Marc, I suppose it's no different to a court of law. We know that eye-witness testimony can be contradictory, we know memory is faulty and false memory can be manufactured. Sometimes though, in the absence of forensic evidence, we have little alternative but to weigh up the viewpoint and validity of each. Walking the battlefield helps with that. I don't think that Professor Esdaille is suggesting that it's the only evidence, or that it trumps others, just that it has a place. In the same way, I would be careful in how I weight the experience of the re-enactor. Even the most experienced re-enactor is a part-timer and at best not much better than well trained but raw. A true veteran will have lived his entire life in period, not just short weekends. Many of the pre-occupations of the re-enactor would be second nature to the participants. As any modern veteran can testify, there is a big difference between exercises and real operatations. All these viewpoints have value, but value is relative. An example; my son is covering the Balkan Wars and subsequent peace process as part of his history degree. I'm sure he will study learned sources, and hang on the words of his lecturer, who was in short trousers at the time. I served in IFOR, I was there. I've offerred to present a short eye-witness testimony. I get the impression it would be unwelcome. His lecturer probably thinks I was a canteen cowboy, or manned a sanger somewhere, and would be equally dismissive. In reality, I served as an SO3 at HQ 1 (UK) Signal Brigade, HQ Allied Rapid Reaction Corps and 3(UK) Div. But hey, what do I know, Using your logic I was only a witness so my perspective doesn't count.