A Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars by Vincent J Esposito and John R Elting
14 illustrations; 169 full-page color maps, 13 x 10*
* Large color maps show the course of each campaign. Complemented by a full narrative history
"A superb historical atlas that is a seminal work and provides a comprehensive overview of the battles and campaigns between 1796 and 1815. The 169 maps chart the course of twelve crucial campaigns including Marengo, Austerlitz, and Borodino. It illustrates Napoleon's concept of war, his grasp of strategy, and his complete mastery of battlefield tactics.
Vincent J. Esposito was professor and head of the Department of Military Art and Engineering at West Point from 1956-1963. Colonel John R. Elting is the foremost expert on Napoleon's Grande Armee."
Col Elting taught the senior course, History of the Military Art for eleven years at West Point and ended his tour there as an associate professor.
@david Tomlinson The quotations were from the article. And I have no 'war on an eminent historian, etc,' That statement/accusation is way over the top and in grossly inaccurate.
The bottom line is that I believe that the point of the subject article was not proven or demonstrated which a thorough review of the resource material clearly demonstrated. I went through and over the main points made in the article from the source material used in the article and my conclusion is that the point was not proven. I consulted the references used in the article, found what was used for 'evidence' and do not agree.
I've misrepresented nothing. You keep bringing up the subject and perhaps that should stop, especially if you don't like the replies you're getting.
And your 'invitation' is ridiculous on its face. I have said nothing derogatory about anyone personally, merely have stated disagreement with the conclusions in the article. That is called historic review.
I stopped answering your postings for awhile purposely because you tend to accuse inaccurately what you don't agree with. Perhaps I resumed responding prematurely.
Is this the 'window of opportunity' to which you refer?
'When, without any personal examination, the psychiatrist renders a clinical opinion about a historical figure, these limitations [as presented above] must be clearly acknowledged. Moreover, labelling public figures cavalierly with psychiatric conditions, based on limited or indirect clinical knowledge is not consistent with this approach and undermines public trust in the profession of psychiatry...In some circumstances, such as academic scholarship about figures of historical importance, exploration of psychiatric issues (not diagnostic conclusions) may be reasonable provided that it has a sufficient evidence base and is subject to peer review and academic scrutiny based on relevant standards of scholarship.'
All well and good. It seems that the term 'not diagnostic conclusions' should include the title of the article 'A Damning Diagnosis...' Therefore, it cannot be a 'diagnosis' although that seems exactly what is being done.