During a recent blog exchange, a reader queried Karen Traviss about the reliability of available information concerning real-world battles. She asked me, in my capacity as a military historian, to address the issue. Unfortunately the thread reached its fifty post limit before I had the opportunity to do so. This entry will focus primarily on that topic. I will preface this discussion by saying that my experience may differ greatly from other military historians, depending on their particular branch of service and the mission of their unit. In other words, I speak on behalf of no one but myself.

The Role of a Military Historian

As a historian, I'm responsible for the following activities within my unit:

*Collect, organize, analyze, and interpret primary documents. (Notice the omission of secondary sources.)

*Maintain a collection of historical documents and references, including a complete file of my organization's periodic histories.

*Prepare papers and provide historical services that meet the needs of my commander and staff. (I give highest priority to work requested by my commander.)

*Answer historical questions, including those on unit emblems, lineage, and honors.

*Write periodic histories, heritage pamphlets, studies, and monographs.

Now onto the issue at hand...

It's not as easy (to own/know/check information) for real battles, where there are tons of secondary sources, with sometimes differing information, and probably not all at arm's reach.

At one time this may have been true, but the digital age has changed everything. Battlefield information formerly flowed along two primary communication lines, verbal (phone, radio, direct communication) and disposable (paper) means. Verbal information was rarely recorded. Disposable information traveled much more slowly and rarely outlived its usefulness to the primaries involved. For instance, when the U.S. Army Air Forces withdrew the bulk of their air crews and infrastructure from Europe after World War II, they burned and shredded most of their out-of-date files. What future historians would have viewed as a priceless treasure, the Army considered an unnecessary shipping expenditure. As a result, very little of this information survived, and the resulting lack of primary sources naturally elevated the importance of secondary sources such as news reports and recollections.

We're in a very different situation today thanks to advances in information and communications technologies. Not only are historians involved in documenting the mission planning process (when our security clearances and "need to know" are sufficient of course), we also have access to the same battlefield reports intended for leadership. Units receive SITREPS (situation reports) and AAR's (after action reports) as quickly as the men and women in the field can type them out and hit the "send" button. Not only does this enhance our unit's response time in support of troops operating down-range, it also makes collecting information infinitely easier for the historian in terms of access.

Our challenge now is filtering the massive quantities of information available to us from the battlefield, and supplementing them with relevant interviews to provide the best possible account of any given battle. We strive for objectivity. As the corporate memory of my unit, I have a duty to accurately document the good, the bad, and the ugly of our efforts in hopes that we can learn from our mistakes and repeat our successes. In other words, we don't simply sing our own praises and brush valid criticisms under the rug. Such an attitude is self-defeating, counterproductive, and could conceivably get someone killed down the line.

In Summary

So, in response to that reader's concerns, there is much more information available to us from the battlefield than you might think. As for secondary sources, they are nowhere near as important to us as they used to be. Finally, regarding "differences" in the accounts we receive, if both sources are considered credible, we reflect both points of view in our reports. It is my experience, however, that many so-called discrepancies in secondary sources stem from an individual's desire to "make news" or attract attention to themselves with scandalous accusations or agenda-driven propaganda, rather than faithfully presenting an alternate perspective. This isn't universally true mind you, but it's always a concern when considering secondary sources.

To my knowledge, neither the late Galactic Republic nor the Empire embedded full-time historians with operational units. If they had, chances are that they would have been influenced by factors other than objectively documenting the events they observed. After all, anyone who presented a report detailing the Empire's flawed plans and operational failures would likely become "history" themselves in short order. It's also interesting to note that publications such as the Star Wars Chronologies have presented historical gaps, particularly concerning the Clone Wars era, as the result of informational purges undertaken by Palpatine. Once again, the importance of secondary sources is elevated (in-universe) due to the lack of primary sources.

Blog Index