English historians have often been guilty of emphasizing victories while giving little attention to defeats. The successes of Edward III and the Black Prince are recorded in great detail, analyzed battle by battle, and celebrated extensively. In contrast, their defeats and setbacks, which were sometimes as significant in consequence as their victories, receive very little attention The Limits of Physical Courage.
For example, formal discussions of victories can take up half a volume, while the losses are summarized in a few lines. This imbalance gives a distorted view of history and overemphasizes glory at the expense of truth.
The Importance of Honest Inquiry
National pride can sometimes blind historians, causing them to highlight only achievements and downplay failures. This approach, however, is neither just nor wise. True historical understanding requires measuring events accurately, according to inquiry and evidence.
Even M. de St. Foix, a French historian, occasionally allowed national pride to distort his account, though in general he was knowledgeable and candid. Similarly, English historians must strive to record history honestly, acknowledging both success and failure to provide a balanced view.
Neglecting Foreign Contributions
Another common fault in English histories is neglecting the role of foreign troops, mercenaries, and local allies, particularly in regions like Acquitaine. After the accession of King John, Gascons and other local troops played a major role in English armies. Their contributions were often decisive, especially at battles like Poitiers, where their service was exemplary Tours Ephesus.
Despite their importance, these allies often received little recognition. After the war, many were given few rewards or positions of trust, despite their vital support during the campaigns. This omission distorts our understanding of how victories were achieved and undervalues those who helped secure them.
The Case of Hume
The problem is visible in historians like David Hume, whose history of Richard II focuses almost entirely on domestic affairs. Hume provides only brief mentions of foreign wars, which makes it difficult for readers to understand the continuity of the conflicts. By ignoring the broader international context, his work loses the “thread” of the great contests that shaped England’s role in Europe.