Without wishing to respond to the Elting red rag, I don't think anything that you quoted seriously differs from what I said. I think the difficulty lies in defining 'history': do we mean getting as near as possible to a factual recording of events or do we mean the large-scale and selective presentation of a person or events which may be biased one way or the other?

Napoleon may have wanted to hear the truth from his officers but he had no interest in presenting it to the public. The Bulletins were intended to inform public opinion, they presented events as Napoleon wished them to be known. He was known to suppress historical works which did not suit him: "Millot has just published a fourth volume, containing all kinds if ridiculous nonsense and depreciating our victories. It is the height of indecency that such an ignoramus should write in the grand manner about contemporary events. Have the book suppressed." (the book was a History of France first published in 1767). He also had history published which did suit him: " Now that we are in 1809, I think it would be useful to have some articles written, in good style, contrasting the misfortunes from which France was suffering in 1709 with the prosperous state of the Empire in 1809.......You have got men competent to write five or six good articles on this very important subject and to give public opinion a lead in the right direction."

Obviously governments, like officers, always want to spin their reports but I think Napoleon was unusual in the amount of effort he put into 'forming public opinion' and in polishing his image. He continued this right up to St Helena and even on his deathbed. I think it is reasonable to assume that he wanted the Bulletins to form a part of the history of his reign - certainly anyone who had tried to debunk them in his reign would have been in big trouble!

Susan