Mmm, I'm inclined to argue that I have done my duty by providing the original French text exactly, and that in an English translation I am entitled to follow the normal modern rules for spelling Vietnamese names.  (Had it been a British treaty of 1883 which used spellings such as Tongking and Lang-Son, I would of course have reproduced the text exactly).  But I can see your point.   

In answer to one of your rhetorical questions, Tourane has indeed become Danang (with neat Vietnamese accents) in my series of articles on the Cochinchina campaign.  I would much prefer it to be Tourane, as that was what it was called then, but c'est la vie.

I have reverently removed my yellowing copy of the Histoire militaire from my shelves, and blown the dust off the title page.  You are right that Aubert and Pasquier are mentioned on this page, but not as its authors.  Pasquier is merely mentioned as the governor of Cochinchina at the time, and even Aubert modestly assigns the authorship to his staff officers.  During the past seven years I have made a close study of both Histoire militaire and Conquête de l'Indochine, and there are so many verbal similarities that I am convinced that Thomazi (doubtless on Aubert's état-major) was the main author of Histoire militaire, even though he is not formally credited with it.  However, I have perhaps gone too far in formally attributing authorship to him.  Is it normally attributed to Aubert and Pasquier?  If so, I suppose I had better follow convention.