I was listening to The Napoleonicist episode on Waterloo Myths, which got me to thinking to how historical myths arise and more importantly why they persist, even after the demise of the myth maker? Nature abhors a vacuum and we human beings, almost from the womb, strive to make sense and order of the world. Like sports pundits, we try to place everything in context and tell a smooth and coherent story. Now if my work as a risk manager and trainer has taught me anything it is that human endeavour the world is inherently jagged and incoherent with often disparate and seemingly unconnected factors conspiring to shape and trigger events. Our love of smoothness often leads us to ascribe cause and effect where none exist. These cognitive biases are well understood and described in the psychological literature. Some make the evolutionary connection to the survival of those who perceive a predator from partial clues. More trivially it is why we continually see the faces of prophets and saints in our toast marks or wine stains! I believe this goes a long way to explain why historical myths are generated. It could also be reasonably said that military trained minds, with their stereotypical love of structure and order, are particularly susceptible. But, I muse, why when there is often conclusive contrary evidence do they persist? I was reminded of one of my airport bookshop purchases “Mistakes Were Made But Not By Me!” by Carol Travis and Elliot Aronson. In it they investigate the reticence to free the wrongly convicted despite conclusive proof being provided by retrospective DNA analysis. I detect that many in our Napoleonic community are also unwilling to relinquish dearly held tenets in the light of contrary evidence. Indeed, much intellectual effort is expended in their defence, or the defence of the reputations of those who created or repeated them. So what can the historian (both amateur and professional) learn from these works of psychology? Well, they are aimed at assisting the modern business and management community in real time decision making. Of course, those decisions are contributing to future history, so we would do well to take them into account. The next time you find a piece of evidence that confirms your theory, or seamlessly fits into the prevailing paradigm, beware! Reality (both past and present) is inherently jagged and disjointed. If you can’t find some contrary evidence or dissonance then I would worry. Probably summed up by that old proverb, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
top of page
bottom of page
Sorry @Kevin F. Kiley it’s a non sequitur, I don’t get the question, am I missing something? Could I suggest you re-read the post and re-frame?
Kevin, I understand there is such a thing as design? Footnotes may not be stylistically appropriate. That’s why I said “in some fashion”. I don’t think it is being melodramatic for me to expect when I am parting with my hard-earned cash for a work of non-fiction for an author to have done their due diligence. Surely anyone aspiring to the title of historian has a duty to the discipline as well? Yes, I am placing trust into the hands of the historian, and I expect them not to be a charlatan or a rogue. Acting honourably and transparently is surely the pre-requisite to good history? Otherwise, all we get is a Kipling “Just So” story. Entertaining perhaps, but hardly advancing zoological understanding.
Fully agree, it has made me very distrustful of ALL 'established history'.
There is a lot out there if you look!
Try my Waterloo, Myth & Reality to explain many of these myths
Clays account is excellent. I published a version a few years ago (see my garethglovercollection.com). The material I find all over the place but most in county archives and National Army Museum, British Library, scottish Library, Irish Library, American University Libraries, Australia, Canada in fact everywhere. Doesnt matter if officer or ranker, it is how they were understood rather than any difference in importance. Too many mentally made them fit the standard version, rather than see that their versions did not say that. It is a failure that many historians have fallen into.
Have read Andrew W Field French Perspective series? Not sure Arthur Harris is an enemy.
How did you discover it? Allied sources/French? It amazes me how new facts are still coming to light, especially about Waterloo which must be one the researched/books published about battles ever to be fought. I know my bookcase is groaning under the weight of my Waterloo books
A very complex topic - but this is not restricted to Napoleonic period
I detect that many in our Napoleonic community are also unwilling to relinquish dearly held tenets in the light of contrary evidence.The same could be said about the 2nd WW and especially the German Army - the Eastern front, up to 10 years ago shaped by those books written by Halder, Manstein, Guderian et al.
People are lazy, when there is a book by a trusted author you will take that on to find a quick answer than instead reading a myriad of books to form your own answer.
As historian amateur, as I am, my only escape is trying to cross check and find out that a lot of well entrenched truths are myths, by reading precisely those sources the original author claimed to have read.
I am shocked very often, how those differ. But what is even more shocking to recognize the blunders by trained historians - they are not doing, exceptions prove the rule, their home work.
Another point is that some people are more interested to blurb propaganda and stay unchanged in their opinion despite some overwhelming new sources which prove a lot of entrenched myths - outright wrong.
I am changing my opinion all the time and modify them, when I learn something new, even if it doesn't fit into my old conception, or what I say for myself prejudices.
So one has to reassess all the time and try to look at history or anything else from as many angles as possible and then discuss with the right people who share the same interest and then it is amazing how to gain access to different perspectives.
New media seem to be contra productive to that, you tube, there are some highly acclaimed channels, but those authors freely admit, they won't read any responses and it is rare that they will modify - discuss or change produced videos.
Fully agree, you also need to be prepared to reassess your theories or beliefs in the light of new counter evidence. The historian must be evidence led or he will go badly astray. I am always willing to reassess my own theories in the light of new evidence and have pride in doing so. Too many defend the indefencible rather than alter their views.
I don't know about others, but when I'm doing research I tend to go hunting for the evidence first, and put the theory together - feels like the only safe way to me!