GameBanshee Forums

there are just too many good quotes from Command and Conquer. Sorry for being off topic, not sure of exact wording correct me if you know "war can not be avoided, but only postponed for the benfit of others" - Machiaveli. and the "one death is a tragedy, but one million is a statistic" - Stalin

Back to the subject.... sort of.

In archaeology, we have an interesting concept: Prehistory. So this begs the question, "Where do you draw the line between History and Prehistory?" Most often, archaeologists consider the advent of recorded history as the end of prehistory. Here in the New World, that would place the division in the late 1400s or early 1500s when the Spanish first arrived. This work pretty well as a definition, except when people start pointing out that historical records are not necessarily written. Oral History (that which is passed down through generations verbally) should also be considered. By the same token, much Mayan history is written on their monuments and stelae. This pushes written history back to the first few centuries A.D., and who knows how far back Native American Oral History goes.

Then, in the Old World, written history goes back much further....

how was that on topic?

well lucky for all of you guys i just watched an "in search of history" on the history channel about written history in the americas. i found it incredibly interesting. there were experts who showed exactly how much the language of the native americans and the people in the old world were the same. he showed how different tribes each had their own writing system and how each of their writing systems resembled a different culture in the world. this lead to the hypothesis that many different people came across the atlantic and started cultures of their own here in america. he said people had been doing this for thousands of years, but colombus was the most recent one to ever come back.

@Arag. Ret.: With the topic of this thread being “What is History” rather than “Discuss the relative merits of violence as a nation-building tool”, I sought to answer the question by positing a definition for the antithesis – Prehistory. That is how my post was on-topic.

Concerning Linguistics and the Native Americans: Yes, linguistics do appear to demonstrate multiple ‘tides’ of migrants peopling the New World, and other lines of evidence support this theory. I also have heard this argument used to help explain the appearance of several 9000 year-old skeletons that appear to have non-Native American morphologies (i.e. the Kenewick Man).

you guys may or may not have heard of "the book of mormon" it's basically an addition to the bible for mormons but instead of all the things happening in the mid. east it takes place in the americas. maybe a should make a questions about the church of jesus christ of latter day saints threads, except for i doubt anybody has any questions.

as history is by far my favorite subject in school it's kind of weird that i'm puzzled by the question "what is history", i mean, really, is there much a point of knowing everything about history that we do? is the only reason to impress others and maybe learn from our mistakes? maybe there is more to it than that.

Watch the mind of Weasel go!!

Originally posted by Aragorn Returns

as history is by far my favorite subject in school it's kind of weird that i'm puzzled by the question "what is history", i mean, really, is there much a point of knowing everything about history that we do? is the only reason to impress others and maybe learn from our mistakes? maybe there is more to it than that.

IMHO it's a way to judge your improvement..(and the improvement of mankind)

If there wasn't anything to look back on how would you know if your doing better or worst.


As I type this, I realize I'm making history...because every time I type a letter...that letter is now history. << That was history...Damn! That was history as well... Double damn!!!

weasel, you never cease to amaze me with your insights.

Originally posted by Aragorn Returns
weasel, you never cease to amaze me with your insights.

Maybe my amazing self can get out of this history loop I have so nicely woven around myself.

If Weasel's making history then I think we're all in big trouble...

The problem with history is that there are countless factors that shape the way events take shape, yet most of these factors go unrecorded. Thus when we look back through history we very rarely get a true picture of why things turned out the way they did (unless we ask Fable, who was usually there ). Consequently we very rarely learn from the mistakes of the distant past, and continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.

History is War, punctuated by brief periods of peace that are preparations for War.

It is what has come before, what is happening now and what will be tomorrow.

"What is past, is prologue."

History is what we want the past to have been. It is a convenient tool to reinforce our perceptions of our selves and others. It is used to justify our own belief systems and way of life. Its primary purpose is to make us feel better about our selves.

History is old news. We can look back on it and say "Gee, what a tragedy, we can never let that happen again," but it always will, somehow.

Just to spin this out a little more, but couldn't literature, music and culture also be defined with history or as part of history? History in my opinion is just not war and peace, but the recording or information no matter how mundane. Thus the discovery of the wheel to how to cut a circle is all part of history. Novels are an excellent historical insight to the world of the past, explaining how people lived, worked and died. That i would also consider history. To be ambigious and stuff, history would be anything and everything that happened in the past. Defining it in a quick 1 or 2 lines would be impossible. War and peace are just to aspects of history.

I Totaly agree CM.

Just as an interesting side note, did you know that during the Napolionic wars, the casting process for cannon balls required a specific type of graphite, found only in 4 (I think) mines in Cornwall at the time. All of the nations involved in the war used cannon, and all of them had supplies of this graphite. UK Arms dealing with enemy nations has a long and consistant history. (I don't remember where I picked up this info from, probably the idiot box).

Disagree. Novels?! They're made up! They are a *part* of History but they are not History itself.

Jace, so you agree with CM but then go on to quote an example from the Napoleonic War? Economic history as related to the arms industry and... war!

The Wheel: mobility in war - chariots.

Grunt could explain that following statement you made:

They are a *part* of History but they are not History itself.

Edit: to add, i don't think war is a major aspect or portion of histoyr. It is a part of history, as much as the literature of ancient civilizations like the Indian, Chinese Greek etc. Everything that is created is not created for purposes of war, like paper or water purification. Heck 40 - 50 years down the road, Gamebanshee would be part of history as a website - if it gets written down. It would be an insight to the culture and society of this period. That i would also see as a part of history.

Grunty,
Sure, I think novels - if you do not take them as being historical fact - provide insite into how sections of comunity think. Sort of a pop culture aproach to history. Jane Austin, Thomas Hardy, Herman Melville, Ian Flemming, etc all show in their writings aspects of culture at the time of writing. Movies, comics, art, design, music and other elements of how people live all show some aspects of cultural perspective. An understanding of cultural perspective aids in understanding factual historical events.

Example - The play 'Henry V' and the battle of Agencourt. The historical fact is that the English beat the French quite resoundingly, mainly through the use of bowmen. The play helps bring the time to life, provides a bit of colour to the events and gives a feeling of how things may have been. The danger is that you can not read too much into it as the play was writen a long time after the event, is highly biased towards the victors, none of the dialog is factual and many of the events are made up to greater or lesser extents. But those critisisms can be made to most factual writen histories. If you use it properly, it can be a useful historical document. If you use it poorly, it can be a smoke screen, or even an aid to falsify history.

So yeah, I agree with CM.

Fair enough, chaps. But I think you are making light of History (capital H). I mean, novels and "pop" history are OK. At the end of the day though, there are an awful lot of Historical works, plays, novels etc. based in wars or about wars or written during a time of war (even thought they may have little to do with the war itself). To me, that's just window dressing.

Gamebanshee will, physically, be a part of History but no-one but a postgrad student doing studies on early 21st century web communications is really going to care. The History of this period will be one of war and strife.

100 years down the line, most people will be reading books on the Gulf War and War on Terror (if we're still here), not "Social interaction in old web forums".

EDIT - the History of our societies is a record. Society is organised on the basis of and preparation for state controlled violence i.e. war.

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Gamebanshee will, physically, be a part of History but no-one but a postgrad student doing studies on early 21st century web communications is really going to care. The History of this period will be one of war and strife.

You're not defining what history is, then, @Grunt. You're defining what kind of history attracts the most attention. Other than winning popularity contests, I don't see that "war as history" is any more accurate than "trade as history" or "technological advancement as history," two other much abused positions.

History is War, punctuated by brief periods of peace that are preparations for War.

It's a good thing for you Clausewitz is dead, or he'd probably drop a cannonball on your head for stealing his quote.

Fable is to the point (again). Violent themes, whether in media, games, history, etc will (unfortunately) always be more popular.

What are some of the most memorable figures is history? Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great? Or Aristotle, Rousseau?

Do people know more about the French Revolution, or the Industrial Revolution. Hmmm...Didn't they cut people's heads off in that there French Revolution, that sounds cool.

While I am hugely interested in military history, I am equally interested in the social and economic history as well. Unfortunately, I don't think the majority of the population is as well.