I agree, that’s a very vivid book. However, I think it’s useful, from our perspective, to balance contemporaneous memoirs such as Mr. Douglas’s with the most recent objective scholarship. You can get the on-the-spot color, but also get the best effort at objective factuality.
I’ve used this procedure in studying lots of different historical events: the Boer War, for example, and the Indian Mutiny.
Douglas’s memoir has been criticized for a couple of reasons. First, it was not completed until many years later, although it was roughed out much earlier. Also, his memory does not jibe with other records at some places. Whether he romanticizes or exaggerates his role in some instances is also a question.
Nonetheless, if you read it with the most critical eye, it is still a terrific read. Your technique applied here is also what I did. I read many “objective” histories also, but a book like this allows a special insight into the War. Douglas’s position allowed a unique perspective.
Oldplayer