Sources and Footnotes, Part II

@john fortune it is perhaps the very heart of an interpretive discipline to be wrong, because in an interpretation there is no real right. To be so requires two things. The acceptance of the rights of others to make a contrary interpretation. The admission of the inherent fallibility of one own’s. Both of these steps can be too far for some, who prefer the illusion of absolutes. This is why the discipline of proper referencing as opposed to merely attribution is so important. Saying ‘Napoleon said’ is of little value when we see the sheer volume of what he said (and the even greater volume of what people have subsequently said he said). Proper references allows follow up, and potentially therefore the reader to make their own (counter factual?) differing interpretation. I think it depends on the relationship the author is trying to have with the reader. A hectoring arrogant lecturer or a knowledgeable but respectful companion on a journey of discovery. I know which style I prefer to give my money to, but I could of course be counter factual.

@Zack White That isn't the case with Swords. The paraphrased comments are sourced by who said, ordered, commented or other such terms.

Nothing was neglected in the writing of Swords. And opinions are one thing-definite bias or prejudice another.

I have found, and I have a master's degree in military history from a credible university, that the methods used by Col Elting in Swords on sourcing are completely legitimate.

And I too taught my history students how to write and source information and how to construct a bibliography, a 'sources cited' page, and a recommended reading list.

I have found the negative comments regarding Col Elting's work to be completely out of line and denigrating for no other reason than Col Elting was sometimes complimentary to Napoleon and admiring of the Grande Armee, the latter being the subject of Swords. And even though the book was published 43 years ago (1988) it is still the best and most comprehensive book on the Grande Armee in English.

It seems to me that the point of view you are presenting is somewhat pedantic.

Further, Col Elting's knowledge of the Napoleonic period and Napoleonic source material was both wide and deep. He taught military history at West Point and was the co-author of the Esposito/Elting Atlas, a copy of which I have had since 1964 and was my early introduction to the Grande Armee.

Col Elting's personal library was selective and impressive and he had access to the West Point library which is world class. So, I would recommend before attempting to 'take him to task' anyone should take a closer look at his work, which includes the Recommended Reading List in the Atlas, which is annotated.

I also believe that Col Elting wanted to 'inspire' (for lack of a better word) those whom he taught and who read his books to look material up for themselves. I certainly did.

After I bought Swords when it came out and finished reading it, I went looking for the references used for the book by Col Elting and because of that I gradually developed an excellent, moderately sized Napoleonic library. Marbot, Parquin, Bourgogne, Barres, Meneval, and others ended up in my library and greatly contributed to my own research.

After being fortunate enough to meet Col Elting and become friends, he gave me twenty-five of the older La Sabretache, which are bound books, not mere magazines. And that was the source of much of his material in Swords and easily found with the material to hand. All it takes is a little work, which amounts to more pleasure than work.

@Kevin F. Kiley 'It seems to me that the point of view you are presenting is somewhat pedantic.' - Bit rude.

You call it pedantic, I call it rigour. If I sent a chapter or book off to a publisher, the reviewers would flag it if I included incomplete footnotes. I do the same thing when I mark my students work and when I produce edited collections (I'm now on my fourth).

I have no issue with Elting or his work - its interesting. You are a fan. That's fine. Its equally fine that some aren't. That's part and parcel of historical opinion and judgement - we deal with a subjective subject. Nobody can claim to emphatically be in the right or the wrong.

But we are treading ground that has been covered before, let us move on to fresh matters rather than repeating the comments of previous threads.

@Zack White I see both sides of the argument, and I suppose it depends whether you are writing for the popular market, ie readability or academia ie rigour. Personally, I think Swords falls somewhere between these two stools. As the consumer, even I am ‘counter-factual’. The younger me was delighted with the former, the older me is disappointed in the latter! The problem always with a book is that with either a library or purchased copy we have invested reading time and/or money before we truly know what we have got. This puts even more responsibility on the authors.

How an author supports his points is up to him. Are you being counter-factual on this subject-that depends on what you post and whether or not bias is applied on your part.

'Demanding' something of an author, or anyone else in point of fact, is just a 'little' overboard, don't you think?

The book you referenced is just a little steep in price:

Amazon.com: Napoleon and the Operational Art of War Essays in Honor of Donald D. Horward. (Revised and Extended Edition) (History of Warfare) (9789004434417): Michael V. Leggiere: Books

If you're going to reference something, such as a book, to use as an example of what you believe, I would think providing a sample would be appropriate.