League Of Augsburg - Fighting Talk

karamustafapasha wrote:.... The various Germans/Imperialists for example used different tactics. ...

Saxon Mounted Troop Tactics of this age were to do some sort of Caracolle from 1682 until "contacts" with the Swedes when they slowly learned it the hard way that this kind of mounted Warfare was outdated. Count Schulenburg invented a new drillbook 1702 - 1704 after which Cavalry was to attack in a 3 ranked linear formation with drawn swords.

A long answer would require me to quote several pages from several books, and I don't want to get into trouble with Barry..

The short answer would be that deep into the 17th century the Dutch had three types of cavalry: the mounted arquebusiers, the "common" curassiers and the "appointed curassiers", which after 1623 were put into different companies. Accoring to Col. Rtd. P. Forbes Wels, "De Nederlandse cavalerie" it was Grovestins who broke with the tradition to fire the pistols first and charge next.

Quite a character Grovestins, who had a magnificent carreer in the States' Army, in 1712 led a large raiding party deep in France to the Champagne region to enforce contribution.

Guys... happy with the jokes but it is for ALL of our protection. If we breach someone's IP or copyright here inadvertently even with the sole purpose of helping each other, we could easily be shut down and I could receive a writ of some sort. A way round the problem is to either PM each other or paraphrase the text. I'm all for us helping each other but not at the price of going to court!

Serious question Barry; are we allowed to use proper quotes as long as we source note it? For example:

I like shiny toy soldiers

Waterhouse, B - "Big book of Toy Soldiers" Ursus Publications, Vectis, 1893.

I think good old fashioned common sense should be the benchmark. I would be quite happy for someone to quote me or my work as long as they were not making any money out of it as the sole purpose. I cannot however speak for other authors or originators of material. The has been a degree of 'preciousness' here related to that which was not predictable. You may think that any publicity was good publicity, alas you would be wrong in that assumption. I am unsure why some people become so touchy about quoting from their work:

Copyright.. yup get that but if you are not lifting an entire work and are not making money out of it, then overprotective seems to be the watchword.
Otherwise, some authors, who of course make their money out of selling their books don't seem to be able to deal with people questioning their conclusions. The Bible is supposedly the word of God yet people question its truths, so where does that leave a book on how many men stood in lines, how far apart were the lines, what colour were their pants and did the have lace on their underwear or not. Bearing in mind none of the authors are 300 years old I would reckon a few questions were legit. I mean, what happened at the NoTW? Did anybody do it or not. That happened in the last 10 years and nobody can agree.

Keep me right boys and out of the claims courts.. apply common sense.

OK Boss!

Ray.

Whether you understand or agree with it Ray is neither here nor there. It's the law. As a regular user of the net you are able to determine whether an image is under copyright or not. If it says public domain it is not. Otherwise it is and you'll be in breach.