Regimental Histories

[Bert Heyvaert]

Hello all!

An MA student at the university of Gent (Belgium), is researching for her dissertation, in which she wants to look at meanly British regimental histories. Her idea is to compare them with the original War diaries, and find out exactly how trustworthy and 'coloured' these histories are. Regimental histories are a very specific kind of historiography, in many cases written by people envolved in the unit they write about, which raises off course a specific problem for the historian working with them.

She is thinking of making a selection of the diaries of units that served in Ypres between april '15 and july '17, but this might still be subject to change. I wondered if anyone has allready done some thinking about this subject, or has any general ideas. Have you come across some striking examples in Regimental Histories on how events have been 'twisted' to make them sound better, or to turn a defeat into a victory, or how specific events have been systematically neglected? All ideas would be most welcome, as she is still planning her research. Also, if anyone knows a bibliographical reference of an article that deals with this subject, this would be most welcome as well!

Many thanks,

Bert

[John_Hartley]

Bert

I think the point here is that hindsight is an exact science.

I've certainly read Cheshire Regiment war diaries which record that an attack has gone well, only to cross-reference to the Regimental History to find the author's "spin" is that the lads did the best they could - but, for instance, plans changed at the last minute; no proper time to brief the men; lack of artillery support;etc.

If your friend reads Crookenden, she will quickly find the various "disasters" I refer to and can then check against the Diaries.

John

[CROONAERT]

And then again, you can also find some regimental histories that are basically the war diaries almost word for word with a few explaination sentences added.

Dave.

[BMoorhouse]

Bert,

It would also be worth reading the regimental histories/diaries of other units in the same Brigade/attack. Very often they will give a different account of what the troops on their flank were doing.

Most of the accounts in my experience vary according to the gloss (or spin in modern parlance) put on the events. Usually they cannot hide bare facts like a failure to advance and take objectives. They also cannot hide casualties.

It is also an interesting exercise to compare letters and diaries for the unit at the same time with diaries and histories. (It might be that people on this forum will be able to help out with contributions in that respect once particular battalions are known).

Brendon.

[Robert Dunlop]

War diaries are not necessarily accurate either. But it is perfectly appropriate to regard them as the standard by which other information will be judged, so long as there is a section in the dissertation that outlines what the limitations are. This section should draw on research about human memory and the factors that affect it generally, as well as in battle.

Given that war diaries may not be altogether accurate, it is probably best not to couch the hypothesis behind the study in terms of "find[ing] out exactly how trustworthy and 'coloured' these histories are". It is more like a study in what the differences are between the two sources.

War diaries can get very slim during periods of intense action. I would recommend looking at diaries from periods of relative inactivity vs involvement in a major battle.

As you pointed out, regimental and divisional histories sometimes include memories and anecdotes from surviving members, often collated well after the war. It might be worth codifying the methods by which the histories were created. This is often mentioned in the forward.

Each regiment or division comprises several smaller units that will have created war diaries. It might be interesting to see whether biases for or against some units are present in the histories.

Robert