Help support TMP


"A Discussion Between Adam Zamoyski and Andrew Roberts" Topic


16 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.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board



981 hits since 18 Sep 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Brechtel19818 Sep 2018 11:07 a.m. PST

This is an interesting back and forth:

YouTube link

Personal logo deadhead Supporting Member of TMP18 Sep 2018 11:22 a.m. PST

I will certainly watch it and you are a genius to find this.

But, after five minutes of Paxman's "introduction", I decided I will come back to this link. Those outside the UK will have been spared his ego, mercifully. I am sure eventually the two debaters will get a word in. Until then his rambling and also stumbling address suggests someone who has spent too long fortifying himself before the programme.

42flanker18 Sep 2018 12:41 p.m. PST

The story so far: link

Old Glory Sponsoring Member of TMP18 Sep 2018 12:43 p.m. PST

I greatly enjoyed both speakers here --- although I feel Roberts wiped the floor with the other guys limp arguments against.
I almost did not watch it as I found the "moderator" nauseating-- and often it was a two on one debate against Roberts.
Kind of like the "balanced and fair" news the public is spoon fed today.

Regards
Russ Dunaway

nsolomon9918 Sep 2018 8:49 p.m. PST

Who was the moderator? I couldn't watch it all the way through – the moderator was just too irritating.

The bits I did view showed up the Zamoyski guy as focused on Napoleon's personal life and why that mean't he wasn't a great man and the Roberts guy talking about the French nation and Europe as evidence that he was!

Dont think Alexander or Frederick won their "great" appellations on their personal lives but rather their impact on their nations and the age they livid in.

Personal logo deadhead Supporting Member of TMP18 Sep 2018 11:31 p.m. PST

Jeremy Paxman is notorious in the UK. He is an arrogant, sarcastic type, who is legendary for repeating questions to politicians over and over again, with a deadpan expression.

How interesting that he immediately created that impression with our neighbours across the Pond

deephorse19 Sep 2018 8:18 a.m. PST

Jeremy Paxman is notorious in the UK. He is an arrogant, sarcastic type, who is legendary for repeating questions to politicians over and over again, with a deadpan expression.

Because the politicians will not answer the questions. How much more annoying is it for a politician to be asked a searching question only for them to answer a different question entirely? So good on him.

42flanker19 Sep 2018 9:37 a.m. PST

It was just the once, as I recall, and the Minister in question, not greatly loved, was being very slippery. It was wonderful, slow car crash TV, waiting for the coup de gras.

In the debate here, however, his condescending manner makes me wish someone would mete out the same treatment to him.

Gwydion19 Sep 2018 3:55 p.m. PST

Paxman?
Brilliant journalist, presenter,moderator and all round good guy.
Pay no attention to the naysayers, he has a magnificent reputation in Britain. He held Newsnight together single handed for years as a major force in current affairs broadcasting.
Roberts was lucky to get him.

Brechtel19822 Sep 2018 4:49 a.m. PST

…and you are a genius to find this.

Thank you for the compliment, but I found it on The Napoleon Series, so I really did nothing but cut and paste as I believed it would be of interest.


Andrew Roberts had command of his subject where, in my opinion, Adam Zamoyski did not and in the latters opening statement made at least nineteen errors in fact regarding Napoleon. It seemed to me that there was too much Bourrienne, Schom, and Corelli Barnett. I'm still buying the book though as I am interested in reading it and seeing his bibliography.

Marcus Brutus24 Sep 2018 5:08 a.m. PST

I thought Paxman was an arrogant, obnoxious presence. Roberts and Zamoyski were great.

holdit27 Sep 2018 9:47 a.m. PST

I didn't think either of them did very well. Zamoyski's arguments seemed to consist mainly of cheap shots, though. "Alright so he won a couple of battles…", and pretending that Arcola and Marengo are held up as examples of Napoleon's genius – first I've heard of it… It sounds like he learned his history at the University of Craggy Island.

(Which of course, he can't have; his "Moscow 1812: Napoleon's Fatal March" is a terrific piece of work.)

4th Cuirassier27 Sep 2018 10:16 a.m. PST

Was Zamoyski able to shed any light on what Josephine's "zig-zags" consisted of?

Brechtel19829 Sep 2018 6:18 a.m. PST

My main objection to Zamoyski's comments were his inaccuracies on the Russian artillery arm, both in the debate and in his book on the Russian campaign. The Russian artillery arm was far from the best in Europe and their sights were not superior to those of the French.

42flanker29 Sep 2018 9:58 a.m. PST

Is 'zig-zag' a French term?

4th Cuirassier30 Sep 2018 4:40 p.m. PST

It's in Larousse as both noun
link

and verb:
link

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.