready at the end of 1812. Does this difference in performance stem in any way from a French failure to consider the artillery train a technical arm, or their failure to provide officers of that arm with essential formal education? |
Le Breton | 23 Sep 2017 4:17 a.m. PST |
"It is essential for the officers of technical arms to get formal, professional education in those arms." What about the 53% of French artillery officers in 1811 that lacked this? If it was so "essential", why did the French neglect this education for more than half of their artillery officers? |
Le Breton | 23 Sep 2017 4:19 a.m. PST |
"‘If there is no one to make gunpowder for cannon, I can fabricate it; gun carriages I know how to construct. If it is necessary to cast cannon, I can cast them; if it is necessary to teach the details of drill, I can do that.'-Napoleon." That is out of context, of at best uncertain provenance, and not well translated – which one might term …. "a Brechtel trifecta !" The quote is attributed, in a work published in 1854 by the baron Antoine-Marie Rœderer, to unidentifed notes or correspndence of his father the comte Pierre-Louis Rœderer. The topic was not artillery. The topic was Napoléon's complaints about his brother's rule in Spain, for which the comte Rœderer served as a liason to the imperial court. link The entire passage: "Vous voyez donc bien qu'en tout le roi [Joseph] prouve qu'il n'est pas militaire. Dans le civil, qu'a-t-il fait? A-t-il fait un code [civil]? A-t-il lu le mien? A-t-il fait un système de finances? Il n'est rien à la guerre que je ne puisse faire par moi-même. S'il n'y a personne pour faire de la poudre à canon, je sais la fabriquer; des affûts, je sais les construire. S'il faut fondre des canons, je les ferai fondre; les détails de la manœuvre, s'il faut les enseigner, je les enseignerai. En administration, c'est moi seul qui ai arrangé les finances, vous le savez; il y a des principes, des règles qu'il faut savoir. Il [Joseph] me disait à Bayonne : Quand j'ai entendu un peu bavarder Rœderer et quelque autre sur tout cela, je suis au fait. Je lui ai répondu qu'il ne pourrait pas lui seul refaire en Espagne ce qu'il a fait avec M. Rœderer à Naples, parce qu'il n'est pas praticien. En finances, il y a des règles, des principes qu'il faut savoir, et des pratiques qu'il faut connaître. Gaudin n'est pas un aigle, mais il sait les choses; il est là-dedans depuis quarante ans, et j'aime Gaudin." Translation: You see well how in everything the king [Joseph] proves that he is no soldier. In civil affairs, what has he done? Does he have a [civil] code? Has he read mine? Does he have a system of finances? There is nothing in war which I can not do for myself. If there is no one to make powder for cannon, I know how it is fabricated; for gun carraiges, I know how they are constructed. If one needs to cast cannon, I will have them cast; for the details of [troops'] manouevres, if these must be taught, I will teach them. In the civil administration, it is I alone who have arranged the finances, as you know; there are principles, rules that one must know. He [Joseph] told me at Bayonne: As I've learned a bit by chattting with Rœderer and some others about all this, I am ready. I answered him that he can not just do again in Spain what he had done with Mr. Rœderer in Naples, becasue he is not a practitioner [of finanacial administration]. In finances, there are rules, principles that one must know, and practices that one must understand. Gaudin [Napoléon's minister of finances] is not an eagle, but he knows things, he has been there for 40 years – I love Gaudin." |
Brechtel198 | 23 Sep 2017 4:42 a.m. PST |
The officers of the British artillery train were not artillery officers, nor were those of the Austrian artillery train. And the Russian train troops, though integrated into the artillery batteries, were not artillery, but train troops. The Russian artillery was outshot and outfought at Borodino, and the Russians were so concerned with losses that they had to husband the surviving veterans near the end of the campaign as there were no available replacements, including artillery officers and artillerymen. The Russian artillery at Borodino was so beat up by the French (who fielded fewer pieces and the Russians had employed some field fortifications) had only six artillery companies that were still somewhat intact. What 'formal' education was neglected by the French regarding train troop officers? The train was not a technical branch of the army. The two technical branches were artillery and engineers which required specialized education and training. And the Russian technical training, especially for artillery and engineer officers, was below the standard for French, Austrian, and British officers of the same branches. Conversely, what formal education did the Russian train personnel receive? And where is the evidence that Russian train troops were artillerymen? Do you actually understand what the artillery train was and the difference between it and other train troops? The duties of the trains was to haul the equipment and guns of the artillery as well as their ammunition. If you read the Dickson manuscripts his comments and opinions of the British artillery train troops, including the officers, is not very high. The British horse artillery arm solved that problem by integrating the train enlisted men into the individual horse artillery troops. Those with the foot artillery brigades still had the problems with train troops until the end of the wars. The loss of French artillery near the end of the retreat was neither a train problem nor an artillery system problem. The French quickly rebuilt their artillery arm, and their artillery train, after Russia and it was ready to take the field by April 1813 and definitely demonstrated its skill and professionalism beginning at Lutzen. The Russian artillery arm never attained the level of command and control and tactical ability that the French artillery arm demonstrated from 1805-1815. The French artillery arm developed into an offensive arm while the Russian artillery arm was employed as a defensive weapon to protect the cavalry and infantry. Russian artillery officers were punished if they lost guns; Napoleon was willing, as were his senior artillery commanders, of risking the loss of guns if that loss gained a tactical advantage. The Russian artillery arm did not have the experienced senior artillery commanders that the French possessed nor did they ever engage in actions such as those of Senarmont, Marmont, Drouot, and others. The French artillery arm was a battle-winner. The Russian artillery was always a supporting arm, nothing more nothing less. There is an excellent reference for the artillery organization the French employed in 1806-1807, Les Services de l'arriere a la Grande Armee en 1806-1807 by G Lechartier. Within it are excellent tables on how the supporting troops for the artillery were assigned, such as the artillery artificers and pontonniers, not to the individual gun companies but to the corps and army artillery parcs and arsenals and how the artillery parcs were organized. That covers the artificers, the pontonniers were assigned to the corps d'armee and employed by them. It is a very useful volume. |
Brechtel198 | 23 Sep 2017 4:59 a.m. PST |
‘If there is no one to make gunpowder for cannon, I can fabricate it; gun carriages I know how to construct. If it is necessary to cast cannon, I can cast them; if it is necessary to teach the details of drill, I can do that.'-Napoleon. This translation is essentially the same as the one you provided, so I don't see the problem there. Napoleon is describing his skill as a school-trained artillery officer. And it isn't out of context when used to illustrate that fact. On a related subject, I have not made any negative comments about you on this forum. Unfortunately, you have made a habit of it in various postings on three different threads, towards me. That is both wrong and unacceptable: ‘don't thank Brechtel too much – much of what he posts is wrong or incomplete. He appears very biased, completely unfamiliar with non-French/Engliah sources and over-reliant on modern secondary sources.'‘It seems that for some *years* Mr.Brechtel has not liked to respond when his assertions are questioned, nor does questioning them have any impact on the positive and sure tone with which he informs us of what "should be noted".' ‘For John Milller : I will say what I said to Osage, don't thank Mr. Brechtel too much – much of what he posts is wrong or incomplete. He appears very biased, completely unfamiliar with non-French/English sources and over-reliant on modern secondary sources.' If these guys were French, we would be treated to many "It should be noted …." instructions about how elite, trained, experienced, etc, etc. they were. So when someone, on another thread, was crowing about the veteran status and excellent individual records of the French old guards…' Or, as usual, are we going to be treated to more of Brechtel's personal opinions, ideas, conjectures and quotes from modern secondary csources? That is out of context, of at best uncertain provenance, and not well translated – which one might term …. "a Brechtel trifecta !" I am going to ask you politely to stop with the personal, ad hominem comments directed to me or anyone else. Not only are they insulting, but they are incorrect in fact. So, in future, please stick to the subject and leave personal comments out of it. Whether you agree with me or not is immaterial. However, I can support my points of view with credible primary and secondary source material. If you cannot post without insult, then please don't post anything regarding my postings. You've posted plenty of personal opinion on the subject of the Russians, so accusing me of the same thing, among other things, is somewhat hypocritical, don't you think? |
Brechtel198 | 23 Sep 2017 6:21 a.m. PST |
Regarding the artillery trains of the different armies, they were militarized, replacing the civilian drivers with soldiers as follows: Great Britain: 1794 France: 1800 Austria: 1806-1808 Russia: 1803 |
Le Breton | 23 Sep 2017 11:00 a.m. PST |
"And the Russian train troops, though integrated into the artillery batteries, were not artillery, but train troops" "artillery trains of the different armies, they were militarized, replacing the civilian drivers … Russia 1803" No. On the establishments since at least Catherines's time. Plain worng. You must not be looking at the establishments. Here they are : link I believe that you do not understand the Russian word "Фурштатъ" / "Furshtat" – usually translated as "Train". These troops moved supplies. The Russians who moved guns, limbers, caissons and artillery equipment (and would be artillery train in French service) were integrated and part of the Russian artillery. The "Furshtat" (more closely akin to the French train d'équipages militaires) was not (except for local supply assets in the artillery companies). "Napoleon is describing his skill as a school-trained artillery officer." No. If it is Napoléon speaking (not something made up by Roederer or his son), he is describing that he is a micro-manager and castigating his brother for not being one. He goes on to describe in exactly the same terms his micro-management of civil administration. Was he a school-trained civilian bureaucrat? Sorry if you think there is something personal – there isn't. It is your misinformation, bias and non-scholarly approach upon which I have commented. I should have written :
"a Brechtel quote trifecta !" . You are not out of context, of questionalble provenance nor often poorly translated. Your quotes have these vices. Indeed, your posts often appear very biased, completely unfamiliar with non-French/English sources and/or over-reliant on modern secondary sources. Disagreeing with you, or pointing out your improper and/or highly biased use of sources, is not a personal attack, even if your apparently delicate ego somehow gets bruised in the process. |
von Winterfeldt | 23 Sep 2017 11:23 a.m. PST |
Carefull Le Breton, a usual tactic is to frustrate people and then they might dawghoused in case somebody hits the complaint button. You pretty much demolished Brechtels opinon by excellent argumentation and knowledge and put them spot on in context. |
Brechtel198 | 23 Sep 2017 11:44 a.m. PST |
The Russian artillery train personnel were not artillerymen and it has not been demonstrated that they were. One key hint on that subject is that they were not soldiers until the artillery train was militarized in 1803. While you tend to throw around the accusation of being opinionated, among others, most of what you have posted, especially in the inaccurate accusations about material with which you disagree, is merely your opinion, not established fact. In other words, the material that I post that you believe is merely opinion, is not. As I have said before I can back up what I have posted with material from credible secondary and primary source material. An excellent example of your opinions in the artillery threads is the idea that the Russian artillery was an elite arm. It was not and certainly did not demonstate itself as such during the period. There was a lot of it, and handled enthusiastically by the Russian gunners, but an elite arm it was not. On the other hand, both the French and British artillery arms had a long tradition of excellence and were definitely considered elite arms during the period. The Royal Horse artillery considered the French horse artillery arm, for example, to be an elite arm of the service. Interestingly, the British gave the American artillery battalion on the Niagara frontier the ultimate praise of the period-'We thought you were French'-for their excellent performance in 1814 in that campaign which culminated in the British defeat at Fort Erie. |
Le Breton | 24 Sep 2017 3:09 a.m. PST |
"The Russian artillery train personnel were not artillerymen and it has not been demonstrated that they were. One key hint on that subject is that they were not soldiers until the artillery train was militarized in 1803." I gave the link to the establishments. You were to lazy to look them up (or can't read Russian). Actually, it is *you* who made statements on this topic and provided no sources whatsoever. "In other words, the material that I post that you believe is merely opinion, is not. As I have said before I can back up what I have posted " Please do so on this topic. While we wait for this, we can walk through some of the artillery establishments of Paul's reign. Go here : link Click on : Том 43: Книга штатов : Часть 1: Штаты военно-сухопутные (1711 – 1800) : 1796 – 1800 Go to page 73 and following. You will see the tables for the establishments per : PSZRI No. 17,699 30.XII.1796 : Artillery artillery battalions of 5 companies PSZRI No. 18,430 12.III.1798 : Artillery commands with Guards and Army infantry regiments PSZRI No. 18,577 10.VII.1798 : Life-Guard artillery battalion PSZRI No. 18,937 15.IV.1799 : Life-Guard artillery battalion Tables 1 and 2 are for personnel : you wil see the same functions in the same proportions, with trivial varinances, as for 1803. The personnel to operate the carriages, the limbers and the caissons are here, just as in 1803. Table 3 is the clothing and equipment allowances. These would be similar to the tables d'habillement from the French ministry of war administration. Here you will see essentially the same provision for carts and wagons as for 1803 on pages 84-85. On page 85 are the horses. The allowances are complete for limbers, caissions, wagons and carts. The entire function of the "artillery train" in the French sense of the expression is here, "militarized", an organic part of the artillery formations. Table 4 is for tools and small spare parts. You will see here the various entries relevant to the manufacture and repair of the horses' equipment. Table 5 is shows the repartition of various types of guns for the various formation – note hear again we see the horses for the limbers, and the caissions per gun. Following is the allocations of same to craftmen, supply service within the formations, etc. For Catherine's reign : Go here : link Click on : Том 43: Книга штатов : Часть 1: Штаты военно-сухопутные (1711 – 1800) : 1762 – 1796 Go to page 21 and following These are the tables for the establishment in PSZRI 11,797 17.IV.1763. To see the details for the horse and limbers, caissons, etc. (the equivalent of artillery train in the French service), you have to go through and see the establishments of the infantry, cavalry and fortresses to which artillery was assigned and dependent. But, the function was always "military". It rather had to be, as – unlike France – there were no "private" companies in Russia at all above the size of a family small business. The government owned the economy, and would have owned any "transport service" capable of being a contracted artillery train in the French sense of the expression. ================ "An excellent example of your opinions in the artillery threads is the idea that the Russian artillery was an elite arm. It was not and certainly did not demonstate itself as such during the period." Where did I say that ? But even if I did, what is the official period procedure for gaining this qualification? The "International College of Deciding Who is Elite"? Or is it up to you to decide this for us all because you can "back up" your opinions with your own cherry picked, quoted out-of-context, mis-translated and often poorly provenanced primary soruces – with lots of cheer-leading pro-French bias from modern French/English secondary sources? Really? |
Le Breton | 24 Sep 2017 3:15 a.m. PST |
By the way, Brechtel, I think you have missed this : You wrote : "It is essential for the officers of technical arms to get formal, professional education in those arms." What about the 53% of French artillery officers in 1811 that lacked this? If it was so "essential", why did the French neglect this education for more than half of their artillery officers? Either such education was not viewed as "essential" by the French (contrary to what you have asserted with no source back-up whatsoever), or they made a consistent practise of fielding un-qualified officers, lacking essential education. Perhaps it was the case that the French preferred that thier artillery officers, or a goodly share of them, have such formal education? That is was viewed as "nice to have", but not "essential"? But if this were true for the French, contrary to your assertion about "essential", would it not apply to all nations' artillery services? |
Le Breton | 24 Sep 2017 3:35 a.m. PST |
VW, If it was at all unclear, I hope my clarification puts my comments in context: Brechtel as a person cannot be out of context, of questionalble provenance nor often poorly translated. He *is* writing about the Napoleonic era on the Napoleon Discussion Message Board. His provenance is irrelevant. He is writing in his native in English, so there is no question of him needing a better translator. However is use of primary source material is virtually always at least one of "out of context", "of questionable provenance" or "poorly translated". His modern secondary sources are exclusively English or French. They are often open to questions of bias. A simple example : Brechtel likes to quote form Henry Lachoque (including his "The Anatomy of Glory: Napoleon and His Guard", as this was published in English). The problem is that M. Lachoque was a political activist – he led the French national Bonapartiste political party. He spent much of his life trying to engage the French people to change their political system and return to the "glory" of the days of Napoléon and the 1st Empire. That does not invalidate Lachoque's historical work. But as to the opinions and conclusions in his works, they are clearly biased compared to those of a non-political purely academic historian. Our colleague Brechtel skips over these details when he posts his own opinions, and then tells us they are facts because he can back them up with primary and secondary sources. If letting other Colleagues see these details and make up their own minds is an offense against the rules of the forum, I would be very surprised. |
von Winterfeldt | 24 Sep 2017 3:53 a.m. PST |
@Le Breton I am entirely on your side and agreeing, I was dawghoused whenever even the slightest negative remark about Brechtel, which I wasn't even aware of – some person(s) seem(s) to be very eager to push the complaint button on my postings. I have my doubts that he can read anything other than English sources, he usually cites however in that way that it seems – that he can read other languages, prime example on NSF – citing works of Duhesme and Scharnhorst, but when asked from where those citations really came from, he had to admit – from Paret. |
Brechtel198 | 24 Sep 2017 7:11 a.m. PST |
'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 not 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. The insistence on personal attacks when disagreeing in opinion of another's posting or argument not only diminishes the entire discussion, but it certainly marks the person's argument who performs the ad hominem attacks as bankrupt and illogical, as well as lacking in logic, factual basis, and opinions presented. In short it displays fear of being disagreed with along with the inability to see or understand the other person's discussion. It is also not correct in either fact or intent. Ridicule is not a historical argument. |
Le Breton | 24 Sep 2017 7:37 a.m. PST |
Brechtel, When you post something – let's say the little quip about Napoleon being able to do everything with artillery, "Napoleon is describing his skill as a school-trained artillery officer.", there can be some problems. Let's review …. 1. The passage originally was published in 1854 by the son of a political economist, and supposedly represents a conversation of Napoléon with the father which is undated, the full transcript of which we lack, and for which we have no other corroboration : i.e. "questionable provenance" 2. The conversation was not about artillery, nor school-training of artillery officers. When you read the whole passage, it is clear that Napoléon is complainiing about laxness in management by his brother as king of Spain : i.e. "out of context" 3. The quote as offered by you has been translated to stress Napoléon's own personal skills – the French original would be better translated in some places to indicate that Napoléon claims that he can manage the work of others : ie., if not "poorly" translated, then "not well translated" and coincidentally, the questionable elements of the translation help to re-enforce your out-of-context use of the passage and obscure it original context. In summary, your little quip of of very modest or even dubious value to the discussion at hand. How does this constitiute a "personal attack" on you? |
Le Breton | 24 Sep 2017 7:45 a.m. PST |
Brechtel wrote : "The loss of French artillery near the end of the retreat [in 1812] was neither a train problem nor an artillery system problem." Actually, I asked about the campaign overall. But OK, what *was* the problem then?, and why were the Russians not afflicted by it to anywhere near the same degree? We have a 7 month campaign. Long distances, bad roads, poor countryside largely emptied of people, many engagements, some battles, hot in the summer, cold in the winter, etc., etc. At the end the Russian artillery is essentially or largely intact, and the French artillery essentially all lost, combat effectiveness nil. What can we say to explain the difference in these results? |
Brechtel198 | 24 Sep 2017 7:46 a.m. PST |
These statements by you, already posted on this thread, are personal comments, ad hominem, which are personal attacks directed towards me, and as such are prohibited on this thread. ‘don't thank Brechtel too much – much of what he posts is wrong or incomplete. He appears very biased, completely unfamiliar with non-French/Engliah sources and over-reliant on modern secondary sources.'‘It seems that for some *years* Mr.Brechtel has not liked to respond when his assertions are questioned, nor does questioning them have any impact on the positive and sure tone with which he informs us of what "should be noted".' ‘For John Milller : I will say what I said to Osage, don't thank Mr. Brechtel too much – much of what he posts is wrong or incomplete. He appears very biased, completely unfamiliar with non-French/English sources and over-reliant on modern secondary sources.' If these guys were French, we would be treated to many "It should be noted …." instructions about how elite, trained, experienced, etc, etc. they were. So when someone, on another thread, was crowing about the veteran status and excellent individual records of the French old guards…' Or, as usual, are we going to be treated to more of Brechtel's personal opinions, ideas, conjectures and quotes from modern secondary csources? That is out of context, of at best uncertain provenance, and not well translated – which one might term …. "a Brechtel trifecta !" If you cannot conduct a reasonable discussion without resorting to personal attacks and comments, especially when none have been directed to you, then that doesn't say much for your argument in the first place, now does it? |
Pages: 1 2
|