How much should we know ahead of time?

[Eckerslyke]

Just a thought, ahead of my next battle.

In order to get a realistic insight into what it was like to be the overall commander in one of our re-enactments of a battle which actually took place, how helpful is it for me to know what happened in real life?

For example, most people know the outcome of Waterloo (although where I live, on the anniversary last month I mentioned it in passing, and the 20yr-olds in the group seemed to think it was something which took place in WWII)!

If I accept a challenge to re-fight Waterloo, to what extent is my experience as overall commander affected by knowing that, on that 'Day In History', Nosey prevailed? That alone might not be significant, but if the Allied commander knows that the Prussians will eventually appear (which the 'dog born in a stable' could not be assured of), then his experience is bound to be less authentic.

So, let's say I'm invited to take part in a battle. At one extreme, I could refrain even from checking Wikipedia to see who actually won that battle on the day, before accepting. I suppose that would be the most realistic way to approach it.

But at the opposite extreme, before accepting or declining, I could set up the battle scenario myself, look at the relative strengths of either side, even go as far as seeing the strength and arrival points of reinforcements for both sides.

My (possibly rhetorical) questions to the other battlers here would be, I think:

What level of foreknowledge is it appropriate for an overall commander to have?
Is it the same in every battle? If not, how do we determine what is realistic?

I would like to hear what other battlers think about this.