Historical Questions

[Rob]

Rob

Dawson's book on the French infantry in the Crimean War gives the following:

"Line and Light infantry formed in line in two ranks in times of peace and 3 in battle prior to 1852 and in two ranks thereafter. The Chasseurs,Zouaves and Tirailleurs Indigenes fought exclusively in two ranks in line.."

Chad

Thanks Chad. I knew it happened but didnt know when. 

[Hwiccee]

Back to your reply. I really don't understand how you can say this.

I guessed you wouldn't. I have tried to be polite but you don't seem to understand that so I have replied in your style this time - perhaps this might get through.

Have you read this book? Because you answer as though you have, but completely misrepresent what it is saying.

No I have not read this book and I know the author was a respected Napoleonic author. I am afraid only an idiot would rely on a Napoleonic specialist for this kind of information outside his period. But I strongly suspect that the problem here is not with the author but with your opinions and understanding of him.

You even say

it surprisingly has something to say about this question

! Yes it is and perhaps that should have prompted some thought? Have you ever actually thought about any of this & questioned what is being said. You have a knack of cherry picking information, try thinking about the whole picture.

Ok so to the point - I am only going on your opinion and 'understanding' of what he says . Either Rothenberg is totally wrong (which I think is very unlikely) or you have no idea what he is talking about. If Rothenberg is really saying that 'imitating' the Prussians means introducing cadenced marching then this is clearly wrong as everyone 'imitated' in this way & it makes no sense to single out some nations. Again with out looking at the work but Rothenberg is almost certainly talking about imitating Prussians style, fashions, etc. This was ONLY imitated by some nations - I don't know about the Spanish but the Russians certainly did. This is why there is no mention of cadenced marching, it is what 'admiration militarily of everything Prussian' means and hence my use of 'Prussian style marching'. Frankly I would have thought this was pretty obvious.

For information although we are scrabbling about for evidence of when the Russians adopted cadence marching because of a lack of documentation, the introduction of the Goose Step to the Russian army is documented; during the 1796–1801 reign of Paul 1st. This was easily found on Wikipedia with a secondary reference taken from Haythornthwaite, Philip J. (1987). The Russian Army of the Napoleonic Wars: Infantry, 1799-1814. Osprey Publishing. p. 12.

OK my mistake. I was trying to keep it simple as you don't seem to have much knowledge of this era or of how to look into a subject like this.

I had also  foolishly imagined that your language skills were sufficient to recognize the main point of an argument. I am afraid you often add 2 and 2 and come back with the answer green penguin!

Please, if you make any more statements back them up with a reference. I find your opinions very interesting but when we disagree we need to show some sort of source.

I am sorry I just don't have time to write a book for you or inclination to answer you in more detail.

As mentioned before (but seemingly not understood) I gave my opinion in my first reply to you, basically no one knows the answer on the available evidence we have at the moment. This is frankly obvious to anyone who does a basic study of this and again the clue is in the fact that reliable details about such a crucial advance are impossible to find. I think only a fool would imagine that if these kinds of details were known they wouldn't be in most/all books. The crux of the rest of my comments are that your posts are illogical and often rubbish or gibberish - usually because of this it is difficult to answer your ideas. Frankly I am afraid you have made up your mind and no amount of argument or evidence is going to change it  & I am not inclined to try much. More thought and less opinion from you would be good - not cherry picking would be a good start. I only bother to answer as I wouldn't want others think that what you say is correct, this is exactly how a lot of the rubbish in wargaming/history gets to be 'what everyone knows'.

I suggest you do some reading, preferably of period material and if possible in a variety of languages.

I would further suggest you start with finding the exact date, name and other details of when the cadenced marching was first introduced/re-introduced in this era . The exact date if possible, the year if not.  What the document was called and who was the author. Possible also the publisher/printer and other details but these are less important. Remember that non primary sources need to reference the primary source, many just give a date without any evidence/reference to back this up.

Once you have this you then have some chance of going from there to when others introduced it - i.e. you will have a start date to start searching from. Let us all know when you find this information.

[FierceKitty]

Perhaps this discussion needs to be shunted to TMP.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Gentleman

Really not in the spirit of this forum!

[Techno]

Agreed !

Time out, chaps !

Topic temporarily locked.