Re: Kropotov Horse Grenadiers.
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:47 am
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.
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 Admittedly, I do not know exactly what in your books (i.e. your GNW books) that are based on "outdated and unreliable" sources.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).
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 was only referring to the books covering the GNW-period.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!
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.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.
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).
As far as I know no one has criticised you for being slanted towards the Russian perspective.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.
Then, you should be pleased to know that I have bought five of your books.Then, even if he doesn't like them, at least I'll earn royalties from him!