Chat GPT Warning

Hi Daniel, great to hear from you too!

My latest French language purchase is “Les Quatres-Bras 16 Juin 1815” by Alain Arcq. In his introduction he says “Dans ses <<Mémoires de Saints-Hélène >>, l’Empereur s’est trouvé d’injustes excuses et rejetant sur les lieutenants les fautes commises et les retards accumulés.”

So scepticism seems not to be restricted to Anglo-phones.

Or are Belgians to also be classed as Anglo-Saxon?

Honestly quite a few sources in English beat those dodgy French sources easily in doginess hands down.

@Hans - Karl Weiß I agree that all sources should be viewed with the agenda of the author in mind, regardless of the language it was written in.

However, notwithstanding that all generalisations will have their exceptions, there are some differences. Few systematically set out to self justify and slander quite like the writings of St Helena. Whilst all sides have their heroes few have attracted hagiographers like Napoleon.

British sources often fall into unjustified xenophobia. There are no shortages of petty rivalries or chips on shoulders. They tend to shy away from self criticism, lies therefore are often by omission. It's often about what they don't say.

By contrast Hanoverian reports and accounts tend to be much more open to expressing errors. Prussian and other German sources need to be seen in the light of later political climates.

I could go on, but as these generalisations broaden they collapse under their own weight.

What generative AI struggles with is identifying intent and weighing evidence. It tends to accept things at face value and prioritises the fitness to the story over disconfirming or inconvenient facts. Genty, Thackeray, Forrester or Hugo become equal fodder with Siborne, Houssaye or Pflug-Hartnung

We should always return to and weigh up the sources, rather than blindly following where others have trod or restricting oneself to that conveniently in our mother tongue. This is where Anglo-phones have been increasingly well served of late. Authors like Mulwijk, Field, Franklin, Glover, Mittlache etc etc have been instrumental in broadening the narratives around my own narrow interest in the 100 days.

I think though that some are too quick to assume that an individual's nationality will predispose them to a certain or erroneous point of view. I share a country with a certain ennobled historian, not his views on "Napoleon, man of peace"!

Were Terry that others were so gracious!