Primary v Secondary Sources

[PhilB]

May I thank you gentlemen for maintaining an informative and reasonable tone through the 100 posts of this thread?

[John Gilinsky]

Yes, you can think me!

John

Toronto

[ ex-British North America ]

[charlesmessenger]

A fascinating British counterpart to Marshall was Lionel Wigram whose amazing story is told in the volume of Sir Denis Forman's autobiography 'To Reason Why'. This includes an astonishing example of 'shooting the messenger' by Field Marshal Montgomery whereby he apparently sacks Wigram for including a subtitle in a report which reads 'Panic and Hysteria'.

Mark

While this, of course, is not strictly WW1, it is worth noting that Wigram observed the fighting in Sicily in 1943 and came to the same conclusion as Marshall, namely that within any group of soldiers in combat one third will follow a leader anywhere and be prepared to use their initiative, one third will follow like sheep, and the remainder will try to avoid participating in any way. This conclusion has been further substantiated in recent years by an operational analysis expert, David Rowland, who looked both at British Army field trials and historical data. His findings are in book form The Stress of Battle: Quantifying Human Performance in Combat (The Stationery Office, 2006). Although some of the maths is fairly daunting it does provide much food for thought and its findings are juat as applicable to WW1 as they are today. It also shows how both primary and secondary sources can be used together.

Charles M

[Pete1052]

My impression of S.L.A. Marshall's theory that only 25 percent of American riflemen fired their weapons during firefights in WW II is that he was exaggerating to make a point that he believed to be true--the statistic is approximate and could just has easily have been 35 percent or 55 percent, but in any case there were a lot of guys who weren't firing their rifles. Marshall's combat interview technique of getting multiple points of view of what happened during firefights has stood the test of time and is about the best that can be done under exigent circumstances in combat zones. Marshall has been shown to have had feet of clay but generally his positive contributions outweigh the negative.

Regarding the motivations of military men, it shouldn't come as any surprise that their profession has its own versions of office politics and careerism, just like any other field. When they write official reports they are no more or less likely to criticize their superiors or confess to derelictions of duty than people in other career specialties.

[PhilB]

Most of the primary sources for WW1 are, of course, army officers. Is it considered that their reliability as sources is just the same as any others or do the effects of regimental loyalty, the officer brotherhood etc (as implied by John G) make them more or less reliable?

[truthergw]

Each would have to be judged on his merits. How does this account compare with others, is there corroborating evidence and so on. The fact that there was a higher percentage of well educated among officers is a fact of history. Being an officer does not make a man more or less trustworthy. Regimental loyalty was not by any means confined to officers.

[bootneck]

I’ve just read the CSI report and found it interesting.

I was interested to see one of the books quoted was Jacque Brazun and Henry Graff’s The Modern Researcher, 4th edition, (New York, 1985) as I’ve had a copy of the 5th edition of 1992 sitting on my bookshelf for years and only had starting looking at it when this thread began. It is a useful straightforward guide.

There is a good chapter on verifying sources with an interesting account on pages 122-8 of F M Anderson’s 35 year attempt, between 1913 and 1948, to identify the author of ‘the Diary of a Public Man’, a supposed account of what happened in Washington during the Seccession Winter of 1860-1, and comprising of entries covering 21 days, between December 1860 and 21 March 1861 and first published in the North American Review in 1879. Anderson eventually concluded that it was a fabrication and hoax. There is a footnote on page 129 noting that when the first Flashman novel was published in the 1960s in the United States, 10 out of 34 reviewers thought it was authentic!

Sorry, if this is off topic.

Bootneck

[PGL]

There is a footnote on page 129 noting that when the first Flashman novel was published in the 1960s in the United States, 10 out of 34 reviewers thought it was authentic!

Which dovetails neatly with Bernard Cornwell's "Sharpe" series about a fictional character which is thought to be so well researched that it's better than some reference books! Cornwell even goes to the trouble of adding brief historical notes at the end of his books highlighting which events are real and which he makes up.

Now, I might be going off at a real tangent here but a really good writer of fiction will do their homework and take a scholary interest in their background material. Yet, they don't (often) quote sources or include a bibliography. How many people (members of the public) do you suppose base their knowledge of world events like the (Napoleonic War and the) Great War on historical novels? Is there a place for works of fiction which have a basis in fact? Should authors like Cornwell even be considered researchers despite the fact that he does not quote all his sources? Historical novels may not be 'academic' but can they be 'authentic'?

[John Gilinsky]

And we all know what Henry Ford, the great American industrialist thought about history!

John

[truthergw]

Which dovetails neatly with Bernard Cornwell's "Sharpe" series about a fictional character which is thought to be so well researched that it's better than some reference books! Cornwell even goes to the trouble of adding brief historical notes at the end of his books highlighting which events are real and which he makes up.

Now, I might be going off at a real tangent here but a really good writer of fiction will do their homework and take a scholary interest in their background material. Yet, they don't (often) quote sources or include a bibliography. How many people (members of the public) do you suppose base their knowledge of world events like the (Napoleonic War and the) Great War on historical novels? Is there a place for works of fiction which have a basis in fact? Should authors like Cornwell even be considered researchers despite the fact that he does not quote all his sources? Historical novels may not be 'academic' but can they be 'authentic'?

At least two of the great books on Verdun are novels. The problem is not whether there is a place for novels which are based on historic fact but whether readers distinguish between the fact and the fiction. In my experience, they do. I have never seen a real argument about a novel. The arguments are always about the interpretation of facts in a non-fiction work. Now, I am aware that many people's view of the great war is distorted by or even completely based on " Blackadder Goes Forth". I suggest that even so, very people would offer an argument against facts which is based on something they saw in Blackadder. I think that the series merely presented an exagerated and very funny view of the war which matched most people's preconceptions. Asking if there is a place for historical novels is rather like asking if we approve of sex. There is a lot of it about and its here to stay, whether we think there is a place for it or not.

[MartH]

Interestingly the quality of medical peoples: reports and eyewitness accounts I often feel are better than others. It is because they are trained to observe?

[John Gilinsky]

Mart H: Yes in my readings of pre-1914 British colonial campaign official military medical officer reports they are very detailed and usually especially from the 1850's onwards full of astute and pointed observations about the environments in which troops fought including some real gems about military ineffectiveness or errors. For the Great War though a great silence: political interferences both within and without the military channelled diagnoses into certain catchall ones rather than specific not to mention lack of training or experience and personal preferences colluded between the doctor and the soldier-patient.

John

Toronto

[Mark Hone]

See Brian Bond 'The Unquiet Western Front' for examples of some supposedly intelligent people (newspaper TV critics) using 'Blackadder Goes Forth' to criticize the 'Timewatch' documentary about Field Marshal Haig. I have come across other examples in my own experience, including some History teachers who appear to use 'Blackadder' uncritically as a valid source about the reality of the First World War. To be fair I presume most do put it into context but, as stated before on this forum, the poignant final scene seems to have imbued the series with a sense of some sort of 'deeper truth' in the eyes of many.

[PhilB]

Interestingly the quality of medical peoples: reports and eyewitness accounts I often feel are better than others. It is because they are trained to observe?

Maybe because their comments can largely be based on objective rather than subjective assessment. (The patient had a high temperature, his leg was ulcerated, he complained of stomach pain etc). Much WW1 primary source is more subjective - General Brown was not keen, enemy morale was low, the Loamshires did all that men could do.

[MartH]

As I said in an earlier post, my cognetive course shocked me on how little we observed correctly, especially when concentrating hard on something else.

I have some where in my collection of books on writing military history a very good article about the body of medical works, and the writing of them. It covers both the objective and subjective. I will attempt to dig it out.

[bootneck]

For anybody interested and who might not have seen it I found the following link

www.bcmh.org.uk/archive/reviews/CombatStudiesFellecknerRowlandGriffith.pdf to an interesting review of David Rowland’s The Stress of Battle and Stefan Felleckner’s Combat – a neglected area of military history: An investigation into eye-witness reports from the Seven Years’ War and the First World War. (Berlin, 2006).

Regards

Bootneck

[PGL]

Asking if there is a place for historical novels is rather like asking if we approve of sex. There is a lot of it about and its here to stay, whether we think there is a place for it or not.

I wouldn't dream of asking a question like that - it's way too far off-topic.

[peterhogg]

I have to rely on secondary sources with respect to that subject.

[John Gilinsky]

Bootneck: Thanks for posting these two books and the book review. The German book I presume was published in both English and German?

John

Toronto

[bootneck]

John

Yes, it was.

I haven't located an English copy yet, but there are Berlin contact details in the review. I must admit that Combat Studies looks like an interesting area for further study.

Bootneck

[peterhogg]

While in the waiting room of my dentist (he's a bit like a sadist, only better magazines) i came across a review of the following recent book which reminded me of the great discussion on this thread. the book is by John Burrow entitled "A History of Histories". Burrows illustrates how among the ancients like Herodotus and Thucydides history was a literary art. As the reviewer notes, nvention was a hallmark of ancient history, which was filled with long, often purely fictitious

speeches of great men. It was animated by rhetoric, not by evidence. Even well into the eighteenth century, not a few historians continued to understand themselves as artists, with licence to invent."

Burrows discusses how the notion of history as an empirical science, truth as opposed to invention, is only relatively recent one. And certainly it appears from our thread that this conflict between historical truth and historical invention endures.

Anyway, the book is not about the Great War but is relevant to this thread and how each of us define what makes "a history". The review is from the New Yorker March/08.

cheers.

peter

[PhilB]

em·pir·i·cal (m-pîr-kl)

adj.

1.

a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.

b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine

History as an empirical science? I`d see it rather as unempirical quasi-science where the historian is free to cherry pick from sources which themselves are often highly subjective in order to frame a case for the points he/she is trying to make. How else can two "respected historians" reach diametrically opposite conclusions on the same topic?

[peterhogg]

I don't think it is necessarily shocking, in some cases, that two historians might come to opposite conclusions. That may be as much a reflection of the lack of clear evidence going either way. It may be that two opposing or at least very different conclusions are supportable since so much of the historical analysis relies upon drawing inferences from indirect or circumstantial evidence.

and certainly, in other cases, differing conclusions will stem from the particular method or analysis (or lack thereof) one historian adopts to the contrary of another. Or, as you write, someone may just cherry-pick the bits they like. in the latter case, that means the book is a piece of c---p so don't read it.

The point is there will not and cannot be any definitive approach to writing a history. some approaches will focus on facts and others will emphasize theory, some will be more subjective than objective. but in the absence of being omniscient, the truth will always be elusive and the reader will always have to rely on a history as an interpretations of past events that is either closer or farther from the truth of what really happened.

And let's not just consider the writers. every reader approaches a work with his or her own prejudices, preconceived notions, peccadillos and ignorance. readers may often see only what they wish to see and ignore the bits inconvenient to their view. bit like a circle involving reader and writer.

actually, that's what makes reading and writing kinda fun---the challenge of it all.

[John Gilinsky]

Connor: In some of my earliest posts and responses after I joined GWF I stressed that history is a never ending argument in fair measure due to what you pointed out in your last post to this thread on sources. Even when historians all have the same richly documented materials there will always be room for such interpertations. You are right: instead of guffawing, yawning etc...this in part is what makes history so fascinating: waiting to discover a new source(s) or interperation in short learning from others so that one can educate oneself. History thus lends itself despite repeated attempts at academic suicide to lifelong learning. By academic suicide I am NOT referring to universities specifically nor other persons who live and work in universities. I am referring to a self-hating "academic" who despises a) non-academic people and work who attempt to foray into "their fields"; academics who engage in academic bashing due to populist or political pressures including internal academic competitiveness. Unwarranted criticisms regarding poor, insufficient sources are while legitimate frequently are also easily abused. All one simply has to say is due to insufficient sources the work is deligitimized.

John

Toronto

[PhilB]

All fair comment, gents. But, bearing in mind the definition of "empirical" above, one can hardly call it an empirical science. It`s not derived from direct observation or experiment, it`s not verifiable by observation or experiment and it is not guided by practical experience. Of course, it`s still an entertaining and interesting pursuit!