General de Brigade

[TheBlueMax]

Hi, big lurker here, but had to post this. Has any one read this book by Brent Nosworthy?

I'm on page 151 out of 462. So far I find the book a hard read. My biggest problem would have to be sentence structure. It seems to me that many of the sentences could be shortened and more concise.

Next would have to be the repitition. Nosworthy has mentioned that the allies believed the "new" french fighting system was derived directly from the Revolution about three times already. There is one particiulaur phrase he keeps saying that annoys the hell out of me "lets say..." It's like he's pulling his thought out of the thin air and not know what he is talking about.

My English 101 proffessor would have ripped this book apart on writting alone. In a class of 15 people 12 failed our first essay!!!

Shouldn't a work on Napoleonic tactics start out with the basic mechinics of a battalion? There are no diagrams of this at the beginning of the book.

I was really looking forward to this read but so far I'm disappointed. I keep reading hoping that it gets better.

Any one please tell me if you agree or disagree with me.

[alanmccoubrey]

You have done a lot better than I, I didn't even manage to get to page 51 before giving up ! Alan

[captain chook]

I actually managed to get through the entire book, although at times this was not easy. At the end I was skim reading.
There are a number of interesting facts and interpretations that make it worth the effort, although I would agree that better editing would have helped as there is a lot of repetition.

Rory Muir and Gunter Rothenburg's books are useful to read in addition, but again give the impression of coming up short of what we may want/expect.
French Napoleonic Infantry Tactics is good for a junior high school overview of French tactics,
Fighting Techniques of the Napoleonic Age has each section written by a separate author, and therefore again is somewhat repetetive with each section seemingly written without knowlege of what the other authors were writing. There are a few gems in this book, but nothing really that can't be found elsewhere.

The most impressive book on Napoleonic tactics (as far as my ailing memory will recall) was a book I saw in London while on holiday there in 1995. Unfortunately, my interest at that time was Alexandrian history so I didn't buy it. I remember impressive diagrams of how horse artillery deployed and infantry in column and line. I have never seen this again, and to date, no one has been able to tell me what this book was titled.

If anyone knows of a good book on tactics I would love to know what it is.

Ants.

[TheBlueMax]

I've struggled through a couple more sections. I wanted to reach the part about how the French aim high. Finished that section, now I think I'm done with the book.

Funny thing is the author says that the french were known for there prolific use of fire power, but then immediately goes back to showing how the British were better

[DCRBrown]

Ever tried actually reading Nafziger!!!

Great orbats but awful plodding, over-detailed prose.

Still, to be fair - where would we wargamers be without him!!

DB

[msk]

OK - I've resisted this thread for long enough. Are we talking about the US edition of the book published in the UK under the title "Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies"?

If so, then the US edition must be a very different beast to the UK one. This is a book I thoroughly enjoyed and it got some very positive reviews when first published.

Perhaps some people's expectations of the book are misplaced - this is not a book about tactics - it's about *grand tactics*. There's a subtle yet important distinction there. To answer the question in the original post, Nosworthy isn't concerned with the mechanics of an individual battalion but rather how a brigade or divisional general would deploy multiple battalions to achieve (sometimes multiple) objectives. And for any GdeB player, that makes this book highly relevant.

On it's intended topic, it's an excellent book in my view - the concept of describing and explaining the French approach to war as "the impulse system" is worth the price of the book alone.

Yes, it has failings and the grammar and sentence structure can be questioned at times but I think those criticisms lose sight of the true value of this book.

Incidentally, I also own the Muir and Nafziger books mentioned in this thread. They are also useful in their own ways but have failings too. Muir concentrates far too much on the British experience (what is it with people who think that a British Army of approx 30,000 is the most important in the whole period?). Nafziger's writing style is v. hard to read and Imperial Bayonets draws mainly on drill manuals rather than actual battlefield accounts. That's useful and his insights into cavalry command and control are particularly instructive but the reality of combat never has and never will play out as per the manuals.

Overall, I think that you need all three of these (and others) on your shelves to get a wide-ranging view of what really happened on Napoleonic battlefields. I'd also recommend reading books about specific campaigns. Nafziger's books about Dresden and Leipzig are often on my bedside table and I'm especially fond of Leggiere's "Napoleon and Berlin".

There, I'm going to retire to the rear now that I've fired off that volley

[TheBlueMax]

It is interesting that the book to have a different main title here in the states. I do believe there is some good information in the book; nothing earth shattering though.

I believe the book could have been presented in a better manner.

[captain chook]

I thought I would read With Musket, Cannon and Sword again following the comments here.
The first few chapters are good.
Once the book starts getting into the French and British firing systems things begin to get a little repetitious - several times the method of levelling before firing is mentioned in different sections, as is cavalry charging boot-to-bootThe information becomes more technical and less "practical". Still, they are of interest, although lack a meaningful conclusion/synthesis of all the information.
The section on cavalry and artillery is a little disappointing and generally contains nothing new.
What would have been useful is a chapter on how all the arms interacted. How did cavalry advance through the intervals of the infantry etc?
Overall I have found this to be a good and informative book. The first half is considerably more enjoyable/readable than the second. It is worth persevering with this book at least once.

Overall Nosworthy does a creditable job, but is perhaps let down by poor editing.

Similar information can be found in a more condensed version on:
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/

I have tried to find a copy of Nafziger's Imperial Bayonets. Only 1 copy on Amazon at over $200. Following a thread on TMP it seems the author has been contacted and there are no plans to publish this again.

Ants.

[Suvoroff]

I detested Nosworthy, I'm afraid. I think many of his theories are insufficiently backed up by evidence; his poor footnoting practices often make it impossible to check on how he derives these ideas.

(I confess I had loathed his previous book on 17th and 18th Century tactics, which prejudiced me against this book from the start.)

My favorite books on tactics, so far, have been;

1. Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon, by Rory Muir. Yes, it is Anglocentric, but to a British author these sources are the most readily available. I also find his honest presentation very impressive (His book on Salamanca is, despite my near-total lack of interest in the Peninsular War, one of the best Napoleonic books I have read.)

2. Tactics and Grand Tactics of the Napoleonic Wars, by George Jeffrey. This is a small paperback production of many years ago. It is largely limited to the tactical movements of the French army; you know, how to go from line to platoon column, etc. It does not make the same detailed comparison between national tactical systems as Nafziger's book (Imperial Bayonets) but it is much less dreary than Nafziger.

Yours,
James D. Gray

[captain chook]

James,
You are cruel, taunting me with a book that is out of print. This seems even more rare than Nafziger's.

[Suvoroff]

"James,
You are cruel, taunting me with a book that is out of print. This seems even more rare than Nafziger's."


Bwahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!


Yours,
James D. Gray