Historical sources and issues · 3:32am Jan 22nd, 2017

Now for a little fun and history.

A few months back, I was studying the Spanish Conquest of Mexico, ultimately having four different authors providing me details. While a lot of the data lined up, some of it didn't, or contradicted, or had another issue come up.

The following videos are about the same battle; Teutoburg Forest, 9 AD. Although they feature the same event, both of them have major differences that might help you see the historian's problem of conflicting information;

Aside from the accents used, some of the data lines up;

- Major, mostly one-sided, battle in the Teutoburg forest.
- Three or so Roman legions and about as many camp followers took part.
- The Germans used the ruse of a fictional uprising to the north to lure Varus into a real battle.
- The terrain was in the Germans' favor, despite their inferior weaponry.

However, there are numerous contradictions as well;

- Baz Battles (first video) doesn't mention as many encampments as Historia Civilis (second video) does.
-Baz specifically says that after the first day of battle, Varus realized there was no uprising to the north. Historia's account claims that Varus still thought the fictional uprising was real at this point.
-Arminius, the key figure of the German rebellion, is entirely let out of Historia's account.
- Baz never mentions the destruction of the cohorts prior to the main battle in the Teutoburg.
-Baz mentions three days of fighting; Historia stretches it out to five.

I'm sure there are other similarities and differences that you may have noticed. But I think you get the idea at this point. And it's not just this historical point that I have difficulty with; the author Bevin Alexander wrote the book Sun Tzu at Gettysburg, which details the use and disuse of the ancient Chinese commander's strategies and tactics in modern warfare, from the American Revolution to the Korean War. There are a number of things that catch on my historical knowledge in this book, but these are the main issues I can remember;

- While never actually insulting him, Mr. Alexander effectively labels Lee as a brawler without any real strategy who got lucky, and who wasted the South's manpower during the Civil War brainlessly.
- Mr. Alexander claims that the Schliefen plan for Germany in WWI was sound and would have worked if Von Moltke had not messed it up, and yet the plan requires men in an era without mechanized infantry to march forty kilometers a day, if not more, during a forty day period, over a large amount of space, violating Belgian neutrality while doing so, in order to cut off the Allied armies and wipe them out in a battle of annihilation, presumably before Russia could fully mobilize and conduct military campaigns. In my opinion, this would be unlikely, given the exhaustion of the German troops at this point and again the lack of general motorized transport in the army, as well as the lack of usable armored vehicles at this point in time. Even assuming they had been able to march as far as the plan required them, the Germans would still be tired and worn out from their long, arduous march and would be called upon to fight a major battle in that condition. Von Moltke did mess up the Schliefen plan, but that's not the pint I'm getting at; I am wondering if the Schliefen plan was even workable in the first place, given the reasons I've already stated.
- Mr Alexander claims, on pg. 43, that armies during the Napoleonic period did away with close range, massed fire, in exchange for long distance, aimed fire. I believe this to be incorrect, as the Napoleonic period mostly saw armies fight in the very kind of battle that Mr. Alexander appears to be eschewing; in tight formations, firing muskets en masse at opposing forces; while this era saw the rise of light infantry who used rifles and aimed fire, the majority of the infantry would still rely on the traditional line of battle.

Naturally, many historical accounts contradict. Some have obvious flaws; Tacitus, who gave a historical account of the Iceni (Boudicca) rebellion, was known for making up stirring speeches for major occasions, as the wikipedia article on the event states. Others are less obvious and require careful consideration of the character of the people (and peoples) involved, as well as cultural practices and the many problems that had to be overcome.

If you've actually read this long and haven't just said "TL;DR," then thanks. Even if you did just go "TL;DR," thanks for at least checking this out.

May God go with you