Having read a number of articles and statements of policy in certain Napoleonic magazines recently, it would seem apparent that there is a lack of certainty as to what a source is, what value it has and how it should be interpreted. The editorial policy of these magazines encourages the use of 'primary sources' without giving any indication of what is regarded as a primary source is, let alone as to how it should be used.

The new editor of Age of Napoleon says he would like to see the magazine acknowledged as a research tool, with articles relying on primary sources This statement of editorial policy later makes a mention of secondary sources. [1]

The magazine does not make a clear statement as to what 'primary' or 'secondary' sources are considered to be, let alone an indication of the relative merit and worth of such material. Perhaps it would be of use to do so here.

'Primary sources include eye-witness accounts, memoirs, letters, documents, dispatches, drill regulations, etc. Certain primary sources come in a published form, whilst others are available only as unpublished manuscripts. The unpublished primary sources are often available only in archives or private collections, thus tending to be somewhat more obscure than printed sources.

Secondary sources are those based largely if not entirely on primary sources. Good secondary sources are produced by historians who have researched archive material, eye-witness accounts and memoirs. They base their conclusions on a comparative analysis of the primary sources. The bulk of good secondary sources is produced by academics and General Staff historians. The General Staff historians of the late nineteenth century can be counted as amongst the best military historians yet. [2] Their analyses of the battles and campaigns of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars tend to be the best researched and most reliable works on the subject.

Next come the more popular histories produced for the consumption of the better educated. These works are, in part, based on the staff and academic histories of the campaigns and battles of the period. One could include works such as those of Petre in this category. To describe these books as 'secondary sources' is, in the view of the writer of this article, quite misleading. Being based on secondary sources, such works cannot themselves be 'secondary sources'. They are in fact, at best, third hand sources. As such, they are of less value. Finally, there are the mass market cheap publications such as the Osprey series. These booklets often draw their material from the third hand accounts. As such, they can only be considered as fourth hand sources. As such, they are often somewhat unreliable.

The further away from the primary sources that the writer gets, the less reliable his works tend to be. One could recount numerous anecdotes as to the reliability of fourth hand information. However, one particular story from the Falklands War comes to mind. The vanguard of a British unit stumbled across a minefield. A warning was passed down to the rear of this formation. 'Get down, mines ahead!' was the instruction issued. A short while later, the rear guard jumped in the air, cheering. Their commanding officer screamed to his men to get down immediately. 'But why', they answered, 'the war's over, General Galtieri's dead!'

Reliability

On the subject of reliability, exactly how much emphasis should one place on the primary sources? Are eye-witnesses, as such, totally reliable? How honest are the writers of memoirs? Is it safe to rely on primary sources alone? These are questions that should be considered before seeking 'articles relying on primary sources'. Let us take the analogy of a motor vehicle accident in which a blue car crashes into a red car, this being witnessed by a number of passers-by. The police are called to investigate the accident. The driver of the blue car says it was the fault of the driver of the red car. The latter says it was the fault of the former. Both accounts are primary sources.

Which is correct? One of the eye-witnesses is an eighty year old grandmother with thick rimmed glasses and a walking stick. She is most insistent that the car that caused the accident was green in colour. Her statement is also a primary source. Another eye-witness says it was the red car that was at fault. Later investigations show that this witness is colour blind. Even though the statements of other witnesses contain a number of discrepancies, they indicate that it was the driver of the blue car. However, a technical report shows the blue car to have faulty brakes and bald lyres. A medical report reveals that this driver had a high level of alcohol in his blood.

On the basis of this information, the police draw up their report. This report is a secondary source. It draws the conclusion that the weight of the evidence indicates that the events described by the driver of the red car are more reliable and thus the blame for the accident must be attributed to the driver of the blue car. For a journalist writing up this accident for the local press, which information is regarded as being the most reliable - the statement of the driver of the blue car, a primary source, or the police report, a secondary source? To ask for articles 'relying on primary sources' is not necessarily the best approach to establishing historical truth.

If care has to be taken when basing researches on primary sources, what then are the criteria on which these researches should be conducted? The answer lies in the works of Sir G. Cornewall Lewis who once wrote: 'It seems to be often believed, and, at all events, it is perpetually assumed in practice, that historical evidence is different in its nature from other sorts of evidence. Until this error is effectually extirpated, all historical researches must lead to uncertain results. Historical evidence, like judicial evidence, is founded on the testimony of credible witnesses. [3]

Research for articles in Napoleonic magazines should thus be based on sources that have been established as reliable. As primary sources are not per se reliable, the writer of articles for historical journals should make an effort to establish the credibility of their source material.

Chesney gives the researcher into Napoleonic military history some further guidelines: 'It has been intimated that French historians offend terribly in this matter. They sin, not merely by omission, but by wilful repetition of error from book to book, long after the truth has been given to the world. This would matter little to us, comparatively, were French historians and French material for history not especially important to our own. Unhappily, the ease and grace of the military writers of France, and the number and accessibility of their works, have caused those of our country to adhere almost entirely to their versions of European wars, excepting always those in which English armies are mixed up.

This slavish following of guides too often blind has warped our whole judgement of Continental military powers. We could hardly, indeed, chosen worse for teachers. No German writer would dream of sitting down deliberately to construct a history of a war, a campaign, or even an action between French and Germans, without carefully consulting the French authorities as well as those of his own nation.' [4]

Put another way, the most advisable starting point for any serious study of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars is the secondary sources written in the German language, particularly those histories by the Austrian and German General Staffs.

Notes