- 26/06/2015 at 12:34 #26733General SladeParticipant
Welcome to the fray John. It is great to have someone with your knowledge on board.26/06/2015 at 23:23 #26783
Thanks John. I (sheepishly) stand corrected on the ‘outrageous’ comments. Please accept my sincere apologies.
Regarding the Guards, yes I have seen ads for the Hougomont book, it all now makes sense, and makes that a ‘must-have’for me – good news!
Also looking forward to being corrected about the Dragoons….
Sparker15/07/2015 at 01:53 #27678Jonathan GingerichParticipant
I recently got to look at Kellermann’s manuscript. Not much to report. It does read like a 19th century internet flame war at times, but the issue at hand is fairly direct: Le comte de Valmy représenta au maréchal Ney qu’il avait avec lui qu’une brigade de cuirassiers, que le surplus de son corps était resté, d’après les ordres mêmes du maréchal, à deux lieues en arrière, à Frasnes, enfin qu’il n’avait pas une force suffisante pour une telle entreprise. It looks like Kellermann does place the dragoons at Frasnes, but it’s vague enough to leave plenty of doubt.
That said, I reread the TMP thread and realized Michael Westman had cited Charras as placing the dragoons at Frasnes. This is significant as he published his editions in 1858-63, well before Houssaye and while Kellermann’s manuscript was still lost amid his papers. In fact, he footnotes this, stating explicitly that although several authors (presumably Siborne and Beauvais among them) place the dragoons at Quatre-Bras, but this is an “error” – albeit without further explanation. So the question has been unsettled for quite some time.
This makes the Légion d’honneur commendations important new information crucial to this long-standing question.
(But Kiley’s certitude, ax-grinding, and miscomprehension are still entirely unprofessional;-)15/07/2015 at 08:03 #27683
(But Kiley’s certitude, ax-grinding, and miscomprehension are still entirely unprofessional;-)
He says with certitude! Since once again you drag this across from TMP I repeat what I said there and as yet have had no takers – please point out the exact parts of either his Amazon review or his comments which are unprofessional…(BTW, I don’t count criticism per se as a lack of professionalism so long as its evidenced, neither is calling someone out on ad-hominem attacks)15/07/2015 at 19:54 #27717MikeKeymaster
Are we making reference to a thread on TMP and discussing it here or are we moaning about people on TMP?
The former is fine, the later not so much, but I do hear there is a forum that has a TMP thread on it if you want to vent.
There may even be a LAF and TWW thread over there too!
(That is a genuine question by the way.)15/07/2015 at 21:31 #27722
Hi Mike, I was making a reference to the thread on TMP that Jonathan was alluding to, where Kevin Kiley has been jumped on by a crowd incensed that he dared to post a negative book review on Amazon. If TMP threads have to be dragged over here, which Jonathan seems to have a habit of doing, then my only agenda, as on TMP, is to attempt to clear away all the mud slinging and obfuscation and actually ask what it is that Kevin said that was untrue or unacceptable.
A subsidiary issue, and also a genuine question, I suppose, in these ‘enlightened’ days, is:
Is there now a convention that amazon book reviews should only be positive? And if so, what then is the point of them?16/07/2015 at 01:34 #27744Jonathan GingerichParticipant
I believe the information I posted about Kellermann’s manuscript and Charris’s book have not (yet) been presented on the TMP thread.
I agree with Sparker that the thread ultimately focuses on Kiley’s Amazon review of Franklin’s Osprey. I parenthetically offered my opinion of the review, in sharp contrast to Sparker‘s oft stated opinion. I think if he read the 333 posts on TMP with more care and understanding he would find answers to his question: what it is that Kevin said that was untrue or unacceptable?
For while there is much solid research on the whereabouts of Picquet’s brigade, there are also plenty of reasonable objections to the nature of Kiley’s review. I’m not going to summarize them. Sparker can reread the thread. But I will mention two.
First, is the whereabouts of a single cavalry brigade a significant issue for an Osprey monograph, which is a short overview of a campaign battle? I maintain OB’s for Borodino, Austerlitz, and Eylau online. One need only compare them to the OB’s in the respective Osprey to get some idea of the usual standards.
Second, just because it is such a hoist with his own bricole moment, if you claim it’s a grievous mistake to place Picquet’s dragoons at Quatre-Bras, wouldn’t it behoove you to read Siborne and Ropes and make sure they don’t make the same “mistake” before recommending them as alternatives?
JG16/07/2015 at 07:55 #27750
Thanks Jonathan! As I keep saying, do these two comments of Kevin’s, if they are the most egregious, really justify the tsunami of opprobrium Kevin had to endure – including some quite disgusting sexual references and innuendo?
So glad discussion is more measured and courteous in this neck of the woods.
I’m still none the wiser about modern etiquette with regard to book reviews however. I enquire purely as a consumer, I’m hardly likely ever to pen one, but it would help to know if fulsome praise is now the only politically acceptable commentary – if so I shan’t take bother to take note any longer!16/07/2015 at 18:04 #27785jannerParticipant
It’s fine to be critical, but it’s hard to read Kevin’s Amazon review as anything other than his taking the usual umbrage at someone being less than complementary about Napoleon and Napoleonic France. The same sort of nonsense is going on over on PMT at the moment, but directed by his buddy against Baz. Pretty unsavoury stuff, but par for the course. Anyway – onwards and upwards
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.