Everything's Bigger in Texas, Including Confederatardation

[The Minsky Moment]

In any event, hard though it is to read (presumably it has been scanned using some sort of printing recognition program from the original), I leave it to the audience to judge whether this account is credible, indeed more credible than Simcoe's war diary I previously found. One may well ask: how did a Yankee newspaper writer get ahold of a copy of Colonel Marwood's orders? Is this account of the "Attila" conducting his "Fiendish Plot" really reliable?

Credible or not, it suggests that the show's portrayal of Simcoe is not all that far off how he was seen by Patriot partisans (whether fairly or unfairly).

[Berkut]

Note as well that both accounts *agree* on one thing: that Simcoe reasonably expected a much larger force (the Yank newspaper claims "400 men"), that had recently departed.

Despite Berkut's hilarious-to-Otto aside about 'thousands in one house'. 

Indeed, both accounts agree that when it came time to actually fight, the Brits had a *known* 10-1 advantage, and a dominating military posture - what with have 300 men surrounding a single house with no more than 2-3 dozen men maximum inside. Asleep.

[Berkut]

In any event, hard though it is to read (presumably it has been scanned using some sort of printing recognition program from the original), I leave it to the audience to judge whether this account is credible, indeed more credible than Simcoe's war diary I previously found. One may well ask: how did a Yankee newspaper writer get ahold of a copy of Colonel Marwood's orders? Is this account of the "Attila" conducting his "Fiendish Plot" really reliable?

Credible or not, it suggests that the show's portrayal of Simcoe is not all that far off how he was seen by Patriot partisans (whether fairly or unfairly).

They should have read his diary!

Then they could understand him the way Malthus understands him - a profoundly sensitive, kind man, deeply troubled by his need to kill men while sleeping on the orders of his commander...so much so that he didn't even bother mentioning it because it was too painful to recount. He was a simple, peaceful man, thrown into turmoil and angst over his competing loyalty to his king, and his commitment to peace and justice for all Loyalists his men accidently stab to death.

[viper37]

Which is why I never watch TV shows or movies based on history. I mean I know there are a few but if they are going to change major parts of the story or the characters then what is the point for me? To put wrong ideas in my head? I mean I guess it is entertainment but I would prefer something that is entertaining that does not contain a bunch of intentionally misleading things I have to unlearn later.

I don't much care about the true facts being presented.  I usually seek out a relevant Wikipedia article about what really happenned and just enjoy the show.

I don't see why I would deprive myself of the pleasure of watching Vikings or Gettysburg, for example

[viper37]

Note as well that both accounts *agree* on one thing: that Simcoe reasonably expected a much larger force (the Yank newspaper claims "400 men"), that had recently departed.

Despite Berkut's hilarious-to-Otto aside about 'thousands in one house'. 

He could have reasonably expected 400 militiamen or so to be in the city.
He could not have reasonably expected 400 militiamen or so to be in the house.  It was a judge's house, not Versailles

[viper37]

In any event, hard though it is to read (presumably it has been scanned using some sort of printing recognition program from the original), I leave it to the audience to judge whether this account is credible, indeed more credible than Simcoe's war diary I previously found. One may well ask: how did a Yankee newspaper writer get ahold of a copy of Colonel Marwood's orders? Is this account of the "Attila" conducting his "Fiendish Plot" really reliable?

Credible or not, it suggests that the show's portrayal of Simcoe is not all that far off how he was seen by Patriot partisans (whether fairly or unfairly).

They should have read his diary!

Then they could understand him the way Malthus understands him - a profoundly sensitive, kind man, deeply troubled by his need to kill men while sleeping on the orders of his commander...so much so that he didn't even bother mentioning it because it was too painful to recount. He was a simple, peaceful man, thrown into turmoil and angst over his competing loyalty to his king, and his commitment to peace and justice for all Loyalists his men accidently stab to death.

yeah.  that's basically how most Canadians see soldiers of the historical British Empire.  Burning people's homes, killing their livestock, leaving them to starve, bah, it's almost as galant as providing a home and a meal a day to some poor black soul who'd have to hunt for his meal back home.

[Oexmelin]

You'd think there was a copy in a library somewhere so that Google could make the whole thing available.

Google has slowed down considerably their digitization process - at least for academic books or old books. A quick search reveals 663 libraries holding the original 1787 publication, including some of Google's usual academic partners (Dartmouth, Michigan, Harvard). Heck, there are four libraries within walking distance that hold a copy. Simcoe must have had a lot of friends, for that is a huge run for a private project...


EDIT: Scratch that - I double checked. A number of libraries put the date of 1787 for a number of later reprints, and hide the information that it is a reprint. The original print run is indeed held only by a handful of libraries .

I must say I am surprised at your claim that chronologies and details cannot be established from retrospective accounts. Retrospective accounts are used for establishing chronologies all the time. For most historical periods, for most events, retrospective accounts is all we have.

As for the fallibility of human memory, that goes without saying. However, 18th century journal of operations are not memoirs. They were usually written on the spot, as things unfolded, for they could be used for justification after the war, should any contentious matter arise. Sometimes, events got the best of the writer, and he could fill in a few days after the fact. Of course, they could very well misremember things a few days, a few hours after the fact. That is the case for every document. And of course, writers tried to spin things in their favor, but it should also be kept in mind that in the small world of officers, writers also knew that other concurrent narratives would exist, as rumors, first-hand accounts, etc.

(I am also totally indifferent to Simcoe, that TV show, and that particular episode of the American War of Independence).

[Sheilbh]

That print run is interesting as the 19th century edition Malthus posted says in the preface that the diary 'was privately printed in 1787, for distribution among a few of his personal friends.' It does make the audience a bit more questionable and with it, I think, his motivation.

[Oexmelin]

That print run is interesting as the 19th century edition Malthus posted says in the preface that the diary 'was privately printed in 1787, for distribution among a few of his personal friends.' It does make the audience a bit more questionable and with it, I think, his motivation.

See edit above.

[CountDeMoney]

Then they could understand him the way Malthus understands him - a profoundly sensitive, kind man, deeply troubled by his need to kill men while sleeping on the orders of his commander...so much so that he didn't even bother mentioning it because it was too painful to recount. He was a simple, peaceful man, thrown into turmoil and angst over his competing loyalty to his king, and his commitment to peace and justice for all Loyalists his men accidently stab to death.

Don't know why you're engaging with a bunch of known monarchist Canuck tories and Quebekistanis.  Nothing good can come from that, you know that.

[Valmy]

I don't much care about the true facts being presented.  I usually seek out a relevant Wikipedia article about what really happenned and just enjoy the show.

I don't see why I would deprive myself of the pleasure of watching Vikings or Gettysburg, for example

I do care about true facts though. Plenty of shows out there that do not peddle bullshit that I have to make an effort to unlearn.

As for this Revolutionary War stuff my ancestor was in a unit that would go into towns, round up all the Tories, and summarily hang them all. I bet they don't have that shit in that stupid TV show. So why watch?

[Ed Anger]

I don't much care about the true facts being presented.  I usually seek out a relevant Wikipedia article about what really happenned and just enjoy the show.

I don't see why I would deprive myself of the pleasure of watching Vikings or Gettysburg, for example

I do care about true facts though. Plenty of shows out there that do not peddle bullshit that I have to make an effort to unlearn.

As for this Revolutionary War stuff my ancestor was in a unit that would go into towns, round up all the Tories, and summarily hang them all. I bet they don't have that shit in that stupid TV show. So why watch?

[Caliga]

As for this Revolutionary War stuff my ancestor was in a unit that would go into towns, round up all the Tories, and summarily hang them all.

  Didn't know there were such units.

[grumbler]

I must say I am surprised at your claim that chronologies and details cannot be established from retrospective accounts.

Please address statements like this to someone who actually makes such a claim.

Retrospective accounts are used for establishing chronologies all the time. For most historical periods, for most events, retrospective accounts is all we have.

Yes, when they are all that we have, they are all that we have.  They are not reliable sources, but we take what we can get.

However, we cannot use such reminiscences without great care, and we certainly shouldn't use them (especially what they leave out) as evidence on the details.

[grumbler]

As for this Revolutionary War stuff my ancestor was in a unit that would go into towns, round up all the Tories, and summarily hang them all.

  Didn't know there were such units.

they could have been operating on such a small scale that people simply attributed their crimes to common murderers.  Serial killers in that day and age, especially ones that moved from town to town, would be hard to detect.