Ah, but isn't that exactly what's interesting? Why do the songs for the respective sides record the number of losses differently? Presumably, because each side wanted to represent itself as having succeeded. One could explore the implications of such self-representation in many ways. That the numbers differ shows that in one respect, the songs are historically inaccurate. But, if you go beyond what they say to what they might mean (i.e., why they say what they say), they begin to tell you other things about their history. Personally, I think such revelations constitute more important knowledge about the past than the knowledge of how many men actually died in the battle, but I recognize that in the context of this discussion, that opinion is only one of many. That is an argument we could address later. Right now, all I want to know is, does anyone think that such a question does not fall within the provenance of the historian?