GameBanshee Forums

I know what History means to me, Fable. I was following on from others comments. History is not Kylie Minogue or "Twelfth Night".

von Clausewitz said "war is the continuation of politics by other means" and "To secure peace is to prepare for war."

@McBane - I think the majority of the population couldn't care less about any form of History, bloody or otherwise. Your's is a dark view of people, mine is a dim one.

@Fable - I'm not excluding those things, just saying industry is geared towards military production, trade towards economic and military security. How many wars have been fought over commerce and commodities? How much has war produced innovations in Technology?

To a certain degree, one can argue (as per Fukuyama) that "History" is over, because liberal democracies will no longer make war on each other. But there are a lot of non-liberal counties eager to write their names in the pages of History. If only they could see what that means at the end of the day.

And since when was violence popular?

The history I am most interested in (without knowing enough of it) is the history of trade. Things like the Silk Road, the vikings establishing trade routes along the Russian rivers, all the way to the black sea. The Bask people (alegedly) catching as salting cod off of the coast of New England around 400 ad.
How people lived, worked, played, prayed, fought and died.

If History is confined to war, preparing for war and recovering from war, then you miss a lot of realy interesting stuff. You can see Harris's invention of an accurate seagoing time piece as preperation for war if you want to interpretit that way, but I see it as leading to more exploration and trade. Sure, war came as part of the package, but it is not the whole package. The whole ecconimics of Europe changed, the foods people ate and fortunes made and lost on single voyages. The spread of diseases from Europe into the New World and SE Asia (admitidly, earlyer). All of this is part of History's great tapesty and war is only one thread, all be it a major one.

@Gruntboy

you are misreading Clausewitz. His point (war is the continuation of politics by other means) is that war cannot be understood or waged on its own. It is always political - related to the greater struggles and changes in the world around us.

He was arguing against Generals who said (much as they do now) "if the politicians got off my back we'd win this". He argues politicians should always be in charge, otherwise war becomes something waged for its own sake, towards absolute victory, with no thought for other factors.

Clausewitz's thinking is seen in the way the US goes to war nowadays - with most attention on other factors (domestic politics, press relations, world opinion etc), this is why they didn't nuke Afghanistan or Iraq (a military not a political solution)

Originally posted by Pregethwr
@Gruntboy

you are misreading Clausewitz.

Am I?! I haven't discussed Clausewitz one iota - merely quoted him to Fable.

Having said that Pregethwr, I think you are wrong. Clausewitz suggested that the objective of war was to destroy the enemy centre of gravity - nothing else mattered, not even politics - and that the achievement of this goal should have everything else serve it.

In Clausewitz's day, the centre of gravity was a country's army or capital. Not so these days.

The US Army is Clausewitzian to the extent that it targets an enemy's military strength directly, as opposed to maneuvering around it. But I don't think anyone can realistically claim that US foreign policy is neo-Clausewitzian. Its just too anachronistic.

Originally posted by Gruntboy



Am I?! I haven't discussed Clausewitz one iota - merely quoted him to Fable.

Having said that Pregethwr, I think you are wrong. Clausewitz suggested that the objective of war was to destroy the enemy centre of gravity - nothing else mattered, not even politics - and that the achievement of this goal should have everything else serve it.

In Clausewitz's day, the centre of gravity was a country's army or capital. Not so these days.

The US Army is Clausewitzian to the extent that it targets an enemy's military strength directly, as opposed to maneuvering around it. But I don't think anyone can realistically claim that US foreign policy is neo-Clausewitzian. Its just too anachronistic.

The quote (put in context) was not supporting what you were saying.

The objective of war was not to destroy the enemy's centre of gravity, that is the method.

e.g. Prussia in 1870 attacks France and Austria not to destroy their centres' of gravity but to force them to allow the unification of German states under a Prussian Monarchy.

To achieve this they try to destroy the French centre of gravity (by defeating their army and occupying Paris). Note defeating the French army and occupying Paris is not the objective of war, it is the method by which the objective is realised.

Clausewitz was arguing against concepts of total war, where the lack of solid political objectives meant warfare became about exterminating your enemy. (some people see this as prophetic for WW1 + 2)

I wouldn't call the US army neo-clausewitzian - I was just trying to use a modern example.

Back on topic - history, what and why.

I studied it for far too many years, and I still can't answer. I'd just say most of what we do as people and as societies/nations is intricately bound with our understanding of history (both personal and communal).

To that extent history is worth studying, if only to bury it

Originally posted by Pregethwr


The quote (put in context) was not supporting what you were saying.

It wasn't meant too, it was just a quote, fable mentioned Clausewitz. What would Clausewitz know about 1870? He died in 1831.

Yes, back on topic - if you want to continue this discussion without getting a last public word in, PM me.

Hi everyone it's good to be back to some new interesting threads after being away for the weekend in the cultural wasteland known as Connecticut.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the controversy raging in school boards over what or whose history to teach. Generally, the group in power seems to decide which history is important enough to teach in school. Fable is well aware of one of my old gripes about the American school system. In order to graduate high school, Americans only need to learn US history. The same goes for college. Not even european history is required. (You can substitute european history for american history in college as I did--but otherwise they will schedule you for yet another year of US history.) No wonder that most Americans are woefully ignorant of the history (or even location) of other countries in the world. When I lived in Texas, you could even substitute Texas history in place of US history (since Texans think they are the center of the universe, lol). When I went through school, I was sick and tired of having to learn the same history over and over and over. I ended up doing middle eastern studies for a while, since I wanted to learn a different history--it was fascinating.

Another part of this issue--is that US history books don't mention much about native american history, black american history or the contribution of women--so kids graduate with the belief that this country was built by white men only. One of the problems I've seen school boards struggling with is that a lot of that history was not written down (or was not considered important enough to write down or was destroyed (as in the case of the Mayans))--an issue Gwally went into. Sort of connected to this is the fact that even in european history there is a tendency to attribute the origins of everything great in european thought to the Greeks, while overlooking the fact that the Greeks took an awful lot of their ideas from the Egyptians. I've learned that this was due to a Greco revival fad in the 19th century--certainly evidenced in victorian poetry and architecture.

@Grunt, your approach seems to me a rather "traditional" view of History, as political and military history - what about social and cultural history, religious history, gender history... Would you say they count as History in the same way? If not, why not? Is a study of, say, what we can tell about gender relations in the ancient Near East from magical literature D) less relevant than a study of military strategy in World War II? The same question goes to everyone who says we can learn from History - do you think all History is equally relevant?

People have also mentioned the difference between "History" and "history" - what do people think the difference is between the two?

@Jace You say you've studied History but don't really have that much of an idea of what it is - which is part of the reason I started this topic really One of the final exams I have to sit this summer is the General History Paper, which asks questions about the practice of History and such. (Last year's exam paper.) I think most people who study History don't always ask what the point is, particularly pre-university, and if someone asks (as people frequently do ask me!) "what's the point in studying History? That won't get you a job!" (or as one person put it: "History? There's no future in that..." ) etc, I don't generally have that much to say aside from I find it interesting. I took a course in Historiography last semester, and I think that it should be taught in schools, so that kids who take History are taught to think more about what the point of it is.

I think CM makes a good point - what are valid sources for historical study? I would agree that literature is a valid source - not necessarily historical literature, but all literature, because as Grunty said, they don't provide solid historical fact - however, they can elucidate the kind of themes and concerns that were prevalent in society. It sort of links in with what Gwally was saying - more sources have become acceptable as History, including oral history, a far cry from the "official documents" approach championed by Ranke. Do you think specific sources are more suited to particular types of History?

Speaking of the teaching of History, there was actually an article about it in the Guardian's education supplement today, bemoaning the fact that schools tend to focus on a few key periods and so children don't really get any idea of the sense of continuity of history. I must say, I think that in depth study of shorter periods is more beneficial, because there's time for analysis rather than just a superficial overview, but I know practically nothing even about British history outside of the periods I've studied.

I'd agree that children are mostly taught British history in schools, but then I also think it's important to know the history of one's own country, but it would be nice if there were more options for studying non-British history.

Originally posted by VoodooDali


Another part of this issue--is that US history books don't mention much about native american history, black american history or the contribution of women--so kids graduate with the belief that this country was built by white men only. One of the problems I've seen school boards struggling with is that a lot of that history was not written down (or was not considered important enough to write down or was destroyed (as in the case of the Mayans))--an issue Gwally went into.

I believe some of the problem lies with the teachers and with the kids. A good teacher will go the extra mile and explain why or were you can find it at the library, even if it's not in the history book. A kid who wants to learn will ask.

I hated English Class, the whole class hated it, and no one would ask questions. The teacher finally had enough and just taugh us the basics.

I loved History and Math, 80% of my class did, they would ask questions, And the teacher was one of the rare one who liked to explain everything, while making it interesting.

Personaly I find history tied to nations largly irrelevant. Political and Economical history in an international or cultural perspective is much more interesting since we can use it to shape our future. In addition the view on history in a national perspective often promotes the illusion that everything that is "good" for a nation is good for the people living in it.

I remeber history classes in elementary school, were our teacher showed maps of sweden during its "good" times and actually insinuated the effects of the aggressive expansionistic politics of that time were of some benfit to the "nation".

Another flaw in swedish history teaching in early school years is that it tends to stop right after WW2. It seems just like nothing have happend in the world since that time.

Originally posted by Georgi
I must say, I think that in depth study of shorter periods is more beneficial, because there's time for analysis rather than just a superficial overview,

The point of history is imo to see patterns in how human societys tend to work, or not work. And I think it might be very difficult to see patterns if you are very specific in what you study.

Originally posted by Gruntboy
I know what History means to me, Fable. I was following on from others comments. History is not Kylie Minogue or "Twelfth Night".

von Clausewitz said "war is the continuation of politics by other means" and "To secure peace is to prepare for war."

Yes, but you seemed to be quoting Clausewitz's attitude very well, indeed. The one quote of his I had in mind when reading you was "War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, and a carrying out of the same by other means."

In any case, there are quite a few historians who will tell you that yes, Twelfth Night and Kylie Minogue *are* history: they tell us the facts about a culture's myths and day-to-day opinions far better than their high school historical texts, per capita incomes, and wars won/lost. Personally, I think it's all history, depending upon what you're looking for.

"War is the catalyst of history". IIRC it was some quote from some German dude.

Anyway i agree there, because IMO war is usually the major stuff in history. Its the most interesting for me.Yeah they record the new invention or that law put down by some grand emperor but war always comes first.

IMO war is natural and really can't be ever stopped.

Okay so this is the practical way of viewing history, but i find it more intersting then the cultural aspect. Alot of people love to learn about languages and religion and the different arts, but its all a bit boring for me.

I don't really like the ancient Greeks. Yes they had some great scientists, some who were wrong, and others who borrowed stuff from the Indians thanks to Alexander, but i find them as a whole a boring people.
On the other hand, i am fascinated by the Romans. I love to read about their war strategies, even though they aren't much use in modern warfare.

For example i was just reading some stuff about the Celts(scary bunch of people, mind you) and how much the Romans hated/feared them. They went so far as to in one battle, surround the last Celt stronghold of 50,00 warriors, with a wall of stakes, then camoflouaged wholes with spikes, then a wall of arhcers with fire arrows, and finally the massive Roman legion army, numbering 100,000. And just to make sure that they won't get attacked by reinforcements , the Romans set up the exact same traps and stuff on the other side.

Other people i really love are the Mongols, again military tactics, amazing leader and great generals, and i also like the Turks, especially the Seljuks(more than Ottomans). I also like the ancient Persians. Unlike most people, i never really liked reading about Egyptians, or Greeks, or Babylonians, or Dravidians.

Also love learning about those magical barbarians that come out of the wild and destroy a civilisation and then just disappear(huns, mongols, sea-people, celts, vikings).

I think its a given that Military History is a very interesting course of study, but surely war is not the end-all and be-all of All History?

Well, it;'s popular because it's violent, which ties in with human natures thrist for blood, and death and the morbid fascination of war.

Originally posted by Weasel:
I believe some of the problem lies with the teachers and with the kids. A good teacher will go the extra mile and explain why or were you can find it at the library, even if it's not in the history book. A kid who wants to learn will ask.

Is it the responsibility of the teacher to go beyond what their job requires, then? Surely it's the responsibility of the governing body to make sure that a more diverse History is on the school curriculum? And I think a wider breadth of History should be taught, because it shows children what there is to learn - after all, they won't ask about something they never heard of.

Originally posted by Dottie
Personaly I find history tied to nations largly irrelevant. Political and Economical history in an international or cultural perspective is much more interesting since we can use it to shape our future.

But that's still essentially the same kind of History - political, economical... State History is international by its nature, since it involves interactions with other countries. What about other kinds of History?

The point of history is imo to see patterns in how human societys tend to work, or not work. And I think it might be very difficult to see patterns if you are very specific in what you study.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I do think you need to know the background to whatever period you're studying. But this was referring to History as taught in schools, and there simply isn't time to teach everything, so if the emphasis was always on taking a wide perspective, children would only get a very superficial knowledge. From a different perspective, if nobody wrote history about the small details, then historians wouldn't have the information they needed to put together the big picture.

I suppose the best thing is a compromise between the two, which was how my A-level History course was taught. It had two modules: one looking in depth at the period of the English Civil War, the other looking at British political development through time, which picked out various episodes of British history, from the Norman Conquest in 1066 up to the Second World War, and asking whether these different episodes could be considered "revolutions".

There are also other ways to do comparative history than chronologically. You can compare similar events in different places, for example.

@Gwally Personally, I find military, political and economic History rather dry and boring. I prefer the more cultural aspects of History, dealing with people rather than states and statistics.

@Aegis But not everyone is "morbidly fascinated with war". There are historians working in all manner of fields that have little or nothing to do with war. So "human nature" can't be all that bad.

Originally posted by Georgi



Is it the responsibility of the teacher to go beyond what their job requires, then? Surely it's the responsibility of the governing body to make sure that a more diverse History is on the school curriculum? And I think a wider breadth of History should be taught, because it shows children what there is to learn - after all, they won't ask about something they never heard of.

Yes it is their responsiblity to go beyond what their job requires. And it's the parents responsibility to get the child educated. The governing body responsibility is to make sure the children who's parents don't care, do at least learn something.

As for a wider breadth of History, a good teacher will show them there is more to learn, where as a bad, lazy teacher following a governing body will only teach what is required.

@Georgi, I have never studied history. All the things I 'know' about history I have picked up from reading, watching documentaries/TV and talking to various people. If I had to study history, I would probably fail dismally because I would not remember dates, or which name/events went with them. Despite that I find history facinating, and this thread interesting. It is good to hear what other people think history is, what things are importance in history and how it should be taught.

If I had to teach history, I would start with the history of metal. From prehistory to the 20th century, developments in metalurgy have paralleled developments of empires inc war/socienty/culture.
Post 19th century I would look at oil, for much the same reasons.

As a side note, a geologist friend of mine was telling me about a iron age cultlure that was able to smelt gold from ore deposits where the gold particles are so small that they are invisible to the eye (there are also no nuggets). No one has been able to come up with an explanation as to how they even knew that there was gold there. I can not remember the process they used, except that it involved a clay pot and a number of additives in precise proportion and resluted in 100% pure gold (and nothing else) left in the pot - with no waste of gold.

Call me paranoid. ("Hey, Paranoid!")

How come someone can say "Plays such as Henry V are history".

Then I stand up and say "Well, I believe Geopolitics and War defines our History - and oh BTW, Henry V is a play about a war" then I get jumped on?

I never exlcuded cultural and and other elements from history. Yes they are important.

However, History is what has gone before us. The future will become History, as it is that which goes before other time. In this way, the events of our pitiful little race on this turd-pile of a planet are recorded in geopolotics and wars. As such, pottery and plays are things people do during war to take their minds off the senseless slaughter.

Just my opinion. Oh yeah, I *really* love war, its cool and gory and makes for great light entertainment viewing. Oh so much fun