"Waterloo by Tim Clayton" Topic

I was reading my secondhand copy of the book the past couple of days and I was confused and disappointed by the author's continual used of the word "riflemen" for all infantry soldiers, whether armed with rifles or muskets. How can I take his work seriously when he doesn't seem to appreciate the crucial difference between rifles and muskets during the black powder period.

It must indeed make one wonder about the author's knowledge and understanding of the period.

I suppose all one can do is read the whole book and then decide whether it was merely a careless mistake – which should have been picked up by the editor or proofreader – or evidence of more significant failures.

That presumes that the editor(s) and proofreader(s) knew the difference between the musket carried by almost all of the infantry participants and the rifle carried only by a few.

Jim

I have the same issue with Rick Atkinson's new book "The British are Coming." It is most likely that what was shouted by Paul Revere and others was "The Regulars are coming." This has kept me from buying and reading the book.

You should go to the Amazon comments of that book and point it out. Won't change anything but it will give others pause.

"The British are Coming."

Apparently, he addresses that question in the book. (According to one Amazon reviewer: others found the book detailed to the point of tediousnes; some, overly biased towards the American pov; hints were even detected, here and there, of 'leftist' thinking. Oh, my)

Dear ole' Brit'-hating Tim Clayton wrote 'This Dark Business' (The Secret War Against Napoleon)

" This Dark Business tells the story of the British government's determination to destroy Napoleon Bonaparte by any means possible. We have been taught to think of Napoleon as the aggressor – a man with an unquenchable thirst for war and glory – but what if this story masked the real truth: that the British refusal to make peace either with revolutionary France or with the man who claimed to personify the revolution was the reason this Great War continued for more than twenty years? At this pivotal moment when it consolidated its place as number one world power Britain was uncompromising. To secure the continuing rule of Church and King, the British invented an evil enemy, the perpetrator of any number of dark deeds; and having blackened Napoleon's name, with the help of networks of French royalist spies and hitmen, they also tried to assassinate him."

Mostly b******s of course, especially the "they also tried to assassinate him." bit. Which of course, is unfounded.

@dibble

Someday you need to tell us how you are able to maintain in your head that the British were 100% virtuous and Napoleon was 100% evil and also consider yourself a serious, if amateur, historian? Unless you think that history is to reward the preexisting wishes a body wishes to dream and punish the inconveniences that introduce the smell of methane to the fantasy?

link

Au pas de Charge

Someday you need to tell us how you are able to maintain in your head that the British were 100% virtuous and Napoleon was 100% evil

Because he and his pixies were the enemy of my country. So yes! As far as I'm concerned, he was "100% evil" As were Kaiser Bill, Louis XIV, Hitler etc.

The British and in particular, the English are my ancestral people (I had one who served in the 23rd from 1807 and campaigned in the Peninsula and Waterloo) and those that were part of the tradition of the British Army were heroes and of who's tradition, I strived to keep up "100%" and respect "100%" But if you can find the evidence that I see the British as "100"virtuous" you could lay the evidence out right here and now.

and also consider yourself a serious, if amateur, historian?

Oh I do, I do! But then, I see those leaders and their cronies as evil. Not their people in general. But it seems, a person who shows hatred towards the British and in particular, the English, its people past and present, who shows a very troubled, jealous, bitter and hatefilled trait can also be an amature 'historian' too.

Unless you think that history is to reward the preexisting wishes a body wishes to dream and punish the inconveniences that introduce the smell of methane to the fantasy?

With that quote of yours, hot air and swamp gas is all yours…

Take care now. Swamps have a habit of consuming the unwary.

PS. Your link is old and is still not evidence. But then, Andrew Roberts is yet another Nappy fawner publishing no evidence in a lefty rag.

Because he and his pixies were the enemy of my country. So yes! As far as I'm concerned, he was "100% evil" As were Kaiser Bill, Louis XIV, Hitler etc.

This comes as no surprise to me. Your every interaction on here suggests that rather than a good natured discussion about military history, you represent nationalist passions and a desire to antagonize posters you suspect to be the enemy as a form of entertainment. I've long realized this, now we are all on notice.

The British and in particular, the English are my ancestral people (I had one who served in the 23rd from 1807 and campaigned in the Peninsula and Waterloo) and those that were part of the tradition of the British Army were heroes and of who's tradition, I strived to keep up "100%" and respect "100%" But if you can find the evidence that I see the British as "100"virtuous" you could lay the evidence out right here and now.

Can I presume he is long dead? Or are you in touch with his thoughts? You find fault and seek to degrade any author who has even slightest opinion other than the British were 100% right. The evidence is littered all over the forum. Dont tell me you dont even read the stuff you write? Now if I thought that we read what you do not, that would be punishment indeed.

Oh I do, I do! But then, I see those leaders and their cronies as evil. Not their people in general. But it seems, a person who shows hatred towards the British and in particular, the English, its people past and present, who shows a very troubled, jealous, bitter and hatefilled trait can also be an amature 'historian' too.

You are free to rant and rave in the populist sense of the word but dont be surprised if some of us react negatively.

Take care now. Swamps have a habit of consuming the unwary.

I doubt it. Surely if this were true, you wouldve by now spontaneously combusted:)

PS. Your link is old and is still not evidence. But then, Andrew Roberts is yet another Nappy fawner publishing no evidence in a lefty rag.

It is evidence although I understand that you do not understand the nature of evidence. And are you saying that Andrew Roberts, a credentialed conservative, is a leftist? I mean I get that he isnt a national front kind of guy, but a leftist?

Au pas de Charge

This comes as no surprise to me. Your every interaction on here suggests that rather than a good natured discussion about military history you represent nationalist passions and a desire to antagonize posters you suspect to be the enemy as a form of entertainment. I've long realized this, now we are all on notice.

(1)If you don't like what I bring to the table, don't partake in it.

(2)Hearsay and opinion from Clayton and Roberts isn't evidence.

(3)And to include an all embracing "we" shows a very delusional trait.

Can I presume he is long dead?

Of course you can. You can also presume that you presumption is correct for once.

Or are you in touch with his thoughts?

What! If you are fishing for information into how to use a ouija board. I suggest you look elsewhere.

You find fault and seek to degrade any author who has even slightest opinion other than the British were 100% right.

Pot and Black rears its ugly head again: "You find fault and seek to degrade any author who has even slightest opinion other than the" French "were 100% right."

All it needed was to change the nationality.

Fact not hearsay…Bring the evidence instead of doing a 'Clayton'.

The evidence is littered all over the forum. Dont tell me you dont even read the stuff you write? Now if I thought that we read what you do not, that would be punishment indeed.

Oh! It's called typing, previewing and posting. And you throw an epic paddy after you take great interest in reading my posts. So you for one it seems, are a fan, a fan that takes in cold air and blows hot.

You are free to rant and rave in the populist sense of the word but dont be surprised if some of us react negatively.

Make up yer' mind! Because above you are quoted as posting that: "you represent nationalist passions and a desire to antagonize posters you suspect to be the enemy as a form of entertainment."

So I'd hardly be "surprised" now would I?

Aus pas de charge

Dibble's posts are so funny and biased but I suspect he makes his Union Jack blinkered comments just to provoke. I can't believe he really believes what he spouts or is unable to view anything other than from a British always-right point of view.

The reviews appear overwhelming in favour of Clayton's book and it is indeed an enjoyable read. However, for dibble, Clayton can't have possibly written a good book because he 'dared' to write something negative about the British. So that's it! The whole world could love and admire Clayton's work but not dibble.

Like Andrew Robert's excellent book on Napoleon, Clayton has to be placed in dibble's sad little box of those he seems convinced are Brit-hating authors. Dibble obviously knows they hate Britain because they 'dared' write something positive about Britain's enemies or negative about past events undertaken by Britain. And, according to dibble, you can't love Britain if you do that, can you? LOL

And if we are expected to believe dibble really is as biased as he makes out, I can imagine him being against the Nazi concentration camps because they were created by Britain's enemy but supporting the concentration camps created in the Boer War because they were built by the British. And the British are always the good guys! LOL

@Gazzola

I dont think dibble always understands what motivates him. He combines a senseless approach to research, facts and evidence with reducing it to its nonexistence when it begins points to something he presumably doesn't approve of.

Further, he appears to throw whatever someone posts to him right back at them as a sort of demonstration that it is always a two way street. He must think this tactic further reduces conversation to his own level of white noise; the sort of thing one would expect from someone who cant put together coherent thoughts. In any case, as clever as "I know you are but what am I?" logic is, he also makes curious statements, like this one:

Pot and Black rears its ugly head again: "You find fault and seek to degrade any author who has even slightest opinion other than the" French "were 100% right."

All it needed was to change the nationality.

One wonders what exactly a man constantly gibbering that evidence isn't evidence can suddenly make an unsubstantiated claim like this.

It's been educational. I used to think we only had these sorts of nonsensical faith and flag sorts in the USA but now I see that the UK has some too. Of course, the majority of UK posters are rational, good natured fellows willing to discuss and debate responsibly and maturely. However, there are this vocal few who want to fly in the face of reality, which is their right, but also use their own charged convictions as a basis to call people names. It's most untidy.

Like Andrew Robert's excellent book on Napoleon, Clayton has to be placed in dibble's sad little box of those he seems convinced are Brit-hating authors. Dibble obviously knows they hate Britain because they 'dared' write something positive about Britain's enemies or negative about past events undertaken by Britain. And, according to dibble, you can't love Britain if you do that, can you? LOL

One cannot fault Andrew Robert's conservative credentials which are immaculate. His research skills and ability to analyze research are excellent.

I think the part he doesn't like about Andrew Roberts is that he is not a populist but rather an intellectual. It sort of makes sense that the only response to someone with an argument he cannot refute is to suggest that they are marxists which is frighteningly similar dismissive talk by people who cant reason for themselves in my own country.

But, Gazzola, we have to remember that even if he is both annoying and ridiculous, he is still a human being.

We love you dibble.

(1)If you don't like what I bring to the table, don't partake in it.

Oh but my dear dibble, who ever said I didnt like it? I merely wanted to define it for what it is. However, I dont normally have access to people who can make arguments like you do and still take themselves seriously. In some ways it is exhilarating.

(2)Hearsay and opinion from Clayton and Roberts isn't evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence and it isnt "hearsay", as you put it, because you dislike it.

(3)And to include an all embracing "we" shows a very delusional trait.

If the belief that some how, some way, I can ever get through to you with a rational discussion is delusional, then, yes, you might be right.

Pot and Black rears its ugly head again: "You find fault and seek to degrade any author who has even slightest opinion other than the" French "were 100% right."

All it needed was to change the nationality.

What pro British authors have I degraded? This is impossible because I dont think the French were 100% right. Frankly I dont think I even have a side. And this has been my point all along, that you are so deeply nationalistic that you think there are these pro Bonaparte dark forces at work defined by not being both 100% pro Britain and 100% anti Napoleon.

For Instance, I really like Featherstone's CAMPAIGNING WITH THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON & FEATHERSTONE, even though he is clearly banging his chest for the British. Still and enjoyable read.

I bang on the fence and they come a'yapping and a'snarling. But in the end, it's all just 'doggie' and chain-jangling noises…

I bang on the fence and they come a'yapping and a'snarling. But in the end, it's all just 'doggie' and chain-jangling noises…

This is exactly my contention; that you do not have a reasonable approach. Thanks for the confirmation.

Au pas de Charge

'I bang on the fence..'

Very interesting statement from our lovable dibble. He is basically admitting he posts to provoke. I guess it might be his way of gaining some attention? Sad that he just can't seem to accept that people might hold a different point of view to his own biased viewpoints. Still, I admire the way he sticks to his guns. LOL