Quote:
Originally Posted by grasshopper_60619
I want to know if many of the accounts of recent military history books such as the Mexican War (1846-1848); Civil War (1861-1865); and the Spanish-American War (1898) could be wrong based upon the authors' personal interpretations . Also, would it be possible for future authors to use both accounts/sides of the wars to get a complete picture of the conflicts?
|
There is always that risk. Read some modern british historian accounts of The Napoleonic era, you still see it.
But I would say personal bias and interpretation is less and less as the generations go by. Lots of war account in the generation written after these wars were written by the actual participants..generals, soldiers, etc. There it was a double edged sword - you got the most accurate accounts by eyewitnesses, but you also got the most bias. For instance, after the civil war, you got all these general's writing their account of the war, and it was mostly done to prop up there own reputation or settle personal scores.
Now, at least, a historian can pick and chose from historical records and accounts. There is also some consensus on most historical (not all) facts in most instances.
The biggest danger is that these published accounts are written for a particular audience. A historical book of the Mexican War by an English speaking author is, naturally, written for an English speaking customer, and thus would focus on the American side of things. Not that it would be biased, but less attention is payed to Santa Anna's order of battle, etc.