Kropotov Horse Grenadiers.

[Tacitus]

I see that I have greatly angered Angus Konstam and that was precisely what made me reluctant to bring up my criticism in this forum.

Let's be clear, I take absolutely no pleasure at all in criticising someone elses hard labour. But when two historians have contradictory information about the Russian army and I know that one of them is highly controversial in Russia, then it is just a matter of honesty to pass on that information to those who wonder about whom they should believe.

I presume "Tacitus" isn't speaking about every book I've ever written, but the two Osprey booklets on The Russian Army of Peter the Great, and possibly Poltava, 1709. I've written over 50 Ospreys, and about 20 other books. Tacitus' comments make it sounds as if he's read them all, and doesn't like any of them!

I was only referring to the books covering the GNW-period.

I challenge my Swedish critic to say that he's had a similar level of access to Russian sources, and that he's read Russian material on the subject before opening his mouth and criticising everything I've ever written!

That, of course, is the problem with many wargamers. They read one a book or even two, and instantly become experts, able to criticise others.

First, I am not a wargamer. Second, I have already admitted in this thread that my knowledge about Russian uniforms is shallow. Third, I have not criticised everything you have written.

It would be beyond me to declare myself an expert on these topics. But you do not need to be an expert to have the ability to offer reasonable criticism. Admittedly, I do not know exactly what in your books (i.e. your GNW books) that are based on "outdated and unreliable" sources. The Russians I was in contact with were regrettebly not so specific when they dismissed your books. I have however myself spotted numerous mistakes in your books which does not require very deep knowledge to notice. I have tried to be nice and not embarass you by listing these mistakes. These are however in my opinion indicative of books that were written in haste and/or lacked proper proof reading (and to be clear, I am not talking about bad spelling or grammar).

The result is a group of three books which represented the best available information available in Russia at the time, and yes, they're unashamedly slanted towards the Russian perspective.

As far as I know no one has criticised you for being slanted towards the Russian perspective.

Then, even if he doesn't like them, at least I'll earn royalties from him!

Then, you should be pleased to know that I have bought five of your books.

[obriendavid]

But when two historians have contradictory information about the Russian army and I know that one of them is highly controversial in Russia, then it is just a matter of honesty to pass on that information to those who wonder about whom they should believe.
The Russians I was in contact with were regrettebly not so specific when they dismissed your books.

Perhaps the fault lies with the Russians and other non-English speaking nationalities for not releasing more info about their past history?
Having written numerous articles I always had the decision to make, do I publish it now with all the info I have gathered or do I wait incase some new info comes up? If you hold on then nothing gets produced and you can virually guarantee that as soon as you publish someone will produce some new info they have been sitting on and are quick to jump on you. Personally I would rather people go ahead and publish based on the info they have available and leave me to decide on the accuracy of any new info and as Angus has said these were written 20 years ago.
I'e often found that many wargamers have a tendency to just accept all the latest info that gets published especially if it contradicts past writing mainly because it's new it must be more accurate.
Cheers
Dave

[maciek]

I think, that there is a big problem with books about such obscure periods as WSS and GNW. It happens that some books by such noble authors as August Kuhn among others, are the only sources of informations about specific armies and because of lack of other publications we are not sure about it's reliability.
So every discussion about these books is warmly welcomed as it helps to establish everybody's own view about the subject.

[Friedrich August I.]

....I'e often found that many wargamers have a tendency to just accept all the latest info that gets published especially if it contradicts past writing mainly because it's new it must be more accurate.
Cheers
Dave

That is exactly what I was thinking about the 'new' written history of nations of this time. In my case I find it often more then frustrating when writers of the 20th Century believe they are better researchers as those who have done it in the first place up to a century before them.
I dont see, i.e., Dan Schorrs work as my Bible because he puts his findings under consideration and often enough states that they are speculations.
This is a rare sentence.

Others just deny the existence of sources which the earliers writers used to get to their solution. I only say Saxon Artillery.

Before that goes to far from my side I stop myself.

[obriendavid]

I think, that there is a big problem with books about such obscure periods as WSS and GNW. It happens that some books by such noble authors as August Kuhn among others, are the only sources of informations about specific armies and because of lack of other publications we are not sure about it's reliability.
So every discussion about these books is warmly welcomed as it helps to establish everybody's own view about the subject.

If it wasn't for people like Angus and Pete Berry writing books and magazine articles back in the 90's about this very obscure war then most wargamers (at least in Britain) would never have heard about this interesting war so I for one am grateful for what they have produced.
Equally I am enjoying all the new research and discussion that is coming forward for this period.

[maciek]

If it wasn't for people like Angus and Pete Berry writing books and magazine articles back in the 90's about this very obscure war then most wargamers (at least in Britain) would never have heard about this interesting war so I for one am grateful for what they have produced.
Equally I am enjoying all the new research and discussion that is coming forward for this period.

I agree with words above and it wasn't my intension of stripping them of pride of being precursors. But let's not treat their books like Holy Bible. The only thing Tacitus did was to point some dubious entries in one of Mr. Konstam book.
If you visit Tacitus' wepgage you will find that he did an immense work of comparing all available informations about uniforms of GNW armies. Let's allow him to share his doubts about some books and listen to the author's reply.
It could only help us to determine the truth (or most probable version).

[obriendavid]

If you visit Tacitus' wepgage you will find that he did an immense work of comparing all available informations about uniforms of GNW armies. Let's allow him to share his doubts about some books and listen to the author's reply.
It could only help us to determine the truth (or most probable version).

Couldn't agree more! The work that Tacitus has put on his website is fantastic and much appreciated by me and is a valued addition to all the work produced by everyone else and my comments weren't to be taken that we shouldn't take a critical view of other peoples work.
Cheers
Dave

[Redmist1122]

Can someone share the link to Tacticus homepage?

Thanks you.

[Friedrich August I.]

Can someone share the link to Tacticus homepage?

Thanks you.

Here you go

http://www.tacitus.nu/index.html

[Tacitus]

These links will lead you more directly to the pages you are most interested in:

http://www.tacitus.nu/karoliner/slag/
http://www.tacitus.nu/karoliner/armeer/

But if we return to the original question of this thread so have I recieved some additional information about the Kropotov horse grenadiers.

In the book “Russkaja polevaja armija 1700-1730″ by K. V. Tatarnikov (2008) are Gavril Semenovich Kropotov's horse grenadiers reported to have had “temno-zelenych grenaderskich kaftanov” in 1709, which should be translated to dark green coats. The other Kropotov horse grenadier regiment is reported to have had just "green" coats as well as red breeches.

Tatarnikov mention that the name of the other regiment's Kropotov, which according to Nick Dorrell's website had G. Rozhnov as colonel from 1711, was Andrei Semenovich Kropotov. Vlad Velikanov has however written (in Russian) on his blog that the real name was Andrei Ivanovich Kropotov (who was killed in March 1709). The latter is the uncle to the former and someone has appearantly got them mixed up.

http://rusmilhist.blogspot.se/2012/07/blog-post_27.html

[turrabear]

fantastic site . great pity that it isn't in english. goggle translate is okay to an extent.

[Redmist1122]

Tacitus,
Doh! I have your page already saved in my favorites. I didn't make the connection...sorry about that. BTW - Great site, use it for GNW project.

Thanks again!