Who ‘put forth’ Langeron ‘as an authority on Russian artillery and tactics?’
]Mr Kiley, with regard to your query on the above noted, it would appear you sir are the champion of Langeron on this particular point on this site. The fair question was posted to you ,How would Langeron or Wilson know about Russian artillery training compared to other nations?’
your reply....[b].By first-hand observation. Langeron was a Russian officer of long service. Wilson was with the Russian army as an observer for quite some time. And, yes, it is their opinion which is why it was posted. And the author who referred to Langeron’s opinion on the Russian artillery used mostly Russian references for his book.
Of course not, you are correct service as a dragoon would certainly give one the ability to identify artillery and avoid it as much as possible. To have the ability to observe and and analyze the quality and ability of the artillery arms of a foreign nation, I submit would be done with significantly more credence by one who had received the blended specialized curriculium of the artillery and engineering. Since there is little evidence that Langeron attended specialized schools of artillery in place in Russia or France and other nations where he travelled, one will have to assume he relied on his talents as a generalist and as an author where he learned his apprentice in London. Granted he was an interesting man in an interesting time.
Service as a dragoon, however, does not negate any artillery ability.
Langeron was more than qualified to comment on officer education.
Why was he more than qualified, meaning the word more? His own education was not remarkable or unique unless you forgot to mention it.
"Louis XVI's championing of a decree requiring that all officer candidates have 4 generations of noble ancestry and submit original documents to prove it, a move that depended the already strong dissensions among French officers. Bourcet's insistemce that candidates for the staff corps must past the examinations and undergo a probationary period was most unacceptable to the haute noblesse. Gilded high born youth has always considered prestigious staff positions its natural perogative." Swords around the Crown, P.8 Col John R. Elting This is is apartheid, which means essentially separatness or discrimination on the grounds of noble birth. I
What is ‘aristocratic apartheid?’
True, that is why the sentence began with Many of these young aristocrats. I did not suggest or assume All of these young aristocrats. Etling noted Marmot to be a ""imaginative, energetic young would-be aristocrat" P249 Swords Around the Crowns...
Napoleon was a young aristocrat and chose the artillery. He did quite well for himself. Marmont was another young aristocrat who chose the artillery arm.
The French engineers were a comparative new formation which did not manage a definite divorce from artillery until 1758 when they were officially designated the Royal Corp of Engineers. After their separation, the curriculum of the engineer and artillery and their required knowledge became more specialized to be sure, but with a sound and common base.(referenced from Swords around the Crown P.267
What is a ‘blended curriculum?’
The cold fact is that Russian artillery officers of the period were poorly educated and that there was no Russian artillery education being offered from 1800-1806/08. That put the Russian artillery under a severe handicap.
Pls refer to other posts on this subject. Seems to me, you are putting yourself under a severe handicap by maintaining this unsupportable and bias dogma. I can only assume you have been incomplete in your inquiries with regard to the quality and quantity of education received by Russian artillery officers and the long standing and existing system supporting them. I have noted on this site, published and unpublished and informed individuals that might be helpful to you in acquiring information should you wish.