Another method that I have found useful is to search out book reviews in academic journals. Most scholarly history journals publish book reviews by historians in the relevant field. They’re usually pretty short (1-3 pages) and give a good academic perspective of the strengths and weaknesses of the reviewed book.
Another key thing to check is who published it. University press's are usually pretty good about having peer-reviewed research. Other companies also are known for being better quality than others.
Footnotes are important. Then checking quality of the the books referenced. Do they break down bibliography into types, primary, secondary, scholarly. Do they discuss why they use the references they do. Do they comment on the writers credibility. Scholarly books can cherry pick references, from obscure or biased sources. Trust but verify, is a safe motto. Basic factual errors means a book may gathered a lot of dust.
I think the closer you get to the source, the better. Regimental histories are the way to go. The First Vermont Cavalry has an amazingly detailed and exciting regimental history. It's part of the 2 volume Vermont in the Civil War. It includes lists of Field and Staff officers and when each was promoted, wounded, killed or mustered out. It's got footnotes of exactly who was killed in each engagement and if they were an officer it will have a short bio. It's actually a grueling tale of constant movement, long rides, constant skirmishes with famous Confederates like Mosby (who really gets the better of them on a few occasions; example: the skirmish at Miskel Farm), deaths of beloved Colonels, serving under Buford AND Custer, glorious charges, also doomed charges (their impossible charge at Gettysburg under Farnsworth), medals of honor, a gushing letter of praise from Custer for their actions at the Battle of the Opequon (Winchester) down to their final final charge at Appomattox that was waived off by both Confederates and Union negotiators because they were close to a deal that would end the war. This was all published in 1888 and gathered from first hand accounts from the men that participated. FYI, it's only 53 pages and it's free to download. Page numbers 214-266 of Vermont in the Civil War.
As a professionel researcher I must tell you, you can never be completely sure. I've read academical publications even from university professors, which got things wrong. You can judge a book only by knowing a lot about the subject. One major point are well used academical methods like citations, bibliography etc. and even then the whole concept might be false and or not logical.
Steve, as you know bibliographies can be padded. I think many times they are. Another point are there known inaccuracies, the state capital is an excellent example. If an author is wrong about common known facts, what else is wrong? Your video brings up a good point. One day I would like to discuss the army/Indians conflict in Wyoming with you.
Citations and looking through the bibliography in every book is a good way to figure our if a book is properly researched or not. Footnoting your sources on where you got your source from is the primary way of how most authors cite their sources. Most research in the modern day for Civil War era books are done in 2 ways, primary and secondary sources. Primaries obviously being sources such as: diaries, newspapers, letters, ordnance returns, journals, and orders. Meanwhile, secondary sources primarily take the form of either monographs or peer-reviewed journal articles. I would highly recommend using JSTOR for historical journals for any of your reenacting needs if interested. A key way to know if the author is researching their work properly is how often they are adding citations/ citing a source per paragraph. Most will cite anywhere from 4-7 sources per paragraph sometimes. Good video overall.
Excellent vid! One thing - not all citations are worthy either, so just because an author cites a source or sources, one should check those sources on occasion to see if the author stretched or even fabricated the information. It really can be a crap shoot. I have come across very accurate books with solid bibliographies and no to little citations. I have come across books where there are numerous references, only to find those references were not balanced against other sources.
A lot of sourcing (to me) comes down to methodology and rigor. Is the author approaching the subject from a dispassionate perspective, like "Sherman and the Burning of Columbia" by Marion B Lucas, or does it feel like the author has a bone to pick? Factuality can be indicated by the use of sources, but can also be indicated by the language the author uses or even what information is omitted in a text. Any author covering an event from the 19th Century knows there may be conflicting stories about what happened, which is where some healthy skepticism comes in. Small aside, it does take an energetic presenter to make a video about a less-than-super-interesting material with a simple production value entertaining and engaging to watch. Kudos for that.
Footnotes are different from a Bibliography. A Bibliography is a list of books the author owns, a Footnote references a book that the author actually read. At least that is how it works most of the time.
ONE THE STORY IS PRINTED IT BECOMES HISTORY, NO MATER IF IT IS RIGHT OR WORNG! LOOK AT THE STORY OF THE LITTLE BIG HORN PRINTED WITH IN A YEAR OF THE ACTION. IT HAS TAKEN MANY YEARS TO GET THAT STORY STRAIGHT. KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK THAT YOU ARE DOING. QUESTION EVERYTHING.
Another method that I have found useful is to search out book reviews in academic journals. Most scholarly history journals publish book reviews by historians in the relevant field. They’re usually pretty short (1-3 pages) and give a good academic perspective of the strengths and weaknesses of the reviewed book.
Another key thing to check is who published it. University press's are usually pretty good about having peer-reviewed research. Other companies also are known for being better quality than others.
Footnotes are important. Then checking quality of the the books referenced. Do they break down bibliography into types, primary, secondary, scholarly. Do they discuss why they use the references they do. Do they comment on the writers credibility. Scholarly books can cherry pick references, from obscure or biased sources. Trust but verify, is a safe motto. Basic factual errors means a book may gathered a lot of dust.
I think the closer you get to the source, the better. Regimental histories are the way to go. The First Vermont Cavalry has an amazingly detailed and exciting regimental history. It's part of the 2 volume Vermont in the Civil War. It includes lists of Field and Staff officers and when each was promoted, wounded, killed or mustered out. It's got footnotes of exactly who was killed in each engagement and if they were an officer it will have a short bio. It's actually a grueling tale of constant movement, long rides, constant skirmishes with famous Confederates like Mosby (who really gets the better of them on a few occasions; example: the skirmish at Miskel Farm), deaths of beloved Colonels, serving under Buford AND Custer, glorious charges, also doomed charges (their impossible charge at Gettysburg under Farnsworth), medals of honor, a gushing letter of praise from Custer for their actions at the Battle of the Opequon (Winchester) down to their final final charge at Appomattox that was waived off by both Confederates and Union negotiators because they were close to a deal that would end the war. This was all published in 1888 and gathered from first hand accounts from the men that participated. FYI, it's only 53 pages and it's free to download. Page numbers 214-266 of Vermont in the Civil War.
1. Does the point the author makes align with known fact?
2. Is the cited source trustworthy?
3. Does the author's theory make sense?
As a professionel researcher I must tell you, you can never be completely sure. I've read academical publications even from university professors, which got things wrong. You can judge a book only by knowing a lot about the subject. One major point are well used academical methods like citations, bibliography etc. and even then the whole concept might be false and or not logical.
It was great to meet you at the Little Big Horn Cavalry School this year.
Bronson "Dr. Porter" White
Steve, as you know bibliographies can be padded. I think many times they are. Another point are there known inaccuracies, the state capital is an excellent example. If an author is wrong about common known facts, what else is wrong? Your video brings up a good point. One day I would like to discuss the army/Indians conflict in Wyoming with you.
Citations and looking through the bibliography in every book is a good way to figure our if a book is properly researched or not. Footnoting your sources on where you got your source from is the primary way of how most authors cite their sources. Most research in the modern day for Civil War era books are done in 2 ways, primary and secondary sources. Primaries obviously being sources such as: diaries, newspapers, letters, ordnance returns, journals, and orders. Meanwhile, secondary sources primarily take the form of either monographs or peer-reviewed journal articles. I would highly recommend using JSTOR for historical journals for any of your reenacting needs if interested. A key way to know if the author is researching their work properly is how often they are adding citations/ citing a source per paragraph. Most will cite anywhere from 4-7 sources per paragraph sometimes. Good video overall.
Excellent vid! One thing - not all citations are worthy either, so just because an author cites a source or sources, one should check those sources on occasion to see if the author stretched or even fabricated the information. It really can be a crap shoot. I have come across very accurate books with solid bibliographies and no to little citations. I have come across books where there are numerous references, only to find those references were not balanced against other sources.
A lot of sourcing (to me) comes down to methodology and rigor. Is the author approaching the subject from a dispassionate perspective, like "Sherman and the Burning of Columbia" by Marion B Lucas, or does it feel like the author has a bone to pick? Factuality can be indicated by the use of sources, but can also be indicated by the language the author uses or even what information is omitted in a text. Any author covering an event from the 19th Century knows there may be conflicting stories about what happened, which is where some healthy skepticism comes in.
Small aside, it does take an energetic presenter to make a video about a less-than-super-interesting material with a simple production value entertaining and engaging to watch. Kudos for that.
Footnotes are different from a Bibliography. A Bibliography is a list of books the author owns, a Footnote references a book that the author actually read. At least that is how it works most of the time.
Love your videos.
How about a video on officer sash wearing.
How to wear it and store and care for it.
Worthwhile rant, reading lots and lots of books helps. 😄👍
ONE THE STORY IS PRINTED IT BECOMES HISTORY, NO MATER IF IT IS RIGHT OR WORNG!
LOOK AT THE STORY OF THE LITTLE BIG HORN PRINTED WITH IN A YEAR OF THE ACTION.
IT HAS TAKEN MANY YEARS TO GET THAT STORY STRAIGHT.
KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK THAT YOU ARE DOING. QUESTION EVERYTHING.
No reference to Nug? Thanks for the info and I'll pass on that book if you can call it that.