|
|
by Jean Lochet
Editor-in-Chief
 |
We were all quite pleased with the way EE&L #7 came out. Dana Lombardy and Ron Ellis have done a fantastic job in enhancing the different articles by adding that little something extra in design that makes a big difference.
A year ago - and it seems like yesterday - we were anxiously waiting like new parents for
the first issue of the new format EE&L to come off the press. And now we are already at work
on issue #9, and are actively projecting the contents of many future issues, working hard on
improving the content and look of the magazine.
In the past seven issues we have covered quite a number of subjects in depth without
becoming so technical that anyone but a hard-core military historian would be lost. Previously,
many of these subjects had scarcely been covered or had been totally ignored by historical or
wargame magazines. And it's only the beginning. Our quest to discover the archival truth will go on. Like it or not, truth sometimes appears to be different in the eyes of the historians of different nationalities and of different eras. That is nothing new. We are reminded of the famous quotation: "History is a set of lies agreed upon by historians." Well, by going back to primary sources as we so often do, unfortunately, it's obvious that there is some accuracy in that statement!
To our great surprise and, despite the many articles written in the old and new EE&L, the
controversy on the tactical use of lines versus columns is still going on. There is a full spectrum of opinions, ranging from the strict adherence to Sir Charles Oman's theory to milder versions such as the ones outlined by Paddy Griffith in EE&L #3 in his article, "The Problem of Nationalism in Military History."
Oman was the great historian of the Peninsular War, and his seven volume history remains
an invaluable source today. He based his theories on musket counting, i.e., a two deep line of
British soldiers could bring more muskets to bear in a firefight than could a nine deep column of French infantry. Using this simple equahon, much was assumed on the superiority of British line over French column. Paddy Griffith, on the other hand, argued persuasively that it was a lot more complicated and subtle than such a mechanistic cause, and theorized that the British line did not rely on firepower much of the time, relying instead on a volley and a cheer before charging.
In this issue, we present an article by Charles Steenrod, also touching on this controversy
and the problem of nationalistic bias in history, called "Line Versus Column: Griffith versus
Bowden." This will probably produce even more debate for future issues. We intend to present
all the different points of view whenever possible, and whenever we receive documented articles
on these subjects. We look forward to your contributions.
Along these lines, we are already actively gathering materials for EE&L #12, which will be
a special issue about Waterloo on the occasion of the 180th anniversary of that decisive battle. We intend to examine all the forces involved, including the often ignored Prussians whose vital part in the campaign made Wellington's victory possible.
In the last issue we started our series on the Six Days Campaign of 1814 in France. In this
issue the Battle of Champaubert is described. We are trying to objectively present the French,
Russian, and Prussian accounts of the battles. Champaubert is the first battle of the Six Days, and was the only one in which Napoleon enjoyed numerical superiority. Speaking of nationalistic
bias, take a look at Mikhailofsky's criticism of Blucher.
Of course, there are many more interesting articles in EE&L #8, so read on!
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. |