I completely agree that no historical work is error-free, mine included. Interestingly, Col Elting had published in a Napoleonic magazine/journal an errata sheet for Swords. It wasn't long, but it was interesting and I have seen few historians, if any, who have actually done that regarding their own works. Col Elting's remark regarding finding errors in your own book after publishing is more than apt-he said it was akin to finding a rattlesnake in one of your bureau drawers. I heartily agree.

Your choice of the two reviews from Amazon are interesting in that they are two of the most critical of the 32 that have been written and posted on Amazon. Why did you pick those two?

More interesting regarding those two reviews is that they have errors in them regarding Swords. That tends to invalidate the reviews. Additionally, both reviews are anonymous which makes them suspect and intimates that both might be from the same person.

The first review states that the book is far from 'flawless.' That is an accurate statement. However, no one has stated that it is flawless, so that is akin to a strawman argument. Further, the reviewer's opinion regarding Pigeard's work on the Grande Armee, which I also have, is opinion, not fact. I would submit that Swords is much more comprehensive as it covers the old Royal Army, the armies of the Revolution, and after Waterloo. Pigeard's books is valuable, but it isn't Swords. And that is my opinion having studied the period for over fifty years and spent many hours with Col Elting discussing the period.

The second review has errors in fact:

First, the second reviewer states that '...Elting claims that Baraguey-d'Hilliers division of dismounted dragoons arrived in time to save Dupont's infantry at the battle at Haslach on 11 October 1805 when there is overwhelming evidence that Baraquey's command never showed up.' That is incorrect. What is on page 237 of Swords regarding Dupont, Baraguay d'Hilliers and Haslach is 'The dismounted division-'wooden swords' was one of the army's kinder names for them-nevertheless proved useful. Until recently they had stood accused of giving way before Austrian cavalry and failing to defend the trains. In fact, the one French outfit pushed around was the supposedly first-rate infantry division of General Pierre A Dupont (a good man in a tight corner, but no hand for a sustained crisis), and Baraguay came up with his small mounted escort to help chop Dupont loose!' So, Col Elting made no 'claim' that the dismounted dragoon division arrived.

Second, this reviewer stated that 'For one, his claim that the 11th Legere was an outright failure after it was formed in 1811 is highly questionable.' That is a misrepresentation of what is in the book.
The following is on page 370 of Swords: 'In 1811 this battalion [the Tirailleurs do Po] the Corsicans [Tirailleurs Corse], and the valaison battalion were combined to reactivate the 11th Regiment d'Infanterie Legere. Those were all good organizations, but the 11th Legere was not considered a good regiment!'

Third, this reviewer stated that 'Elting criticizes other authors when they reference Thiebault's memoirs, even when a selected incident from those memoirs have corroborating witnesses or evidence, yet Elting uses Thiebault as source material for this work.' That is essentially accurate, but with the following caveat from Col Elting on page 735: 'I have used Thiebault with much caution...'

Misquoting and misrepresenting a book in a review suggests intellectual dishonesty on the part of the reviewer. So, I don't understand your posting in the long view of things, though it will undoubtedly delight the book's detractors.