Re: Historical Accuracy
No argument there. That's true of practically every writer. When reporting on engagements, the writer nearly always shows a strong bias for their side and against the other, particularly in the number of casualties. If they do admit they "got their butts whipped", they usually have an excuse and someone else to blame. I think the ORs are invaluable as long as we keep the writer's biases in mind. With some allowance for human error of the writer and the transcriber, we can generally rely on dates, locations, organization, and such. When reporting on engagements, it's best to have reports from writers on both sides to get a balanced view of the events.