Guest. Kieth is not saying anything contrary to what happened.e is presenting a point of view taken by modern historians. I am both disagreeing AND castigating Musket. He has presented NO historical perspective and he appears to be bereft of any historical knowledge. He and some others here, who admit to knowing n history, go on and on in these threads about how Keith knows nothing. Not so, he does know things about history, far more than some of his detractors. So why this bullying and , frankly, quite ugly, attacks on someone who quite a lot on the subject ?

This is not about Keith at all. This is about people who , in spite of ignorance of the subject at hand, insist on denigrating people who clearly know more than they do.
I dislike bullies and I find that there are a few here who just don't admit to being misinformed. And hence, attack those who are informed.

Muskets stance is not that of an informed person, and he is not alone in this, it is the stances of someone who refuses to consider an alternative view.
Muskets position, as you call it, has nothing to do with history and everything to do with " I know nothing, but I am right. That is what is so galling about this constant bullying.
I would not suggest that soldiers are liars, nor has Keith ever suggested they were, however, first hand accounts are sometimes not as accurate as they could be.
Good history is based on meticulous research, not on disagreeing with Keith because you don`t like him.

   As an historian I do not always agree with Keith, but his facts are solid. Those who are underinformed ought to read more and shout less.