Battle Reports/AAR - Can we trust them?

[Zouave]

In Sheridan's report of the Cavalry Corps' actions in the Overland Campaign, he wrote: "The result was constant success and the almost total annihilation of the rebel cavalry. We marched when and where we pleased; we were always the attacking party, and always successful."

This is a flat out lie, right?

Are there other famous examples of commanders telling such lies?

[semperpietas]

Originally Posted by Zouave

In Sheridan's report of the Cavalry Corps' actions in the Overland Campaign, he wrote: "The result was constant success and the almost total annihilation of the rebel cavalry. We marched when and where we pleased; we were always the attacking party, and always successful."

This is a flat out lie, right?

Are there other famous examples of commanders telling such lies?

It depends.

Usually a battle report filed within a month or two of the battle tends to be accurate and reliable. That said, cases of battlefield controversy could cause amended battle reports to be filed that are at least partisan.

Amended reports could also be filed later by self promoting officers, like Daniel Ruggles, who filed a report a year after the battle of Shiloh in which he greatly enhanced his own role in the action.

Time passing also has to be taken into account.

Stonewall Jackson for instance was almost a year behind on his reports before War Department pressure convinced him to start filing in December of 1862. For example, Jackson's Second Manassas Report was not filed until April 27th of 1863, almost nine months after the battle happened. This can explain certain details missing in the report. By comparison, Longstreet filed his report only a little over a month after Second Manassas on October 10th, 1862.

[B7B Southern]

Originally Posted by Zouave

In Sheridan's report of the Cavalry Corps' actions in the Overland Campaign, he wrote: "The result was constant success and the almost total annihilation of the rebel cavalry. We marched when and where we pleased; we were always the attacking party, and always successful."

This is a flat out lie, right?

Are there other famous examples of commanders telling such lies?

Zouave, if you are interested in looking in the
or's, look up the Union prison reports.

[hellboy30]

Originally Posted by Zouave

In Sheridan's report of the Cavalry Corps' actions in the Overland Campaign, he wrote: "The result was constant success and the almost total annihilation of the rebel cavalry. We marched when and where we pleased; we were always the attacking party, and always successful."

This is a flat out lie, right?

Are there other famous examples of commanders telling such lies?

I just finished "Fields of Blood: the Prairie Grove Campaign" & both sides are telling some whoppers. I plan on doing a review of the book & will mention these as well.

[semperpietas]

Originally Posted by hellboy30

I just finished "Fields of Blood: the Prairie Grove Campaign" & both sides are telling some whoppers. I plan on doing a review of the book & will mention these as well.

That is a good book. I have to stop by the battlefield some time. Might even take and upload pictures.

[Marjirnet]

Just as accurate as the reports I read from the production and sales managers where I've worked.

I cant see reading any report and thinking you will get a clear balanced view. You have to ask who, what, when, and where about the writing of a report before you can use it. In a lot of reports what was not said is as important as whats in it, and the nature of the exaggerations is as revealing as any accuracy.

[Eric Wittenberg]

Originally Posted by Zouave

In Sheridan's report of the Cavalry Corps' actions in the Overland Campaign, he wrote: "The result was constant success and the almost total annihilation of the rebel cavalry. We marched when and where we pleased; we were always the attacking party, and always successful."

This is a flat out lie, right?

Are there other famous examples of commanders telling such lies?

It is indeed an outright lie.

My experience is that it depends whose report you're referring to. Some are quite honest and accurate and some are definitely not.

[Nickuru]

Originally Posted by Marjirnet

Just as accurate as the reports I read from the production and sales managers where I've worked.

I cant see reading any report and thinking you will get a clear balanced view. You have to ask who, what, when, and where about the writing of a report before you can use it. In a lot of reports what was not said is as important as whats in it, and the nature of the exaggerations is as revealing as any accuracy.

It's called salesmanship, like the techniques of a used car salesman. Reminds of the Watergate crisis of the 1970s, a picture of Nixon with the caption 'would you buy a used car from this man?' Also the expression snake oil salesman used in the late 1800s.