Dimitri Rotov on Military History

21 September 2006 by The General Published in: Civil War books and authors 20 comments

Yesterday, Dimitri Rotov had a really interesting post analyzing what he views as flaws in military history.

According to Dimitri, the biggest issues are too much reliance on too few sources and carelessness about the origin of a decision, leaving the analysis incomplete and lack in thoroughness. The combination of these two factors leaves Dimitri cold about traditional military history. It really is an interesting analysis.

He gave Mark Grimsley and me a tip of the cap, indicating that he believes that we go farther toward completeness and fairness in our analysis than most, a compliment I appreciate a great deal.

I thought I would touch base on these two issues. I have always prided myself on being extremely thorough in my research. I would prefer to delay the writing of a book in order to make certain that the scope and coverage of what I do is as complete as possible. I much prefer primary sources, and deifnitely prefer unpublished manuscript material as the basis for my research.

At the same time, it’s impossible to get EVERY source. I don’t care how thorough a researcher might be, you will never find everything. There are just too many obscure repositories out there to get every single one, and there are too many things still in private hands to have even a realistic hope of getting everything. Further, there are too many obscure newspapers that are not generally available to get all of the contemporary coverage and soldier letters published in them. All you can do is to give it your very best shot and then say “enough, and if someone can take what I’ve done and do a better job, more power to them.” I reach that point with every project I undertake. And sometimes, stuff turns up unexpectedly and at the last moment, as it did with those two sets of letters that I had to incorporate into my history of Rush’s Lancers.

With respect to Dimitri’s second point, I think that going into projects with preconceived conclusions is a very bad idea. With the exception of my Sheridan bash, which was written as a legal brief that took an advocate’s position, I have always permitted the evidence to take me where it would. Anything less is intellectually dishonest and fails to give the coverage necessary to address the situation accurately and completely.

As to the issue of failing to recognize the origin of decisions, I try to follow the principles of Ockham’s Razor (also known as the principle of parsimony) wherever possible: entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. Put more succinctly, keep it simple, stupid (also known as the KISS Principle). I admit that I have done a poor job of following my own rules with respect to the Dahlgren debate on what Lincoln knew and when he knew it, but beyond that, I do my level best to keep it as simple as possible and to try not to overly analyze things when I’m doing my historical work.

Thanks for a most interesting and thought-provoking post, Dimitri.

Scridb filter

Comments

Charles Bowery

Fri 22nd Sep 2006 at 3:02 am
Eric,
Although I heartily concur with Mr. Rotov’s assessment of yours and Mark Grimsley’s work, I also think he unfairly paints a lot of excellent military hisorians with that brush. Ethan Rafuse for one, an author he acknowledges as doing great work. Military history may indeed suffer more than its share of hacks because of the “buff” crowd that it attracts, but there is still a lot of good work going on.
Charles
Michael Aubrecht

Fri 22nd Sep 2006 at 9:49 am
Eric, I see where Dimitri is coming from, and I do agree with your comments as well. I think though – there are 2 distinct “genres” of modern CW writing.

One is the academic side, or the more “analytical” side. These are the more in-depth works that are produced for the purposes of formal study and targeted at serious military history enthusiasts. This is where you would fall in. I’m not saying that these books are not entertaining so please don’t misunderstand me. What I mean is that these books are primarily meant to EDUCATE. Now on the other hand, you have the other type, the “tribute” side. These are the books that use the aforementioned books as their reference material, but are authored with the intent to glorify or recognize a subject. They present an individual, or an event in a way that is meant to CELEBRATE. This is probably where my books would fit in. I did not write biographies of Jackson and Stuart to compete with the Robertson’s and Davis’ of the world, my books were meant to introduce people to the spiritual sides of these individuals and acknowledge how faith played such an important role in their lives (both on the battlefield). They were written to be positive and inspirational – not analytical. Both are just as viable and valuable. One would be more apt for the classroom – and the other would be more apt for a church library.

The problem (as I see it) – is that published history has/is falling into the same trap as the rest of American media – such as the News. It is no longer good enough just to present information. It has to be sensationalized. People feel obligated to “blend” these two genres in order to generate support and sales. I would hope though that an educated reader would be able to recognize the difference between “Plenty of Blame to go Around: Jeb Stuart’s Controversial Ride to Gettysburg” (by you) and “Christian Cavalier: The Spiritual Legacy of JEB Stuart” (by me).
A couple years ago, I was discussing books with Fredericksburg Historian John Hennessy as he told me that they receive a ton of books every year written by the ancestor of some unknown soldier arguing for their side and demanding representation. They don’t sell most of these books in the NPS stores as they are clearly slanted and agenda-based. On the other hand – they get a ton of highly credible works where historians have truly labored to uncover and present some rare or unprinted information. (Like the work you guys do). Now there are probably some very good reads as well as some very bad reads in BOTH of those stacks (remember, I know book reviews) but there are distinctly different “angles” and targeted audiences for each. That doesn’t IMO, make any book more valuable than the other – but the reader needs to recognize the intent of the piece and judge it accordingly.

Another point that jumped out at me (last night as a matter of fact) was a show on the National Geographic entitled “The Secret Voice of Hitler”. In it, they had uncovered some audio tape and were able to investigate, compare w/ film and photo, and use CSI-technology to prove that it was him. The tape shows a different aside of Hitler’s diplomacy and is the ONLY tape in existence of him speaking casually. His personal assistant did not recognize his voice – but computer analysis verified it. This is another example of new stuff coming out that disproves other things that have been believed for decades. In other words, history is only as good as its sources and no one knows for sure what happened in many instances unless they were there. Therefore mistakes are to be expected and history is ultimately a mine-field of folklore. As a baseball writer, this is one of my biggest challenges.

So I guess what I am rambling on about – yes I took my pain meds and am “feeling fine” – is that there is a place for both EDUCATING and CELEBRATING history – but people need to recognize which is which. And we all need to admit that all the research in the world cannot guarantee that everything published is 100% accurate and without question. Thorough research and unbiased presentation is to be applauded – but I also believe that you can also present a tribute to a hero for people to look up to – as long as you do it in an obvious manner – and don’t try to pass it off as an academic study.

Readers will get one impression of JEB Stuart from you – and perhaps another from me – but they are both based on facts and research. The difference is in your Intro and mine. You state that it is your attempt to present a thorough and original study of JEB’s controversial ride. I state that it is my attempt to present a legendary Confederate hero who personified the devout servant to God and country. We are both right.

Whew, that was a lot of typing for this early in the morning… I’m going to take a nap.
J David Petruzzi

Fri 22nd Sep 2006 at 10:22 am
Well deserved, Mike – and IMO you’re completely right. Well said.

As for the “sensationalized” style of CW history writing that’s going on right now (see the previous blog topic re: Dahlgren, and just about anything new regarding Lincoln coming out the past few years) I hope it cools off soon. I’m all for controversies, hot topics, and tipping over sacred cows (it’s most of my writing, after all) but the more and more it’s presented like National Enquirer headlines the more I’ll want some of your meds…. 🙂

J.D.
Dave Smith

Fri 22nd Sep 2006 at 12:28 pm
I think that with the “sequitennial” (sp?) coming up in 2011, it’s going to be an interesting time for ACW history. How we write about it, teach it, and celebrate it will say a lot regarding how this period of history holds up for the next 50 years.

It will be very interesting to see how, if and when the next Ken Burns kind of effort comes along to spike interest, and how it fits with Dimitri’s commetns.

Dave
Theodore P. Savas

Fri 22nd Sep 2006 at 12:33 pm
Well, let me say this about that.

I learned in the late 1980s, while researching a couple topics that interested me, just how misinformed and biased “history” can be.

Two brief examples: When preparing an article on the Suffolk campaign, I poured through the ORs and realized that many things others had written on the campaign itself, and its commander, James Longstreet, were at best misleading and at worst patently untrue. I donâ€™t recall the exact particulars, but the biography of Longstreet by Eckenrode and Conrad, long considered the standard work on the subject for decades, offered a 2-sentence quote from Longstreet to Lee to demonstrate how obstreperous and overbearing Longstreet was. (We have all heard how he went to Suffolk, loved independent command, did not want to return, and performed terriblyâ€”right?). However, the lengthy OR letter from which E and C quoted was 180 degrees out of phase. They cherry-picked a sentence fragment, added a few ellipses (if memory served) and used his words against him. I remember sitting back in my chair, mouth agape, at such an obvious bald faced lie. Longstreet wrote the exact OPPOSITE to Lee. Historians (Freeman among them) failed to note that the four major objectives given to Longstreet (mission creep, to use a modern phrase) conflicted with one another. His task, as dictated by Richmond, was literally impossible.

Similarly with Payneâ€™s Farm (Mine Run Campaign). I spent two full days identifying the field to lay out the battle lines. The farmer who owned the land had no real idea where the battle had taken placeâ€”he thought it was well off his property. Why did he think that? Because the map and article in CWTI issue of Mine Run was utterly wrong. That map and all its mistakes was copied and used in a small book on Mine Run in the early 1990s (I believe). I poured through the OR, copied every report, and walked the ground. It was instantly obvious that the terrain matched the OR reports even today (same ravine, same small creek, same hills, same farm lane). But no one had bothered to check. There was no intent to mislead, but others rely upon historians who should know better. A day of metal detecting proved my suspicions and yielded more than 100 artifactsâ€”exactly where they should have been.

For many years, I have been wary of everything written by anyone. What was Reaganâ€™s saying? Trust but verify. Indeed.

I, too, can close with a Woodbury comment: His quarter, two dimes, and a penny or two are still out on the field. Somewhere. Remember, David? LOL

Cheers,

tps
Michael Aubrecht

Fri 22nd Sep 2006 at 2:10 pm
You propose some excellent points Mr. Savas. The two examples that you cite, along with the quality of the authors you represent, is exactly what the educational-side of the genre demands. Now, if sometime in the future, an author chooses to use your books as a reference source (credited of course) in a piece that tributizes one of the participants in those engagements, then you have made their work better, and they have celebrated the story of said-individual, perhaps generating interest that filters back into your book. So… the educational… feeds the celebrational – instigates a reader to go further – and the result is a full-circle – that brings the reader back to your book cited in the Bibliography.

Once again, I would hope that a reader would know the difference between “Stonewall Jackson and the American Civil War (by FR Henderson) and “Onward Christian Soldier: The Spiritual Journey of Stonewall” (by me). In fact, I have received emails from readers thanking me for using Henderson’s bio – as my book – led them to his book – that is so old – they probably would have never read it. Make sense?

BTW: I think its hilarious how all of us authors find a way to plug our books in our responses here. 🙂
The General

Fri 22nd Sep 2006 at 2:23 pm
Great comments, guys. Michael, I agree with you. As you point out, there’s room for multiple flavors of ice cream, and I think that’s the gist of your point.

Ted, you’re also quite correct. The key is to fix the errors of “settled” history without being way out there in the process. I give my lengthy gnashing of teeth about Dahlgren and Lincoln as the primary example. Much as I would love to settle the issue once and for all, it’s quite clear that while we can speculate all we like, we’re never going to know the true answer.

Eric
J David Petruzzi

Fri 22nd Sep 2006 at 2:43 pm
So true. And Ted – you’re right about sourcing… one HAS to go to the primary sources. Just as one example of many, Eric and I found this to be true with the Stuart book (there, Mike – a plug:) ). How many times, Eric, did we go back to primary sources and find that secondary writers afterwards fouled up the original intent (either unknowlingly, or intentionally – but in the end it doesn’t matter)? And then it changes the interpretation of the particular subject.

Eric has always said that when looking at a new book, he peruses the bibliography. If it doesn’t contain the primary sources that the subject would demand, or is heavily loaded on secondary sources, back on the shelf it goes. I do the same. Too many books today are re-wordings of someone else’s work. Besides being dishonest and examples of literary laziness, that’s when mistakes and inaccuracies creep in.

J.D.
David Woodbury

Fri 22nd Sep 2006 at 6:54 pm
Ted,

I well remember when you established the actual location of the Payne’s Farm fighting — it was pretty exciting to see the geographical clues all line up one-by-one, then to corroborate everything with metal detectors.

And I’ll never forget how pathetic it was that my cheap machine could not even detect coins pulled from my own pocket and dropped in the grass. While you guys were pulling minie balls from the ground, I was planting bus fare for the next fellow to come along.

David
Theodore P. Savas

Fri 22nd Sep 2006 at 9:50 pm
LOL. And there is still a bullet on it with RE Lee’s signature carved into it at Ball’s Bluff, remember?
J David Petruzzi

Fri 22nd Sep 2006 at 11:04 pm
Nerts. Wish I’d have been along on that excursion – sounds like I could have just followed Dave around and got lunch money! 😉

J.D.
David Woodbury

Fri 22nd Sep 2006 at 11:20 pm
LOL. I had forgotten about the R. E. Lee inscribed minie ball at Ball’s Bluff. I like to think it washed out in the rain, and some lucky guy has it displayed on his mantel.

It’s a one-of-a-kind find, like the Kensington Runestone.

David
Shawn Woodford

Sun 24th Sep 2006 at 10:16 am
Gentlemen,

I hope I am not too late to make a contribution to this thread. Let me start by saying that I have been greatly impressed by the network of Civil War blogs that has popped up on the blogosphere, and especially the level of dialogue that takes place among them. This emerging network is in many ways superior to the list-serve bulletin boards and chat rooms insofar as facilitating thoughtful conversations. It is sort of amusing however, that a discussion about one of Dimitri Rotovâ€™s posts is taking place on someone elseâ€™s blog. Too bad he wonâ€™t reconsider re-enabling comments in his own.

With regard to the failings of military history, as someone who is an academically-trained military historian, I would point out that these shortcomings are endemic to the practice of history in general. Rather than tar the field of military history with a broad brush, I think it would be more accurate to make clear the distinction between history that is firmly grounded in both primary sources and the existing historiography, clearly and honestly argued, and avoids polemics (i.e. â€œgoodâ€ history) and that which is poorly researched, sloppily argued, or intentionally biased to buttress some broader political, social, or emotional argument (i.e. â€œbadâ€ history).

Dimitriâ€™s allegation that military historians rely too heavily on a handful of sources seem to me to be an indictment of â€œbadâ€ history, which certainly transcends the military history genre. But, given his clearly advertised antipathy toward what he identifies as the â€œCentennialistâ€ school of Civil War interpretation, I think he is getting at something else, something that is endemic to the epistemology of history as an intellectual discipline. Historical knowledge is not objective, nor is it static. What is considered to be historical â€œtruthâ€ is socially constructed, in that it represents a general consensus among its practitioners at a particular point in time. As times change, as new evidence is brought to light, as new historians challenges older interpretations, the consensus of historical â€œtruthâ€ changes as well.

The creation and revision of orthodox historical interpretation is fundamental to the process of creating historical knowledge, and isnâ€™t a failing of the discipline or any one of its subgenres. Itâ€™s simply the way the process works. I find Dimitriâ€™s intellectual bomb-throwing quite interesting for the very fact that it is advancing the body of knowledge. Perhaps he will force a change in the historical consensus on George McClellan. At the very least he is prompting very stimulating debate. This may be a haphazard and disorderly way of making sense of history, but that is the way all human knowledge advances.

As for Dimitriâ€™s criticism that military historians are overly focused on the role of commanders, hasnâ€™t history in general always been focused on the role of â€œgreat men?â€ This certainly was one of the criticisms leveled at the practice of history by the 1960s revisionists. Taking the focus off leaders and decision-makers is one of the primary motivations of the â€œnewâ€ military history that has been previously discussed in these circles. This seems to me to be simply part of the general process of ongoing revisionism that characterizes the epistemology of history. I, for one, am very curious to see where Dimitri goes with his inquiry into the political backgrounds of McClellanâ€™s corps commanders.

Cheers,

Shawn Woodford
The General

Sun 24th Sep 2006 at 1:23 pm
Shawn,

Thanks very much for weighing in. I think you raise a lot of valid and legitimate points.

I think we all agree that bad history is just that–bad. Sadly, bad history by one makes all of us who care look bad, and that’s disturbing.

Thanks for taking the time to post, and I hope you will do so again.

Eric
Drew Wagenhoffer

Sun 24th Sep 2006 at 2:01 pm
Yeah, his points are well-taken, but the thrust of his argument seems to be that military history, among the various CW avenues of study, is an especially agregious offender. I just don’t see it that way at all.
Shawn Woodford

Mon 25th Sep 2006 at 8:14 am
Eric,

Thank you. It has been nearly 20 years since I read Civil War history regularly, but my interest was rekindled recently when I relocated to Washington D.C. I have been pretty impressed with the quality of scholarship in the field these days on the part of both professional and non-professional historians. My belief is that it is the collective responsibility of the community of all historians to continually assess old and new interpretations, and winnow out the bad from the good. Consensus facilitates that process, but civility allows for healthy disagreement that keeps the consensus from becoming an orthodoxy. That’s why I think this emerging net of Civil War blogs is so terrific, because it encourages that process much more effectively than the list-serves and chat boards. It also seems to me that there is much more interaction between professional and non-professional historians in the Civil War field than one finds in other genres. Broadening the diversity of perspectives in the discussions can only be a good thing, in my opinion.

Drew,

I agree that Dimitri is sort of tossing the baby out with the bathwater in dismissing military history because of the failings of individual historians. Certainly military history as a genre has some specific methodological problems, but I think they are no worse than those that challenge historians of other subjects, and the discipline as a whole. By giving up on military history, he is missing out on a lot of really interesting and challenging work.

Cheers,

Shawn
The General

Mon 25th Sep 2006 at 6:38 pm
Shawn,

You’re absolutely correct. I think that the more interaction between the professional and non-professional historians, the better. As you say, it all makes for a healthier field of history. And I’m glad to have you as a reader.

Eric
J David Petruzzi

Mon 25th Sep 2006 at 10:57 pm
I third the motion, Eric. I will always be an amateur historian, no matter how many books or articles I write, or how much work I do. But I see the increasing cooperation between pros and non-pros as healthy and mutually beneficial. And I think we all appreciate each other.

J.D.
Valerie Protopapas

Sun 01st Oct 2006 at 5:52 pm
A late comment surely, but I only read this particular entry today. The problem with the KISS principle is that history is not always simple. There can be – and often are – very complex forces at work that produce a particular outcome. I remember someone saying that something couldn’t be a ‘conspiracy’ because it would have required disparate groups cooperating and that probably wouldn’t happen. Ah, but it often DOES happen. For instance, in Nazi Germany, forces that were ordinarily at each other’s throats called a truce and cooperated in order to bring down a third group. Of course, once the that group had been eliminated, it was back to business as usual between the former rivals.

J. R. R. Tolkien in his Lord of the Rings clearly presents that principle in action when Frodo and his servant Sam find themselves in Morder and witness a (fatal) dispute between two orcs (evil servants of the Dark Lord). After an altercation, the smaller one kills the larger with an arrow and then runs away. Sam tells Frodo that the enemies of Morder would only profit if that particular type of behavior were to spread throughout the Dark Lord’s kingdom. Ah, but Frodo replies, that type of behavior is TYPICAL of the people of Morder BUT if they had found the hobbits, they would have stopped their fighting until they had killed those whom they BOTH saw as enemies. In other words, the ‘infighting’ among the orcs was only present when there was no OTHER enemy to fight. And this is what happened in Hitler’s regime as noted in the above example.

History is filled with strange twists and turns of fate, of people betraying causes and embracing what would seem to be diametric points of view for totally unfathomable reasons. That’s one of the problems with trying to do more than ‘list the facts’ in history; all attempts at defining the motives that produced those facts ends up being a matter of the interpretation of the information at hand. To have a guiding principle of simplicity when simplicity is not always the right answer is to risk being, in the end, quite wrong no matter how ‘tidy’ the posited theory appears.
James M. Ridgway, Jr.

Tue 17th May 2011 at 6:03 pm
I’m going to commit a sin here and say that charter and motivation should count for as much as the so called “facts.” I mean what are the facts? How many critical facts were never recoded, or were lost, or were gross exaggerations, or were simply out and out lies for political or other reasons. Really, you can connect the dots of so called known “facts” in any way one wishes.

Indeed, sometimes what was never recorded or said might be more important than the”fact”. And here is where character and motive must be weighed against the “facts.” When writing on any historical subject, I believe it is critical that one know as well as is humanly possible the character and motivation of the many dozens of player in a given work.

Personally, when I find that facts do not match up to motivation and character, I have serious reservation about the “fact.”

James M. Ridgway, Jr. Author: Little Mac: Demise of an American Hero”