Separating Fact from Fiction in Historical Writing: Popular Military History and How to Read It

 

Dear Reader,

Unlike many academic disciplines, military history, as well as political history and biography, have long contained writing targeted at a non-specialist audience. That is to say, people who are non-specialists (who did not obtain graduate degrees in the field they are writing in) author books targeted to appeal to the broad audience that military history garners. Often, these books are well written, but contain some factual or interpretive errors. So, today, I am setting out to give some brief guidelines that I use when evaluating a book, so that you can use your own best judgement when thinking about claims made by an author, or whether to spend your hard-earned on a book. 

This post is not a screed against writers without Ph.Ds. I have good friends outside the academic world who not only write history, but write history well. John U. Rees, the author of They were Good Soldiers, with Helion and Company, is a perfect example of this type of author. John has spent a lifetime as an amateur (one who works for the love of the subject) historian, and has learned more about the Continental Army of the American War of Independence than any specialist scholar I know. When you read John's work (and John is simply an example, there are many like him) it is clear from the copious quoted citations from original sources, that he has done the necessary footwork in research. 

I am increasingly concerned, however, that non-specialists make it difficult for professional historians to effectively challenge myths. In May of 2019, journalist and award-winning author Rick Atkinson gave a engaging talk at George Washington's Mount Vernon. In a hour of speaking, Atkinson held forth knowledgably on many topics. When he turned to the subject of combat during the American War of Independence, however, he began to falter. Atkinson asserted that, "Unlike modern war, killing is usually intimate, at very close range, face to face, often with the bayonet. That's partly because eighteenth-century muskets were mostly inaccurate beyond fifty yards and usually hopeless beyond one hundred yards."[1] Here, he paraphrases claims made in his book.[2] Readers of this blog will recall the various ways that these myths have been addressed, both here and in the published works of historians like Christopher Duffy. Atkinson then discusses the number of rounds necessary to hit an enemy soldier as evidence, despite the fact that the figure has only increased in modern warfare, despite the obvious increase in weapon accuracy.[3] 

Atkinson's stereotyping regarding eighteenth-century warfare is followed by Patrick K. O'Donnell, in his popular treatment of an elite Maryland regiment the Continental Army, Washington's Immortals. Like Atkinson, O'Donnell has written award-winning books on more recent military conflicts. O'Donnell summarizes infantry combat in the period as follows: 

Technology drove tactics. Because muskets were so inaccurate, troops practiced laying down concentrated fire in large numbers. Soldiers of the time lined up in rows, sometimes eight or ten ranks deep, and fired en masse, meaning that everyone in the front rank wo had a clear line of sight to the opposing side pulled his trigger at the same time. This massed fire improved the odds of hitting the enemy. 

As formidable as they sound, most of these volleys weren't very successful. "It was just possible for a good marksman to hit a man at 100 yards; a volley could be fired with some chance of obtaining hits on a mass of troops at 200 yards, but at 300 yards fire was completely ineffective." [4]  

O'Donnell clearly misleads the reader, as firing lines in the eighteenth-century were ranged between two and four ranks deep, and during the war he is discussing, two was the norm.[5]  

In Washington's Immortals, O'Donnell does not provide a reference for this quotation above. His more recent book, The Indispensables, reproduces this passage almost verbatim, and does source the quote. O'Donnell found this quote, likely in Michael Stephenson's Patriot Battles, a passable secondary work, who in turn, found it in Major General Basil Perronet Hughes 1974 work, Firepower: Weapon Effectiveness on the Battlefield, 163-1850. So, to review, O'Donnell has used a quote in his book, that was quoted in book from 2007, which in turn was quoting original material from 1974. In making strong claims about the accuracy of musketry and the range of firefights, which contradict the more recent scholarly assessments (Duffy, 1987), O'Donnell is fairly far removed from primary sources. 

Now, it might seem that I am picking on Atkinson and O'Donnell, both of whom are far more well-known than I will ever be, and who are the award-winning authors of many books. They are both excellent writers, and many of their books are outstanding. The trouble arises when these authors, who do not have formal historical training, having written many well-received books, begin to think that they can write in all periods of history with equal skill. The casual reader of military picks up these books, often cheaply, in paperback form, and assumes that because the author is well-known, and claims to be a historian, that they have done the necessary research and know what they are talking about. This, naturally, perpetuates myths asserted when non-specialists use older secondary works to frame their perspectives. 

What I hope to do in the remainder of this post, then, is provide a checklist that the casual reader of military history can use to evaluate the abundant works of popular history which they might find at the local bookstore. 

A somewhat worn copy of Dr. Matthew Spring's
With Zeal and With Bayonets Only shows Notes and a Bibliography

1. Survey the Contents. 

A necessary first step for anyone who seeks to judge a book by more than its cover. Open the book to the "table of contents" page. In addition to the listed chapters,  is their an endnote section, or a bibliography, or even a "suggested further readings" section. If the book has all of these things, regardless of who the author is, or who the publishing house might be, it is apparent that the author has at least tried to provide an apparatus for where the reader can evaluate their claims based on evidence. 

The Publication Page (Left) for Dr. Andrew Bamford's 
Sickness, Suffering and the Sword promisingly shows 
a university press affiliation, as well as a recent publication date

2. Look at the Publication Information 

Almost all books have a page, usually opposite of the table of contents, which list of information about the work. Look at this page briefly, with a few things in mind. Where was the book published? If it came out with a university press, you can be fairly certain that the book has undergone a peer-review process, that is, the chapters of the book have been scrubbed the author's personal information, and reviewed by at least one, and often multiple, other historians who specialize in this area. This is not a fool-proof answer for problems, academic historians make mistakes and can be wrong. Secondly, look for when the book was published: books which were published, broadly, after 1960, began to be subjected to much more rigorous scholarly review and quotes and claims are more likely to be footnoted with primary-source evidence. 

In his 1812: March to Moscow, Paul Austin provides a bibliography
and notes,but his quotations are uncited, a potential headache. 

By contrast, in Military Experience of the Age of Reason, 
Christopher Duffy provides large quotes and in-text citations

3. Leaf through a few pages 

Starting from your place at the publication information, select four or five pages, at random, from the main chapters of the book. Examine each page. Are there quotes? Do these quotes have citations? Are their citations for more than just the quoted material? Are there footnotes at the bottom of the page? If there are uncited quotations, that is a potential warning sign. If none of the pages you randomly select have footnotes or in-text citations, that is a potential warning sign. 

In his introduction, Dr. Andrew Bamford is referencing
historiography and giving footnotes: a promising sign. 

4. Engagement with Historiography

At this point, I am sure some of my readers eyes are beginning to glaze over. How well an author connects with historiography, or the collected works of historical literature on a specific topic, can give you valuable information. First of all, referencing other arguments that have been made demonstrates that the author of the book you are holding has read widely, and is not unnecessarily covering ground that other historians have already trod. 

The opening of the Bibliography of Thomas Chavez's 
Spain and the Independence of the United States
shows primary sources that have been subdivided by type

5. Examine the Bibliography or Notes 

In this step, judge how much material the author has collected. Specifically, you should hope to find collections of both primary and secondary sources. Primary sources (quotations from the period being studied) are very valuable. A good work of history will often list these sources separately, and even break down primary sources and secondary sources into sub-categories: Archival Material, Publish Primary Sources, Periodicals, Unpublished Dissertations, etc. 

The author blurb for The British are Coming 

6. Think about the qualifications of the Author

By now, you will already have some sense of the level of expertise that the author has brought to bear on their subject. With that said, it may still be helpful to examine their stated qualifications. Did they go to graduate school for their topic? Have they held a long-term interest in the topic, or have they mostly published in other fields? None of these questions should cause you to dismiss the book out of hand, which is why I place this criteria last: it is probably the least important. 

Armed with this guide, I hope you have the resources necessary to evaluate the quality of your reading material, on whatever your topic may be. Historians of various backgrounds should be able to write their books for a wide audience, but make sure that they are adequately supporting the claims that they make. By finding works which do so, you can better equip yourself for whatever you hope to obtain from your library. 

If you enjoyed this post, or any of our other posts, please consider liking us on facebook, or following us on twitter. Consider checking out our exclusive content on Patreon. Finally, we are dedicated to keeping Kabinettskriege ad-free. In order to assist with this, please consider supporting us via the donate button in the upper right-hand corner of the page. As always:

Thanks for Reading, 

Alex Burns

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Quote comes from Atkinson's lecture, available on youtube, at 31:00 minutes.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFKmvgF6vG0

[2] Rick Atkinson, The British are Coming, 62. 

[3] https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-28580666.html

[4] Patrick K. O'Donnell, Washington's Immortals, 29. 

[5] James Scudieri, "The Continentals: A Comparative Analysis of a late eighteenth-century standing Army." Unpublished Dissertation, City University of New York, 1993. 203-204 

Historical Events and the Passage of Time

Yep. This is what I want to be.

Dear Readers,


I recently received the question:
"As an historian, do you believe that the passage of time provides greater clarity on historical events? I've always been under the impression that there's a "sweet spot" of clarity that occurs anywhere from immediately after a major historical event, to perhaps a generation or two later, after which it gets over-analyzed, dissected, and distorted. What's your take on that?"

This is a really great question, and I thought that you readers here on Kabinettskriege might be interested. How does the passage of time effect our perception of what really happened in the past? 

For the moment, let us take look at a non-Kabinettskriege era event which occurred within relatively recent historical memory: World War One. How did World War One start? 

If you asked someone in 1915 (a year after the start of the war,) the answer probably would be, "the enemy started it." Thus, a close temporal position to the event does not necessarily give a better look at the event, rather, it makes the people looking at the event more biased. 

If you asked someone in 1943, who started World War One, the answer, in non-German parts of the world, would be, "the Germans." This is because the Germans started the Second World War, and most of the world blamed them for the start of the First World War as well. 

Oddly enough, as the 20th century wore on, American scholars began to blame the Russians for World War One, as, after all, they had undergone a full mobilization before any of the other powers. The reason for this is clear-Russia and America were now enemies. 

Thus, historical interpretations continue to change, even after the people who are involved in the events are long dead. Every generation looks at the past with their own historical lens. Thus, when I look at World War One, what I see is different from someone who will live fifty years in the future. 

 In popular perception, there may be a sweet spot in understanding, and I would argue that it takes about a hundred years to arrive at this point. We are fast approaching the hundredth anniversary of World War One, and I think that we may never understand the First World War better than we do now. The reason is, we no longer have living members who experienced the event around to cloud the picture with their biases, so in this example, we realize that most of the European nations actively contributed to the World War One crisis.  

However, the professionalization of history allows us to understand many parts of the past better than we have in previous generations. While the popular perception of history may become more mythic as time passes, (for example, the almost God-like qualities which most Americans see in the founding fathers) scholarly professional opinion allows for a, "sweet spot," of understanding to continue. In the example of the founding fathers, the current historiography of the American Revolution allows us to better understand groups which have been previously ignored, such as women, slaves, and Native Americans. 

Now, moving on to the claims of over-analysis. This is indeed a problem of American history. That is one of the reasons why many professional American historians are calling for a "synthesis," of history. Books such as Alan Taylor's American Colonies, and Daniel Walker Howe's What Hath God Wrought, are moving us back towards a, "sweet spot," in understanding the past, by incorporating the various arguments into a narrative, and updating previous historical knowledge with new arguments. This allows us to retain past understanding, while bringing to light new documentation, which may slightly alter our way of looking at the past. 

Thus, returning to our World War One example, we have reached a measured consensus where we realize that all parties were at fault, although some might be more at fault than others. However, this consensus can still be updated by professional historians who seek to examine smaller facets of the war, such as the role of women, or the role of the minor Balkan states. Those ideas can then be re-incorporated into the body of knowledge via a large, "synthesis," style history.

In essence, popular understanding of a past event reaches a sweet spot a few generations after the event, while academic historians seek to preserve and improve upon that sweet spot with new research, and then add their new research into the collective understanding. In addition, this research allows us to see how each generation perceives historical events, as a result of their circumstances.

Thanks for Reading,

Alex

"Popular" History: The reenactor, the wargamer, and the professional historian

A picture of the Regiment von Reidesel, taken shamelessly from their Facebook page

Dear Reader,


I have been thinking a lot about the role of the historian lately. It is my heart's desire to be a traditional professional historian/college professor. Specifically, my field of interest, (as you might have guessed, reading this blog) is military history of the Kabinettskriege period. (Unsure of what Kabiettskriege means? click here for an explanation.)

In the first post of this blog, I claimed that the warfare of the Kabinettskriege era should not be the exclusive domain of hobbyists and enthusiasts. This is my opinion, not because there is anything wrong with the hobbies associated with warfare, but because the past is a different country, and it requires research from professional historians to understand the past, and make that understanding available to the public.

The more I read, and the more I travel to historical events, the more apparent it is that there is a rift between professional historians, and historical impressionists, such as reenactors and wargamers. (For an interesting post about this, see the blog of historian Paul Lockhart.)

I mean, come on, who doesn't want to play with these guys?

Historians' complaints about Reenactors/Wargamers:

There are three common complaints I hear from historians about those in the historical hobby community.

The first complaint is that they are doing more harm then good by repeating historical myths to the public. This complaint is a legitimate concern. Despite an excellent monograph stating to the contrary, people still claim that "Baron" von Steuben was not a member of the nobility. While he wasn't a "baron" in the tradition sense (the German word is Freiherr), he was a member of the Prussian aristocracy, a sort of noble middle manager. History is incredibly complex, and the subtleties are often lost in wargaming and reenacting.

The second complaint is that reenactors (and wargamers) often claim to be historians, when they don't have the training or the intelligence to actually be historians. One definition of an historian, from the Princeton online dictionary is: "A person who is an authority about history, and studies and writes about it." In my experience, reenactors and wargamers usually meet two of the requirements: they study the past and are regarded by the general population as authorities on history.

Finally, and most worryingly in my opinion, reenactors and wargamers seemingly glorify war and violence. This is especially concerning when examining more modern reenactors, such as World War 2 reenactors. However, with that being said, the reenactors and wargamers I know realize that the past was awful. Dying on an eighteenth century battlefield would have been one of the most horrific things imaginable. With this in mind, what is the right response? Ban reenactments? wargames? non-accurate historical films?

Dr. Christopher Duffy lecturing at a wargame convention

A change in tactics is the answer:

I view myself as a professional historian: someone who makes the acquiring and distribution of historical knowledge into a career. Most reenactors or wargamers might say that they are historians, but they would never claim to be making a career out of being an historian. (Unless of course, they were also professional historians.)

I think that professional historians are looking at reenactors and wargamers entirely the wrong way. As opposed to viewing them as an annoyance, or as the perverters of the past, we should attempt to come alongside reenactors and other historical hobbyists. They are an incredible opportunity-they are fun, interesting, and their activities are exciting-everything we lack as historians.

The reenactment and wargaming community has a wide base: much wider than the readership of historical monographs. Reenactors and wargamers give professional historians a chance to reach the general public. If they are telling the public about non-factual events, it is our responsibility to get the right information into the hands of these historical enthusiasts.

Historical hobbyists are NOT our enemies-and they have the potential to become our allies. Dr. Christopher Duffy has been taking this approach for a long time, by coming to the Seven Years' War convention in South Bend, Indiana. If more historians followed his example, perhaps there would not be such a disconnect between professional historians and historical hobbyists.

The fact of the matter is, history is not interesting to most people. Declining numbers in history departments around the country tell us this. We can only appeal to the mind through writing. Reenactors are historians of the senses, the give us the sight, smell sound and touch of history. When combined with historical writing, this can help the general public to better understand the past. It also allows us to sell more books- never a bad thing.

Sorry, this one got a bit long. More on the actual Kabinettskriege period to come.

Thanks for reading,

Alex Burns

If you liked this post, let me know in the comments below! Feel free to follow the blog. Its free, and lets me know that you enjoy what I'm doing-basically the only reason I write this thing.