"Best general history/biography on Napoleon" Topic

I think Brigada is making the distinction between historical accuracy and literary accuracy b/c some are arguing that it makes no difference.

There are plenty of historical books out there that provide an excellent service for what they are, but are not foot-noted or don't use bibliographies in the correct way, or don't analyse or ….

Case in point – the Blandford series. OK, the information is now dated and probably perpetuates myths. They aren't foot-noted and don't carry analysis. But they're still history books, and some of the best ones round, not because they're accurate, but because of their inspiring artwork and their sufficient basic info (whether dated or not) for the casual enthusiast's purposes.

Any films qualify?

Doug

His last post refers only to those writing history. It makes no reference to literature. So again, the post I referred to is basically stating the obvious.

I think Brigada was making the argument that there is a distinction, i.e. a difference, between "writing history" and "writing well". The former needs historical accuracy, while the latter needs literary accuracy.

Surely a writer/historian should be trying to 'write history well', if they want people to read their work and share their knowledge?

But I think good authors, or perhaps those most of us consider as good authors, and we probably all differ on that, not only provide us with as accurate information as possible, but also try to make the reading of it enjoyable. To do that they have to write well, as well as writing history. An example being books people can't put down and want to keep reading.

Sure, I'll accept that. So long as the writer is able to maintain the distinction between the accuracy of their historical information and the accuracy of their literary information.

@Bottom Dollar,

I am afraid I don't understand what is meant by historical accuracy and literary accuracy. In simple terms I take the view that the role of the historian, 'academic' or otherwise, is to inform. In doing so they should be as thorough as possible in their research, as transparent in their analysis of the information and with as little bias as it is humanly possibly to achieve. Nothing else matters. If they can write well too that is icing on the cake.

If they cannot achieve the other things then it doesn't matter how good their prose is, their research will be incomplete, their analysis will be shallow and their conclusions will be innacurate and probably biased, and the reader will be misinformed.

Bill

@ XV Brigada,

If the accurate conveyance of information is what we are talking about here, then historical accuracy has to do with the accurate conveyance of information on people and events from the past. Literary accuracy has to do with the accurate conveyance of information through the written language. The latter has do with forms and the former has to do with facts.

Jim

A clearly biased document is a window into the past just as much as XV Brigada's transparent list of facts and dates.

It certainly offers different information that a roster or a journal entry, but it can inform the reader/analyst/scholar who's willing to do the work.

It does require more knowledge of the past for comparison, though, as can be seen in this thread and others where the original author's biases must be determined to truly know why they wrote what they did.

But if you can't appreciate a blatantly jingoistic book like Yosaburo Takegoshi's "The Story of the Wako, Japanese Pioneers in the Southern Regions", written in Japan in 1940 about the 'heroic efforts of Japanese pioneers' bringing civilization to the south pacific islands and southeast asia, just like the famous Wako of the 15th and 16th centuries did, well… you just aren't trying.

It's chock-full of racist and nationalistic propaganda, a perfect example of the genre, and a window into Japanese thinking that no roster will give you.

I'm sure any of the regulars here can give you similar examples for Napoleonic history.

‘Jomini, Chief of Staff to [Ney] has deserted…He is not worth much as a soldier; however, as a writer he has gotten hold of some sound ideas on war.'
-Napoleon, 16 August 1813.

The following is taken from Napoleon and the Grande Armee in Russia Or A Critical Examination of Count Philip de Segur's Work By General Gourgaud.

Gourgaud is not only refuting the material offered by de Segur, but he also puts Jomini in his proper place at the Berezina.

‘Jomini, Chief of Staff to [Ney] has deserted…He is not worth much as a soldier; however, as a writer he has gotten hold of some sound ideas on war.'
-Napoleon, 16 August 1813.

The following is taken from Gourgaud's Introduction to his book which is a refutation of de Segur's work on the Russian campaign. Gourgaud was the senior officier d'ordonnance on the Emperor's personal staff, and was a trusted and skilled staff officer. Napoleon had two sets of aides-de-camps. The first were general officers, called either Imperial Aides-de-Camps or Generals Aides-de-Camps. Each of those were specialists in their branch of the service and were capable of a myriad of duties from commanding a corps d'armee to a task force on the battlefield, to minor diplomatic missions. The officiers d'ordonnance were a ‘junior' type of aide-de-camp who functioned, more or less, the same way an aide-de-camp to a general officer would. Gourgaud was in charge of this group of staff officers and was privy to decisions made on the Imperial staff and by Napoleon. He personally knew the senior officers on the Imperial Staff, from Berthier through the adjutants commandants, and when on a mission he spoke in the Emperor's name.

‘The dominant opinion of Count de Segur manifests itself from the first chapter. He wishes to show Napoleon filled with the vast project of remaining sole master of Europe. He is little concerned, whether by this imputation he echoes the superficial and malevolent spirits who have judged a great man after his fall, or of enemies, who during his reign, employed it as an instrument for his overthrow. He is sure to please the former, and not to displease the latter. He flatters party spirit and contemporary mediocrity; he will be read, he will be praised.''

‘This is not all. After having shown so great, so universal a genius, rushing wantonly into a ridiculous enterprise, he attempts to prove, that if success did not crown his rashness, it was caused by the untimely decline of his health; and, that the great, was nothing but an ambitious man, who had grasped more than his physical strength could retain.'

‘As to his plan, we flatter ourselves we can demonstrate that he has none-that he writes almost at random, mingling facts and bringing them together without connection or order; confounding the affairs of one epoch with those belonging to antoher; disdaining to justify his accusations or eulogies; adopting without examination, and without that critical spirit so necessary to the historian, the false judgments of prejudice, of rivalry or of enmity, and the exaggerations of spite or bad feeling; attributing actions to some, and language to others, incompatible with their stations and characters; never quoting any witness but himself, nor better authority than his own assertions.'

‘He repeatedly mingles political and military matters. Who has revealed politics to him? Unacquainted with affairs, having never approached, either the cabinet, the councils or officers of state, with whom his duty at headquarters gave him no connection, whence has he drawn his documents? From the pamphlets or conversations of Napoleon's detractors.'

‘In relation to military facts in the work we are to examine, they are confined to a succession of unexact recitals, of pictures without truth, of little anecdotes, for the most part forged, or frequently literally copied from some writings, which have almost uniformly been dictated by a spirit of malevolence.'

‘Without doubt it would be unjust to demand of Count de Segur, in relation to military matters, what he has not given in his book. The rank of general he has indeed, but where did he acquire the experience of one? All his grades were received while discharging civil offices, to which the usage of the palace has consecrated epaulettes and embroidery…'
-Gourgaud, 7-8.

The following is an excerpt from Gourgaud's account of the Berezina operation and attention should be paid to how he explains Jomini's involvement (Jomini's account makes him important-unfortunately, Jomini was all mouth and not much substance and was one of those who might wear a uniform for years and never actually become a soldier). Of the two accounts of the Russian campaign, de Segur's and Gourgaud's, the latter's is the more honest and reliable and it is noteworthy that after Gourgaud read de Segur's ‘version' of history, he called him out and wounded him in a duel. De Segur had the old soldier's affliction of ‘remembering with advantages' as, according to the Bard, Henry V once said. If you compare de Segur's version of the charge of the Polish Light Horse at Somosierra (in which de Segur participated and was wounded) with Niegelewski's (who was the sole officer of the 3d Squadron, that made the charge, that actually reached the top of the pass with about half of the squadron) there are great discrepancies and de Segur's is once more the less reliable. I highly recommend Gourgaud's work and while de Segur's should be read, it should be read while ingesting a number of salt pills.

‘M. de Segur supposes that the Emperor, on his arrival at Orsha, was uncertain of the route he ought to pursue; he makes him call a council, in which General Jomini is conspicuous. It may be well to remark, that this general did not hold such a rank in the army as to entitle him to be called to a council. He was, at the time, only commandant of the little town of Orsha. If Napoleon had asked information from him, it would have been solely on account of his office, and to learn what resources were to be found in this city. Our historian attributes a plan to the Emperor, in order that he may make General Jomini oppose it. Napoleon never declared, ‘that he meant to abandon his line of operations on the Minsk, unite with the Dukes of Belluno and Reggio, cut his way through Wittgenstein's army, and regain Vilna, by turning round the sources of the Berezina.''

If he had entertained this project, and had demanded the opinion of General Jomini, that officer ought to have added to the reasons he offered, that in maneuvering thus, Tshitshagov would arrive from Minsk at Vilna, long before the French army. Buit the whole project, and the council, are refuted by the Emperor's orders, dated Dubrovna the 18th and 19th November 1812.'

‘By his letter of the 18th, to the Major General [Berthier], he gives him the following orders: ‘Write to the governor of Minsk that I will be at Orsha tomorrow; let him know that I have ordered the II Corps, with a division of cuirassiers, and a jundred pieces of cannon, commanded by the Duke of Reggio, to march as speedily as possible, and by the direct road, to Borisov, to make sure of this important post; and from thence to march to Minsk. In the mean time, General Dombrowski will reach this place with his division, and will observe the motions of the corps at Minsk. Recommend to him to send messengers to the Duke of Bassano and Prince Schwartzenberg, and to write to you frequently.'

In a letter of the next day, at three o'clock in the morning, the Prince of Neufchatel wrote to the Duke of Belluno: ‘The Emperor will arrive at Orsha today at noon; it is necessary, Marshal, that you should take post nearer to Borisov, Vilna, and Orsha, than the enemy's army. Endeavor to mask the movement of the Duke of Reggio, and induce a belief, on the contrary, that the Emperor is advancing on General Wittgenstein, a movement natural enough. The intention of HM is to march to Minsk, and when he is master of this city, to take the line of the Berezina, &c.'

‘In this pretended council, M. de Segur makes Jomini act a ridiculous part. ‘He then stated that he knew of a road to the right of that town (Borisov) constructed on wooden bridges, passing through the marshes of Lithuania.' According to him, it is the only road which would conduct the army to Vilna, by Zembin and Molodezno. This discovery could not have required much topographical knowledge in General Jomini, as it is indicated on all the maps, and known to all the Polish officers of the Emperor's staff. The wagon masters of the regiments of the II Corps returned by this road from Vilna.'

‘In this short exposition, the true value of the succeeding details may be appreciated, and it may be supposed that General Dode had not much difficulty in dissuading the Emperor from a maneuver, which, as we have just seen, he had no intention of executing.'

‘Another error of M. de Segur is the order he says was given to ‘General Ellees, to take eight companies of sappers and pontonniers, to secure the passage of the Berezina, and General Jomini to act as a guide.' On the 19th the Emperor was at Orsha; the bridge of Borisov was taken possession of by the enemy till the evening of the 21st. Thus it was not at Orsha, as the author states, but on the 24th, at Bobr, that the Emperor sent of General Ellees.
-Gourgaud, 233-235

The subject order was from Berthier to Eble on 24 November 1812. It should also be noted that the ford over the Berezina was found by General Corbineau at Studenka which is where Napoleon made the decision to cross after the loss of the Borisov bridge to the Russians.

Finally, it is quite apparent from Gourgaud's account that Jomini played little, if any, role in the crossing and fighting at the Berezina. He was, in fact, nothing more than one of the ‘bridge crossers' who did not contribute to the success of the operation.

K

10th Marines,

It sounds like there's a lot of literary and political quibbling going on in those passages, and perhaps a good deal of concealment. Napoleon's endorsement of Jomini's writing stands out though. A crappy officer who knew what he was writing about.

Jim

10th Marines,

"Gourgaud is not only refuting the material offered by de Segur"
Well, yes – that was exactly my point.
The général comte de Ségur and général Dode (both surely at the relevant meeting, both nobles, both roylists after 1814) said one thing and the (then) capitaine Gourgaud (possibly at the meeting, not noble, die hard Bonapartiste) said much the opposite about Jomini's contribution.
I linked to the text that you copy/pasted into your post. Do you think it is generally better to copy/paste instead of linking ?
As for the "proper place" for Jomini, I think we can each decide for ourselves after the reading the original sources and don't need anyone to tell us what to think.

"on the Russian campaign. Gourgaud was the senior officier d'ordonnance on the Emperor's personal staff, and was a trusted and skilled staff officer …. officiers d'ordonnance were a ‘junior' type of aide-de-camp …. Gourgaud was in charge of this group of staff officers"
Since you seem to like to tell us "the facts", let's try to be a little more fact-based about the (then) capitaine Gourguad's actual service record ….
-- born 1783
-- student at the Ecole Polytechnique 1799
-- sous-lieutenant 1800, at artillery school
-- lieutenant en 2e d'artillerie 1801, 7e régiment d'artillerie à pied
-- transferred to the 6e régiment d'artillerie à cheval 1803
-- aide de camp to général de brigade Louis-François Foucher de Careil in 1804
-- made the campiagn of 1805 with général Foucher, who commanded the artillery of the Ve Corps (Lannes)
-- lieutenant en 1er 1806
-- chevalier de la Légion d'honneur 1807
-- capitaine 1808, returned to the 6e régiment d'artillerie à cheval
-- served at Eckmuhl, Essling and Wagram in 1809
-- assigned to the Versailles factories in 1810
-- sent to survey Danzig's fortifications in 1811
-- appointed an officer d'ordonnance in the Imperial "Maison" July 1811, but continued his survey work of the fortifications at Aunis, Saintonge, the île d'Aix and the straits of Maumusson
-- called to the headquarters in 1812, arriving to attend the Emperor's person at the Dresden congress in June, and continuing to serve here through the remainder of the year.

Gourgaud was promoted chef d'escadron, titled a baron of the Empire and given the position (created for him at that time) of premier officer d'ordonnance only at the end of the retreat. He was not "in charge of" anything at the headquarters or general staff until then.

As of Novemebr 1812, Gourgaud had served at the general headquarters, in attendence on Napoléon's person as an ordonnance, for 5 months. His prior expposure to staff operations had been restricted to being a lieutenant aide-de-camp to the artillery general of a corps. Whether or not this made him a "skilled staff officer" in Novemebr 1812 I believe is open to question.

Gourgaud was not the most senior of the ordonnances in 1812. Gourgaud did become the most senior when promoted chef d'escadron while being retained among the ordonnances. Previously, upon promotion above capitaine, an ordonnance was re-assigned.
link
link
link

I am sure some knowledge of the original sources and the actual service records of the various witnesses will help you evaluate your modern secondary source material with greater care. I am pleased to have had the chance to share this information with you, as your prior posts show that you knew very little or none of it.

Amicalement.

10th Marines,

Oh dear, I seem to have missed another of your little zingers in amongst your big copy/paste. I am sorry I did not notice this before.

You have written,
"Gourgaud was in charge of this group of staff officers [sic – not true actually] and was privy to decisions made on the Imperial staff and by Napoleon …. and when on a mission he spoke in the Emperor's name."

On the other hand ….

"Les officiers d'état-major, qui ne constituent pas un corps autonome, les officiers d'ordonnance, les aides de camp, ne font que recevoir et porter les ordres du maître."
L'ABCdaire de Napoléon et l'Empire
Jean Tulard
Paris : Flammarion, 1998, page 203
link
My translation:
The officers of the headquarters, who did not constitute a separate arm of service, the ordonnance officers, the staff aides – all did nothing but receive and carry the orders of the master.

"Les officiers d'ordonnace sont employés, principalement en temps de guerre, près des généraux en activité, comme aides de camp postiches ou officers d'état-major supernumaires; ils font des courses, tiennent le bureau, transcrivent les ordres …. Napoléon n'en avait eu que trieze, et [de 1813] le premier seul était chef d'escadron."
Dictionnaire de l'armée de terre
Etienne Alexandre Bardin
Paris : Perrotin, 1841
link
My translatio:
Ordonnance officers are employed, principally in wartime, with actively serving generals, as temporary staff aides or staff officers above complement; they do errands, manage the paperwork, transcribe orders …. Napoleon having had no more than 13, and [from 1813] only the first a Squadron Leader.

Tulard and Bardin seem a little hard on the officers d'ordonnance of the Emperor. They certainly also did some inspections (Gourgaud himself looked over some fortification, and the capitaine comte de Montmorency was sent to check on the penal battalions being organized at the île de Ré in 1811, as was also told to count the nearby shore batteries)
For the comte de Montmorency's assignment, one can see the Correspondence:
link

How this makes an ordonnance "a trusted and skilled staff officer" or in any way similar to the experienced générals serving as Napoléon's own aides de camp (Rapp, Lauriston, Lebrune, Mouton, Durosnel, Narbonne-Lara, etc.) remains unclear.

-- Can you please provide original, contempory source information that establishes that ordonnances were "privy to decisions made on the Imperial staff and by Napoleon" other than by HQ gossip or reading the letters that they were told to carry?
-- Can you please provide any proof from contemporary sources that, other than delivering Napoléon's orders, capitaines officers d'ordonnance were empowered to issue their own orders in Napoléon's name ?

It seems that your understanding of the rôle of an ordonnance comes from modern English language secondary sources, such as that wonderful book, "Swords Around a Throne" by the late Colonel Elting. However, on these points, I am having trouble actually finding original source information or examples for messenger capitaines who are privy to the highest command decisions or who go about issuing their own orders in the name of the Emperor. So I fear that your modern English-language secondary sources may be playing you false yet again.
Perhaps you could lay the matter to rest by offering some contemporary evidence to support your ponderous assertions of "the facts" about this?

Thanks a bunch.

10th Marines,

I really hesitate to ask this. I asked once before, and you did not respond. But I fear that the posts and questions got so numerous that my query is being overlooked rather than being studiously ignored. I humbly beg your pardon for mentioning this again if you had decided not to repsond.

You wrote,
"Jomini claimed that he helped in a significant manner during the Berezina operation"

The late Colonel Elting wrote,
"As Jomini remembered that minor staff chore, he performed the epic feat of guiding the Grand Armée to safety!"

But all I could find Jomini saying was (my translation):
"addressed to [the Emperor] some information on developments in the area and on the state of communications [lines of march] that seemed to be preferred. …. was ordered to depart at once for the bivouac of General Elbé, commander of the sappers and pontonniers, in order to march with him to the Berezina, and to support the operations with which he was charged to assure the passage of the army over the bridges"
link (French original by Jomini)

So what am I missing?
Did Jominin make some greater claims upon which you and/or Colonel Elting are commenting? Where would these be, please?
Or, did you and/or Colonel Elting mistakenly attribute the words of the général comte de Ségur to Jomini?

Thanks again – and again my deepest apologies if you were intentioanlly ducking this question as opposed to having lost track of it.

Cpt Arexu

I concur with you that evene biased histories can -and should- be used as historical sources, that open windows to the mentalities of the society which produced them. However, I think that wasn't what Arteis and XV Brigade were arguing.

If I got the dispute right, Arteis was arguing that is the personal taste of the reader what makes a historical narrative 'good', being the accuracy of the research irrelevant. I believe that many posmodernist historians would agree with him (see the essays on history of Dominick LaCapra, for example). In other words, for Arteis the literary values of a book of history are more important than the research in which the narrative is based.

XV Brigade, however, argued that a historical narrative can't be considered other than a work of fiction -i.e. non history- if it isn't based upon an accurate research of the primary evidence available.

In my opinion, the dispute is pointless. Both arguments have some merit. It's difficult to prove that either position is better than the other. In some ways, Arteis is right that, in the end, every work of history is, at the same time, a work of fiction, because the historian is re-creating a past, not the absolute truth of it. If we accept this as correct, it follows logically that what mades a book of history 'good' or 'bad' or 'best' is what that narrative conveys to the reader. In other words, it is the reader who makes the decission.

However, XV Brigade is also correct when he points that the historian must, in the first place, try to make his/her book as accurate and honest as possible. Otherwise he/she would be misleading deliberately his/her readers, leading them towards biased truths. The historian carries a responsability towards her/his readers.

Both positions aren't incompatible, actually. Any literary work -even novels or poems- made without honesty is worthless, when not manipulative. I don't buy the argument that fiction doesn't need to be honest, or that as history hasn't direct applications in the day-to-day life doesn't need to be honest. The truth is that dishonest historical works have been used as blueprints to justify all kind of destructive political projects. In other words, historians carry a responsability that goes beyond mere entertainment. All of us can mention dozens of examples.

@Arteis

In some countries exist laws that punish those historians that deliberately manipulate facts to construct a dishonest narrative of the past. See Germany and the laws against Holocaust denial, for instance.

History, or more accurately, the written works of history, are politically used and, therefore, they have an actual application to our lives. Like it or not, they are not pure works of art.

Best regards

basileus66

If an historian/writer wants to employ baised sources, then they have a duty to make sure that the readers of their work are aware that they are biased and should be viewed with caution. It should be clear right from the start and not tucked away and hard to see. If an historian does not do this, then the their work must be taken with caution, as it suggests they have their own agenda, rather than just wanting to write history.

Hi Basileus

Thanks for that. Interesting you think I am in as exalted company as Dominick LaCapra! However, when I looked him up in Wikipedia, I couldn't even understand his entry, so I'm not sure that I'm in the same camp as him or not ;-)

But I am not talking necessarily about history books as good literature either. And nor, certainly, am I talking about biased books or deliberately incorrect ones.

Instead, I am saying there are plenty of books out there that are called history books, but that are not at all academic, do not follow historical method, do not have footnotes … but are still "good" in the eyes of many readers.

Some examples of such books that are not academic, footnoted, do not use historical method, nor in fact are particularly great literature – but that I think are really "good" – include:

- "Great Military Battles" edited by Cyril Falls (great pictures, interesting articles).

- "Don Troiani's Civil War" by Don Troiani (fantastic pictures and pen portraits, absolutely inspiring).

- "Lace Wars" by the Funckens (probably one of the most sought-after books on the 18th century, despite being sporadic and riddled with errors).

- "The British Redcoat in the Napoleonic Wars" by Martin Windrow (a kids' book, but one of my favourite history books for its exciting portrayal of the subject and its artwork).

- "La Grande Armee" by Miguel Angel Martin Mas (a wargamer's paradise, but not a footnote in sight).

People often seem to think that the only kind of history book that can be "good" is an academic history book (ie one that is done for carefully presenting evidence and conclusions on what the author believes really happened, often revising works that have come before). But I think there are plenty of other types and reasons for good non-academic history books too, as pointed out in the above examples.

History is too much fun to be left only to the historians!

@ Gazzola. The trouble with your idea of a biased author making clear s/he is biased right from the start, is that most biased authors don't generally realise or accept they are biased!

Arteis

I am not surprised that you didn't understand half of LaCapra thought. I know I have to struggle to understand him… Hell! probably, even him can't understand himself half of the time! Postmodernists enjoys obscure ways to convey that they do believe that all history is just literature. :) (I'm oversimplifying, mind you)

I believe that you have a small misunderstanding about what means to use the historical method, though. Actually, it doesn't mean that you need to produce an academic work. Some of the books of history I have enjoyed most have been those of Barbara Tuchman ("A distant mirror" and "Guns of August" are classics), or, of course, sir Steven Runciman books on the Crusades. Damm! His narrative of the siege of Constantinopla is probably one of the best written history books ever! It brings tears to my eyes each time I read it… However, both Tuchman and Runciman tried to use sources, analysis and give an honest appraisal of what they thought the facts were. In other words, they combined a gripping, thrilling narrative with scholarship.

Of course, many of their assumptions have been proved wrong since or, to be precise, not enough nuanced. New documents have been found, new interpretations of the sources have been developed… Historians have dig deeper and now we know more about those periods than when Tuchman and Runciman composed their works. And still they are readed and used by scholars. They are -specially Runciman- a first, necessary step, to start your own research. And, what the hell!, they are still entertaining!

Regretfully, not many historians manage to use as a nicest prose as Tuchman or Runciman did.

My point is that the only sin that a historian, professional or not, can't allow himself/herself to commit is to use dishonestly his/her sources.

That's why I prefer not to qualify a history book as 'good', 'bad' or 'best'. In my opinion, there are books that accomplish the goal to inform the reader, as honestly as possible in the time they were written, and other books that don't.

For us, as readers, our responsability lies in to understand that what we are reading is not set in stone, not matter how beautiful or how much we are enjoying the book. And for that to be accomplished, footnotes, quotation of sources and bibliography are the most useful tools available. If I know from where a writer got the facts that supports his/her narrative, I also will be able to have a better judgement about the truths s/he is trying to convey.

Sometimes, though, editorial constrains don't allow the author to mention the critical apparatus s/he has used to compose his/her narrative. Usually, editors -except in academic publications- force the authors to cut footnotes and bibliography to the barest minimum; it is even better if they don't include anything at all. However that doesn't mean that the author hasn't followed the historical method. The good ones do, even if it doesn't show in the final, published book.

I think that the bottom line is that you and XV Brigade are not as far apart as you believe, because good history is, in the end, that that is based upon thorough and honest research, even if it doesn't show in the way of footnotes and bibliography in the book. And you know what? Most readers are usually clever enough to spot when a work of history is based in sloppy research or just plainly dishonesty. Did ever happened to you to read a book that made you uncomfortable? Maybe you couldn't say exactly why it did, but deep inside, you knew that what you were reading was 'bad history'? I did… both with footnoted books and with 'popular' history books.

I do apologize for the long post, but this is one of those topics that awakes my enthusiasm! At least I needed to write it in English, because if I would have done it in Spanish the post could have been three times longer! :)

Best regards

@ Arteis,

>People often seem to think that the only kind of history book that can be "good" is an academic history book (ie one that is done for carefully presenting evidence and conclusions on what the author believes really happened, often revising works that have come before).<

Not at all. Although there are notable exceptions 'Academics' tend, by and large, to write on specialised subjects for other academics, and not for popular consumption.

Academics and non-academics alike are perfectly capable of writing thoroughly researched popular narrative history which tells a story in an entertaining way. Some however, mainly non-academics, do not and there really is no excuse for it.

Bill

If an historian/writer wants to employ baised sources, then they have a duty to make sure that the readers of their work are aware that they are biased and should be viewed with caution. It should be clear right from the start and not tucked away and hard to see. If an historian does not do this, then the their work must be taken with caution, as it suggests they have their own agenda, rather than just wanting to write history.

Gazzola

As Arteis already pointed, none author is aware of his/her bias. To elaborate the point: all history books are biased. Sometimes, it's due to actual bias of the author himself/herself. For example, many of the books on the Goths written in Germany in the 20s and 30s were based on the assumption of the superiority of the German races over the southern races. The concept made its way into the historical writing and did produce works that explained Gothic migrations as the basis of Germany search for vital space.

In other cases, is the interpretation of the sources what causes the bias. Sometimes is because the corpus of sources available at the moment of the writing was limited. A case in point is the history of the Cold War, or of the 1812 Campaing, to stick to a Napoleonic topic. Before the opening of Russian archives in the late 90s, the historians were limited to Western sources, and therefore their interpretations were also limited to what they did know at the moment, i.e. the only point of view that entered the narrative was that of the French/German/USA, ecc.

Also the philosophical position of the author (i.e. how s/he understands that the past should be researched) enter the equation. For example, for a feminist historian Gill's narrative of the 1809 Campaign is biased, as he didn't analyzed how the war affected and was affected to and by women.

Bottom line is that what we need to understand when reading a book of history is that truth is rather than biased, uncomplete.

Best regards

If wishes were fishes….

Acedemics publish because they have to.
Vanity authors publish because they shouldnt be.
Most authors publish to make money.

So in the real world nobody goes away for 20 twenty years studying every possible source, counter checking, getting the opinions of like minded individuals and then writing it in Shakespearean prose before being published anonymously in Glossy Hardback for $1 USD to a grateful public

Banging out a product to a strict timescale & budget with limited resources, requirements to include something/anything controversial proving all previous books on the same subject wrong – or to be a coffee table pikcha-rama to an exact page count without clutterbug footnotes and a boring Bibliography of many pages is more the real world scenario.

If someone would like to tell me the title of a book which has been utterly thoroughly researched beyond compare, contains no mistakes, exaggerations, or assumptions; is superbly illustrated, and whose prose shames Shakespeare I will think the previous 3 pages of comment worthwhile.
(& in English :> )

If you want a free copy of my never-to-be-finished draft book on Infantry which meets none of the above criteria just PM me. cay9s at yahoo dot co dot uk

If anyone thinks you're going to make money above and beyond what you put into a military history book, then you are gravely mistaken. You certainly cannot suppot a family on the revenue from the book or books.

The overwhelming majority of those who write military history get a small royalty from the books sold. There are exceptions, and that depends on the publisher generally.

Those that have to write to live must produce books at a very high rate, and that tends to take away from research time, time that is critical in the production of any history book.

K

Acedemics publish because they have to.
Vanity authors publish because they shouldnt be.
Most authors publish to make money.

Anyone publish these days cause they like writing books ?

But I agree, few books are getting written these days which really shed new light on history. But maybe that's b/c the volume is up.

"That's why they call it fishing…. or maybe it's wishing"
---Anonymous Deckhand, The Deadliest Catch

Interesting comment I recently came across: "Research is to see what everybody else has seen and to think what nobody else has thought".

Whilst that does exclude the Keepers of the True Flame and followers of the received secondhand wisdom from being researchers, it does show that it is possible to do research without necessarily digging up new material. Most of the material on N himself is fairly accessible and surrounding material also, but it can perhaps come down to putting a differnt thought process into the subject.

Mr. Hollins, that's a good quote. Unfortunately, that rule doesn't apply to liberal arts/humanities depts. in our universities anymore except possibly in very rare circumstances. Independent thinking in the liberal arts and humanities is not encouraged or promoted really at any level. Forms and not facts reign supreme these days. The sciences are probably just the opposite and the idea of balance is in short supply. I'll get off my soapbox now.

That's Ruling Theory for you!

'Anyone publish these days cause they like writing books?'

Jim,

I would think so. You'd have to enjoy it to do it as it does take up a lot of time and effort. I enjoy my writing, though there are days when I just don't feel like it.

I'm working on two at once presently and it is quite a chore.

Sincerely,
K

Jim,

There is also considerable refutation of what de Segur said by Gourgaud, and Gourgaud cites references, and in the back of the book are the letters that he refers to from the correspondence of various principals in the actions described.

Gourgaud comes off much more credible to me and the idea that he actually called out de Segur and shot him in a duel is just icing on the cake-seems like another case of an actual solider versus a carpet knight.

Sincerely,
Kevin

"Academics publish because they have to."

Oh, that's not really true. The bar is set pretty low for most academics. Most colleges and universities just want you to teach your students, fill up meetings, file a crapload of paperwork, and not embarrass them by getting into the media for something bad.

Only a handful of elite Ivy League and Public-Ivy universities really expect a constant output of scholarship AND – here's the key – are willing to pay for it. Otherwise, on a public-college professor's salary, don't expect people to fly around the world much, spending weeks and months in the archives.

Nobody forces me to do what I do. I do it because I love it, because I'm genuinely curious and fascinated by certain topics, and because I can persuade various grant-givers here and there to give me money to spend summers working in Germany!

(Greetings from Berlin)

Sam

Maybe I'm going wrong in my argment calling the books "academic" and "non-academic". The division I'm trying to make, but doesn't seem to be getting through, is:

- history books written for a serious purpose, and often to persuade (whether written by real academics, or whether by diligent hobbyist researchers such as Hollins and Kiley), versus
- history books that have a much lighter purpose of entertaining and lightly informing (such as several of the books I mentioned in my previous post).

Some of you seem to think I'm arguing a more high-brow division!

JeffSaysHi appears to bag the "coffee table pikcha-rama to an exact page count without clutterbug footnotes and a boring Bibliography of many pages" – which is actually one of the types of books that I am talking about as a valid type of history book (eg the books I listed). There are many people who do enjoy these sorts of book, and there should be no need for more 'serious' historians to look down their noses at such books.

It is like saying that the only types of novels that are any "good" are high literature, and that anything written purely to entertain can never be a "good" novel.

As I said, history is too much fun to leave entirely to the serious historians!

'I linked to the text that you copy/pasted into your post. Do you think it is generally better to copy/paste instead of linking?'

I'm sorry, but I didn't 'cut and paste.' I have a copy of Gourgaud's book, just as I have a copy of de Segur's and some of Jomini's stuff. I typed in the relevant portions. I do highly recommend Gourgaud's book.

K

Kevin

I've just picked up Gourgaud's book. It looks a great read.

I liked what Hilaire Belloc says in the preface.

'There are two schools among those who would belittle Napoleon. There are those who would talk of him with admiration and even enthusiasm for this, that or the other side of his genius, but who let one feel all the time that they have taken him from his pedestal, that he is not for them the chief or among the greatest of our western race and that at any rate his primary purpose, which was more than half-conscious in him during his prime and was clearly perceived by him before his end – I mean the unifying of our civiliazation: peace through order and one restored Europe – is either indifferent or negligible.'

'There is another form of detractor who will make as little as he can even of Napoleon's talents, emphasizing his errors even in his own most conspicuous department of excellence, the military; but, more commonly, content to emphasize weak or evil moments in his conduct.'

I can see one or two who attend this site that fit one or even both of these descriptions. It also suggests that despite claims of new evidence etc, that little has changed and probably never will.

Kevin,

Yes, I noted that duel as well… interesting how that adds a certain level of credibility !

An interesting book and good read on dueling in the United States during the early Republic is Affairs of Honor by Joanne Freeman.

I also wanted to be clear, that my thoughts in this thread have been directed against institutions not persons !

Jim

Apparently, Gourgaud also called out Montholon whilst on St. Helena, but Napoleon stepped in and stopped them before the duel was fought – Gourgaud left St. Helena before Napoleon's passing, the tedium of exile was too tame presumably, and there were more opportunities for duels in Europe – forgive me, but Gourgaud is beginning to remind me a little of Feraud's [Fournier's] character in the Duellist's.

npm

basileus66

I am sure there are authors who are well aware of source material that is biased, and if it agrees with their negative views, will quite happily employ it.

We should be thankful that authors like Cronin and others highlight the reasons why we should all be cautious concerning some sources. Perhaps those who complain about Cronin etc, do not want such information to become available because it reduces their own credibility?

Gazzola

From the Wiki, on Belloc:

"With others (G. K. Chesterton, Cecil Chesterton, Arthur Penty) Belloc had envisioned the socioeconomic system of distributism. In The Servile State, written after his party-political career had come to end, and other works, he criticized the modern economic order and parliamentary system, advocating distributism in opposition to both capitalism and socialism. Belloc made the historical argument that distributism was not a fresh perspective or program of economics but rather a proposed return to the economics that prevailed in Europe for the thousand years when it was Catholic. He called for the dissolution of Parliament and its replacement with committees of representatives for the various sectors of society, an idea popular among Fascists under the name of corporatism. Original corporatism, sometimes called "paleo-corporatism", was a system that predates capitalism and fascism. Paleo-corporatism was based around the guilds of the Middle Ages and served to appoint legislators. Neo-corporatism is a fascist system that merges the state with the capitalistic corporations and the corporations then are directed by the state, under nominal private ownership. Belloc's views fit medieval paleo-corporatism rather than neo-corporatist fascism."
"With these linked themes in the background, he wrote a long series of contentious biographies of historical figures, including Oliver Cromwell, James II, and Napoleon. They show him as an ardent proponent of orthodox Catholicism and a critic of many elements of the modern world."

link

With this background, his opinions about Napoleon aren't that surprising. Think about this statement: "I mean the unifying of our civiliazation: peace through order and one restored Europe". This is one of the classic claims of Fascists, the thrive for an unified Europe, where the driving force would be order, not freedom or representative democracy.

What it's more annoying is his claim that that was Napoleon's intention, when for the French emperor the goal was to have a France secure in her borders, ruled by Bonaparte's dinasty. Europe was only a propaganda tool, that Napoleon only used ocassionally.

May be I can be included with those described by Belloc, but I don't feel belittled by that. Just the opposite. Perhaps it's because I am not too inclined towards hero-worship. Or may be I'm too cynical to buy the whole concept of altruism in big men.

Best regards

npm,

If you go through the period memoirs I believe you'll find there was often dueling. I don't believe that Napoleon approved of it.

Gourgaud was not a psychopath, Fournier probably was and he usually picked on civilians who were not noted as swordsmen by insulting their wives, the long 'argument' with Dupont notwithstanding.

There was good reason that Napoleon cashiered Fournier.

I still believe it significant, at least as a literary critique, that Gourgaud called out de Segur and shot him, though he didn't kill him. Maybe de Segur cleaned up his literary act after that. ;-)

K

Bas,

There was one very large difference between the fascist 'view' of Europe and Belloc's-Belloc believed in a Catholic Europe, not a fascist one. And he also believed that Western civilization was a 'sacred thing.' That's a very large ideological difference. One of Belloc's literary problems was that he sometimes attributed his beliefs and opinions to Napoleon, something Jomini was also guilty of from time to time. Interesting thoughts, but it isn't history.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Jim,

I was asked to read and review Freeman's book when it came out for a website on the Revolutionary War period (US not French). It is an interesting book and one I would definitely recommend.

Elzear Blaze talks about the regimental fencing masters and their assistants in his memoir, which is one of the best of its kind for the period. I highly recommend Col Elting's translation, as he includes some new information in it, such as Blaze's service record.

Sincerely,
Kevin

basileus66

I think what you have written about Belloc, proves that people like Cronin should be highly praised. Perhaps all authors should offer information on the sources they employ and the reasons as to why some may be considered questionable.

But I imagine many do not wish to inform their audience about the credibility of their sources, because the audience might then question the writer's reasoning for using such sources in the first place.

But, whatever sources are employed, people will believe or not believe what they want about Napoleon and other great characters from history. And we must remember that we usually base our decisions of what is said and written by others.

However, I do think it is a grave mistake to assume that those who admire great figures from the past, Napoleon, Wellington, Blucher etc, ere inclined to hero-worship, no matter what their political leanings may be. After all, you can admire your favourite football player, without having to buy a teeshirt with his name and picture on or put a signed photograph on the wall.

And it does not mean that those who might have images of such great figures on their wall are prone to hero-worship either. But perhaps there are those who perhaps fear that showing such admiration might be considered as hero-worship? If so, they should learn to ignore their accusers and shake off their self-imposed shackles.

Arteis

I don't think I can agree with you there. I'm sure most authors that are biased know they are biased because they will have probably searched out source material to support their bias. That's why they don't want their audience to be aware of the credibility of some sources, because it might throw a shadow over the credibity of their own work.

And perhaps some don't want to admit they are biased because it might affect sales. An example being authors, who may have begun by writing books about Napoleon's victories. Then, when they have made a name for themselves, and possibly attracted an audience, they start to write books that reveal their bias against Napoleon. It is just a thought, of course, and perhaps my bias towards certain authors.

If you are allowing other types of publication, and your French is up to it, check out a new magazine just launched by Mondadori in France. It's called Guerres et Histoire and inevitably the first issue has a major feature on Napoleon asking was he truly a military genius ("vraiement un genie militaire")? What's interesting is the way the feature is laid out – in one part it analyzes each of his main campaigns and scores him for Strategic, Operational and Tactical success.
So for example the August-December 1805 campaign in German/Austrian lands which culminated at Austerlitz gets 5 stars for Strategy, 4 stars for Operations and 4 stars for Tactics. He does well in other campaigns but by the time he gets to Moscow his star ratings have fallen to 2,3 and 2 respectively. As for Belgium 1815 no need to ask.
In another part there's good discussion of the qualities of the opponents he faced. Best of all there's a powerful article that argues he owed most things to individuals of the ancien regime which preceded the revolution and republic and the innovations they had started in e.g.
Tactical Thinking – Guibert (ex Rossbach)
Logistics – Broglie
General Staff – Segur
Artillery – Gribeauval
Recruitment – Carnot
In other words Napoleon was not one thing, but the representation of an emerging French military machine.
Finally there's a lengthy discussion on the philosophical and pyschological myths around Napoleon. The French like those!
Overall it's a nice approach and worth trying out the campaign scoring exercise in particular.

Gazz,

"I think what you have written about Belloc, proves that people like Cronin should be highly praised. Perhaps all authors should offer information on the sources they employ and the reasons as to why some may be considered questionable."

Usually, any author worth his salt will comment about the sources he has used. At least in academic works that's obligatory. Normally, the first chapter or the introduction will be devoted to a discussion on the scholarship on the topic and on the sources used, mentioning th critical apparatus used and, in many cases, the reasons why the author believes a new study is needed (i.e. what she will be adding to the pool of available knowledge). Only, in less formal books that part is skipped.

But I imagine many do not wish to inform their audience about the credibility of their sources, because the audience might then question the writer's reasoning for using such sources in the first place.

In popular works that can be common, although I doubt that in the majority of the cases is due to a desire to mislead the readers, and not to editorial reasons (see discussion above)

But, whatever sources are employed, people will believe or not believe what they want about Napoleon and other great characters from history. And we must remember that we usually base our decisions of what is said and written by others.

One of the first things that I was teached in college was that when you write a paper or a book, you can't say that you 'believe' something. Either you can prove it, or you can't. And if you can't (because sources are incomplete, for example), then you must warn your audience that you are making an educated guess. That's what any honest researcher -in any field- will do.

Of course, sometimes you will do mistakes, or will interpret a source incorrectly -maybe because you took it out of context-.

However, I do think it is a grave mistake to assume that those who admire great figures from the past, Napoleon, Wellington, Blucher etc, ere inclined to hero-worship, no matter what their political leanings may be. After all, you can admire your favourite football player, without having to buy a teeshirt with his name and picture on or put a signed photograph on the wall.

Indeed, but if you read carefully the words you quoted from Belloc, you will realize that it is hero-worship what he was proposing, because the bottom line of his comments were that any 'error' (I don't like that word applied to characters of the past, by the way) of Napoleon should be overlooked, as his ultimate goal was the most commendable that he could think: peace and order. In other words, the ends justified the means, and the person who took the decissions was above any petty criticism. If that is not hero-worship, what is?

But perhaps there are those who perhaps fear that showing such admiration might be considered as hero-worship? If so, they should learn to ignore their accusers and shake off their self-imposed shackles.

I must recognise that there are very few people I actually admire (and three of them were my wife and my parents!). I can be fascinated by characters like Napoleon or Alexander; by their obsession with power; by their skills as leaders of men; by their sheer willpower… But admiration? No, I have not. I can not. Perhaps it's because I am too individualistic inclined. Or perhaps it's because I also know about the consecuences of their actions in others persons lifes. For Spain, for example, Napoleon's invasion was an unmitigated disaster. How can I admire a person whose ambition brought so much death and mayhem to my country?

Once upon a time, when I was younger and more naive, I did admire great characters of the past. Napoleon, Alexander, Hernán Cortés, Francisco Pizarro, Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba and others of the same cut were my heroes. When other childs dreamt about being a top football player (soccer, I think you call it in the States) I fantasized about how I would have commanded at the fields of Waterloo. Then I grew up, and my admiration dried up. I am not wiser, but I have accumulated more experience and knowledge, and now I am unable to admire those persons.

Kev

I know that Belloc wasn't a Fascist. What I tried to say is that he shared with authoritarian ideologies the obsession for order, at the cost of freedom, and that that explains his attack on those that criticised Napoleon, because he assumed (incorrectly) that Napoleon's goal was to bring order and union to Europe.

Maybe I should have avoid to compare him with the Fascists, and instead I should have used 'authoritarianism' to qualify his political philosophy.

Best
Antonio

David Molony

That sounds very interesting. However, I wonder if the ratings given, as with many views on Napoleon (and other commanders of course), and/or his military abilities are influenced by hindsight?

It is far too easy to say this tactic or campaign succeeded or failed and deserves a higher/lower rating because of this or that, the reasons for which we know about in hindsight. But those actually living the action, very rarely could say which would or wouldn't work until after the event occurred.

basileus66

When I said believe, I meant the readers may well believe what they want to believe, rather than the person doing the writing.

I'm not sure I agree with you about Belloc and hero-worship. If there are things about the great man he liked or admired, that, in my opinion, does not qualify as hero-worship, no matter what his political beliefs may be.

There are those who attend this site who try to persuade people that if there is something you admire about Napoleon, you obvioulsy worship him and do not welcome new material or new views on existing material which might alter such hero-worship. That is utter rubbish and more of a denial of their own admiration of the great man.

I find it sad that life has somehow caused you not to admire anyone. But not to admire Napoleon for something that happened in your country in the past, is a bit like my not liking the Romans for invading my country. But countries were invading each other all the time and other characters were making war besides Napoleon. And I'm sure you will agree that wars and invasions did not stop after Napoleon's fall.

Personally, I do not have any heroes, but I do admire people from the past and present, although that does not mean I ignore or fail to see their faults or mistakes. Great characters like Napoleon, are, after all, only human like the rest of us. But they have achieved far more than we can ever dream of. I think that alone is worth some level of admiration.

Bas,

Understand. I think also that the term 'freedom' meant something just a little different in Napoleonic France than it does today. There really weren't any democracies during the period, but there were republics and constitutional monarchies.

I do believe we have to be careful using terms like 'fascist' and 'bonapartist' to denote political thinking during the period. The political term 'bonapartist' for example didn't come into being until later in the 19th century, though it is used by Napoleon's detractors on the forums sometimes to label those who admire Napoleon, the Grande Armee, and French arms. That is basically a silly practice as well as being very inaccurate.

I don't have heroes during the period either. My personal heroes are a private matter and are not historical figures. I do admire Napoleon and many of his lieutenants and officers (such as Captain Brechtel and Lieutenant Aune) and men, as I admire Wellington, Crauford, Picton, and Winfield Scott. However, they aren't heroes to me.

Sincerely,
Kevin

The comte de Ségur was wounded alot and promoted, decorated and titled by Napoléon alot for a "carpet knight".
Some biographical information, for the fact-oriented among us :
link
link
His career seems to be no less that of an "actual soldier" than Gourgaud. While the latter at times was absent from combat duites inspecting fortifications, de Ségur was at times on diplomatic missions.
===============================================

"The political term 'bonapartist' for example didn't come into being until later in the 19th century"

Again for the fact-oriented, actually this is not correct.

The term 'bonapartiste' arose (in French, with an 'e' at the end) early in the era itself, under the Consulate, and was actually in quite common usage in 1814-1816.

google-books with the term "bonapartiste" before 1835 : 1410
link

google-books with the term "bonapartiste" before 1820 : 359
link

cnrtl.fr/etymologie
link

Amicalement.