How critical should a historian be of the historical figures they are writing about? I'm currently reading a history book and I'm a bit turned off by the way the author is criticizing some of the fighting men he is writing about. Some of this is 20/20 hindsight and some of it, to me, is character assassination. I certainly expect a historian to give a balanced report on the people they are writing about, but to criticize just to criticize.

Any historian is going to approach a given subject with his or her own particular bias and agenda...if it happens to be fairly close to your own, the tendency is to think, "Ah, what a fine and fair evaluation..." or some such. When your point of view differs widely from that of the historian's, then there is much less "agreement" between what you understand and what he or she is trying to put across. The best thing I have found is to read from multiple sources (if possible!) and to have at least some idea of what the author's purpose is. It's sort of like reading movie reviews by someone who's taste in movies is diametrically opposite of your own... if he/she hates it, I'll probably like it...

I certainly prefer historians that simply present the facts. Rodger is right. I'm turned off by an author I feel has an agenda. To me the best service that they can do is to show us evidence and let the reader make up their mind. When presented well "actions speak louder than words"

Depends, I'm reading Michael Asher's 'Get Rommel' at the moment, and in some places I'm not sure that he goes far enough in criticising some of the people involved in planning and running the raid.

http://lost-oasis.org/rommel.html

David

Halfyank,

Not trying to start a flame war, I usually just watch from the sidelines. However, as a historian I will comment on a couple of my tiny pet peeves. First; many people, in fact most, who write popular history books today, particularly the kind that many of us hanging out at Armorama read, are not really historians, many are journalists who approach their subjects somewhat differently than a trained historian would do ( an example of this would be Rick Atkinson's recent work "An Army at Dawn", Mr. Atkinson is a professional journalist not a historian). In much the same way I would not expect a news article that I might write to be on par with something that a professional journalist would write. Small point, I know, but then I wouldn't go to a heart specialist if I had a kidney problem either
HellBent11 Actually just presenting facts is not what a historian does, that is what an antiquarian would do ( not always a bad thing). A historian always provides credible analysis of both primary and secondary sources or it is not really considered history. Again minor, but I hope you will indulge me on this one!

Again, not wanting to gore anyone's sacred ox concerning their beliefs about historians but thought I might help to clarify some things for everyone.

Rick Cooper [

Everyone has bias. The debate about Montgomery's handling of Caen has many opinions (salted with bias) on both sides. I prefer the "antiquitarian" approach myself, but in any case you must read multiple source material to get an overall idea of what really happened. If an author is critical, and can offer proof of the critisisim, thats a good thing.

Hello all.. hope you don't mine me chiming in but this is a very interesting thread..

I'm currently reading a "history" book that is in my opinion very biased and very critical of several historical people.. esp members of the British goverment just prior to WWII.

The book is "The Second World War" by Winston S. Churchill (abridged version)

But although the book is filled with the writers remarks and thoughts on people and events, many of them rather pointed, I find the book facinating reading.

I guess you just have to take each book on its own merits..

Rick, I believe you have raised a very valid point. I've mentioned before that I have a less than complimentary feeling about Atkinson and An Army at Dawn. The book has been debated here before, with both pros and cons. I agree with your point about journalists vs historians, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

Winston was once quoted "History will be kind to me, because I am going to write it." I often wondered if it was true, or just another silly tall tale.

My trouble with history books, novels etc. is how they are perceived by many as facts. It is recorded history, and variable depending on the time and place. For example, Whittman was missing in action, presumed dead, in history books until his remains were discovered, and identified. How he was killed is still being debated. The same facts can lead people to vastly different conclusions.

I am always amused by authors who say this or that event "changed the course of history." Bull, it IS history, nothing was changed because there was no know alternate ending, we only got what we got. Rant aside, I try to read several accounts of battles, German, US and of British Commonwealth to get a feel for the various camps. Reading Rommel in North Africa, some times you'd think they WON! Until you turn the page at the end. I actually prefer the day to day accounts of the smaller units that were written at the time.

I have not read the mentioned at the start book because I became jaded on the story of the US Army in Africa many years ago. The disaster at Gazala and the loss of Tobruk (and how many soldiers) was called a "setback". The comparitavely tiny loss at Kasserine has been promoted by many as a complete and total catastrophe. Last time I checked, Rommel retreated from Kasserine. US tactics needed alot of work, but it was not a complete and total catastrophe.

I have the good fortune of meeting an artillery soldier that served at Kasserine at a WWII display. The lessons learned by his unit at Kasserine were called by this veteran "Priceless".

I think the historians should be critical equally to every parts of history. Just presenting the facts is not history. (And no one can claim to have all the facts, anyway.)
But distorting it, and changing it isn't either.
A good historian should be able to evaluate any historical figure from many points of view.
By the way, I can recommend the following book: Lies My Teacher Told Me. Quite eye-opening.

There have been many historians that have presented their opinions or insights concerning events that they write about. Opinions without evidence is scuttlebutt. Let history speak for itself. To separate the good from the BS, wheat from the chaff you do have to shake things up. But that comes in the research end of the study not the publishing end.

Often when we study history we forget that the times we are looking into are for the most part from a whole different society with a different set of rules or morals. Certain words or phrases we find distasteful today were common place in another time. Ideals and goals were different.

I know of two books being written about 2nd Lt. Frank Luke (MOH) of the 27th Aero Sqdn in 1918. Though the story takes into account similar events the authors involved are radically different people and as such so are their manuscripts.