Approaches To History

[phil25]

I don't know whether this topic is in the right forum, but if not perhaps someone will move it.

 

I don't know whether the subject has been discussed before - but I could find nothing similar. My apologies if this is old hat.

 

I have been reflecting recently on the sort of historical approach that I, personally enjoy most and also find most useful (not necessarily the same thing). I wondered what the views of fellow posters were, on the various types of "history book" available.

 

I evry much enjoy a good narrative history - and there are any number on ancient Rome around at the moment (Richard Holland's "Augustus"; Tom Holland's "Rubicon" to cite but two). I find these illuminating, if the author is well-read and has thought deeply about his period; but they involve assumptions about cause and effect, and often emphasise character, at the expense of the economic or social forces of the time which can be harder to make interesting. (That said, many authors do tackle such issues well.) A desire to appeal to a general readership can also mean that they can be simplistic or spend a lot of time on basic facts. yet they can be fun, and provide an epic sweep and a good introduction to unfamiliar territory.

 

Yet when I am interested in a period and have some basic knowledge under my belt, I find that a detailed study or monograph on some aspect of the period draws me in and provides colour and granularity.

 

Indeed, I find that as i try to put together a mental image of what (say) Augustan Rome was like, I wander into those areas of detail increasingly - military equipment, gardens, food, clothing - or politics - the nature of amicitia, client/patron relations, the role of freedmen; the nature of slavery; architecture...

 

Then there is biography - a good study of an individual charcater (Augustus, or Goldsworthy's recent Caesar) can make one think about their impact on their day; the influences that shaped them, their experiences and relationships. But biography can also distort, by framing a period through the perspective of a single person.

 

All these types of book, of course, throw one back on the original sources and for our period, it is fortunate that authors like Tacitus, Suetonius, Seneca, Cicero, Caesar remain lively and readbale, even exciting. In the academic method one should go to these first, but I must admit that my usual approah is through a modern author first to catch the sweep and gain some insight into the modern thinking on the subject.

 

I do try to establish a basic chronology of the period and events - a timeline if you will. Fortunately many books do contain such a timeline as an appendix or introduction. But adding to them and making them more detailed can be useful and fun.

 

I also find inspiration, insight and amusement from good historical novels - there is a vogue for Roman detective fiction at present which is often well-researched. They can make one think about how life was like and even lead one to question the author's or your own interpretation. there are also more serious works by authors like Wallace Breem (his "Eagle in the Snow" about the barbarian crossing of the Rhine c 408 AD is superb) or Colleen McCullough

 

Finally, I should mention the differences between academic authors and generalists. The latter can be very well written, racy, easyily digested and in all ways excellent, but a Syme or a Birley can be mined for information over a long period, even if sometimes rather dense and indigestable.

 

So what do fellow posters think? What are your tastes and preferences? How do you approach a new subject? What is your choice of book?

 

I look forward to replies with keen anticipation,

 

Phil

[spittle]

The accessable authors such as Tom Holland or Goldworthy are excellent introductions. They inform and, maybe more importantly, raise further questions which need more specialised reading. I often post on this forum to try and answer the questions they create (such as the Julio-Claudian family tree or Caesars unfinished business).

I attempted to start at the beginning by reading 'The Beginnings of Rome' and then planned on reading 'A Critical History of Early Rome' but they were too dry (maybe too advanced?) and I quickly reverted back to the level of writing I'd become used to during my reading of Early Modern, (Holland,Goldworthy). I now find myself skimming the indexes of these unfinished, academic books and even considering buying some of the family alliance conjectures of Syme. In short I feel that the more readable authors will inevitably lead to the more academic ones for any reader with a serious desire to learn as much as possible about the periods they study.

 

It is important, to me, for my reading and study to be first and foremost enjoyable. Occasionally I will realise that the reading of a book as become a chore and I ask myself for what reason am I forcing myself to continue with it. I often find the answer is a kind of intellectual machismo and reassess the situation. If the subject is important to me I may well return to a particular book at a later date when my understanding of the subject as increased to a level that helps me to better understand such books.

 

For now I will continue reading the lighter books and biographies and I have no doubt that both the books concerning Romes beginnings will be read at a time when I am in a better position, knowledge wise, to enjoy them.

[DecimusCaesar]

I evry much enjoy a good narrative history - and there are any number on ancient Rome around at the moment (Richard Holland's "Augustus"; Tom Holland's "Rubicon" to cite but two). I find these illuminating, if the author is well-read and has thought deeply about his period; but they involve assumptions about cause and effect, and often emphasise character, at the expense of the economic or social forces of the time which can be harder to make interesting. (That said, many authors do tackle such issues well.) A desire to appeal to a general readership can also mean that they can be simplistic or spend a lot of time on basic facts. yet they can be fun, and provide an epic sweep and a good introduction to unfamiliar territory.

 

Many modern historians such as David Starkey are calling for historians to take this approach, especially in schools. He and Simon Schama say that more emphasis should be made on the characters and the story of history to make children and teenagers intrested. They have often criticised modern history books as being nothing more than footnotes. Starkey even suggested that they should put the footnotes at the top of the page and the narrative in the bottom as the footnotes far outweigh the text. They both believe that more in-depth academic history should only be taught to those who go to study the subject in university. I personally enjoy narrative histories but I also like a few monographs if I want to learn more about the society or military etc. I should like to read more biographies as I don't read much of those.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

I like the narrative approach, like making a pile of facts a history book makes into a sort of "story" that allows me to make a picture in my head. I find those kinds of books very easy to read and very easy to remember from the constant imaging in my head.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Actually, none of the above.

 

I most like an historical treatment that presents a novel thesis supported by novel evidence. Sometimes, these are called 'revisionist' histories (presumably to distinguish them from those mythical histories which were written by the facts themselves rather than requiring interpretation from some human agent), but I prefer to think of them as 'forensic' (in the sense that they support a debatable thesis with something akin to detective-work). Ward-Perkins' Fall of Rome and Rosenstein's Rome at War are two recent works that fall in this category.

 

My least favorite form of historical work is the biography, where authors too often overhype their subject matter in order to justify the whole effort of the biography in the first place. When was the last biography you read that concluded, "L. Manlius Romanus really wasn't that important in the grand scheme of things, but thanks for reading about him!"? The other aspect of biographies that I dislike is that biographers seldom know or treat seriously the ideas of their subjects and how these ideas led their subjects to do what they did. One outstanding counter-example, however, is Thompson's John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty, which is IMO one of the finest works on American history ever written by an American historian.

[spittle]

There is a form of biography that fails to impress not because they overhype their subject but because its not really a biography of the person it claims to concern. The recent biog of Spartacus by M J Trow (?) actually had very little to say about the person and was in fact an inferior version of Hollands 'Rubicon', yet another examination of the latter part of the Roman republic.

 

I have to credit anyone even attempting to devote a biography to someone, such as Spartacus, with such a lack of solid facts known about them but this author just used the interest in Spartacus to sell a book that revealed absolutely nothing new about the man.

 

As for overhype it is to be expected. If an author hero worships/ hates a subject enough to devote an entire book to them then hyperbole is assured.

[phil25]

There was a type of book, in my youth, that used to have the title "The Life and Times of...." which wrapped up the sort of "Spartacus" treatment mentioned above. Out of fashion now.

 

As ever, MPC, you probably over-state your point for effect - but surely individuals (like you and me) do play a role in events, and it is interesting to know what shaped them, what inspired or drove them, what the influences on them were - and biography (good biography) does that. Of course - as I think I said in my opening post - it almost inevitably exaggerates the importance of that individual - but taken in the round with other works, they have their place, I think.

 

Like you MPC, I enjoy a stimulating re-interpretation of the conventional wisdom on any subject. I find they open the mind, and also (I collect Holy Blood, Holy Grail-type spin-offs), can be unwittingly amusing too!!Surely even you, MPC must have read some standard works at one stage to catch the overview and chronology of the period - else how do you know WHAT is being revised??

 

In my opening post, I suppose I had thought of such revisionist works as either narratives (if they are broad in coverage) or studies/monographs if detailed. But you are quite right to throw a light on them. Where would we be without them, as each generation re-interprets history in its own reflection?

 

Phil

[Primus Pilus]

Narratives can easily contain analytical support or revision of understood history. I prefer a narrative that also explains the how's and why's of a particular school of thought, or why that school of thought should be scrutinized.

 

However, I don't enjoy a revision that angrily dismisses all commonly understood history simply because it is fashionable to do so. Generally a balanced approach shows me that an author has an open mind and is interested in telling a complete story, while not being particularly focused on parading his own personal agenda.

[phil25]

Indeed, some of the best narrative histories compare and contrast interpretations either of events or incidents as part of the narration, or in a sort of historiographical epilogue.

 

Phil

[DecimusCaesar]

However, I don't enjoy a revision that that angrily dismisses all commonly understood history simply because it is fashionable to do so. Generally a balanced approach shows me that an author has an open mind and is interested in telling a complete story, while not being particularly focused on parading his own personal agenda.

 

Then I am sure that you won't like the work of Anatoly Fomenko:

 

History: Fiction or Science?

 

I have never read his book but I had come across refrences to it across the internet for several weeks. I thought it was a joke to begin with, then I realised that this guys books have sold millions of copies in Russia (supposedly). Read the reviews on Amazon if you want to see something funny/depressing. I wonder how many of those reviews are genuine and how many have been written up by Fomenko's supporters.

 

If Fomenko is right then we have all been studying a fictional Empire that is a product of the minds of the Sixteenth century

[Pertinax]

So obviously the Vindolanda tablets slipped by him

[DecimusCaesar]

His theories aren't very scientific. In a way he's saying that all scientific tests carried out by archaeologists and the research by scholars for several decades is incorrect and that he is right. He has basically set up a theory where he says that no amount of research by historians or other scientists can be correct, documents, archaelogical finds, scientific dating techniques are all faked so nobody can question his theories. That is the exact opposite of scientific research - you can't claim your own ideas as been 100% truth if they have not been completely accepted by the scientific and academic communities. Fomenko even says he is not a historian, just a mathematician, so there is no way he could have studied all documents, archaelogical finds etc that are from the Ancient/Medieval era as they are just too numerous.

 

His ideas seem to be catching on though as another mathematician has written a book supporting his ideas. The rest of the scientific and historical society have gathered to write a book criticising his theory, the book is based on research gathered by other historians, mathematicians, physicists etc

 

Fomenko himself is a strange figure. He is a renowned mathematician who has written several books on mathematical theories, but he is also known as a Russian Nationalist (strange that according to his book a Russian Empire ruled Europe and numerous famous figures were Russians) and he is also known for his hatred of historians and history, which he has criticised as being ' ruled by emotions' and for not being scientific enough. Either way he has gathered a lot of support and even a world's Grestest Chess player is his disciple.

[Primus Pilus]

However, I don't enjoy a revision that angrily dismisses all commonly understood history simply because it is fashionable to do so. Generally a balanced approach shows me that an author has an open mind and is interested in telling a complete story, while not being particularly focused on parading his own personal agenda.

 

Then I am sure that you won't like the work of Anatoly Fomenko:

 

History: Fiction or Science?

 

I have never read his book but I had come across refrences to it across the internet for several weeks. I thought it was a joke to begin with, then I realised that this guys books have sold millions of copies in Russia (supposedly). Read the reviews on Amazon if you want to see something funny/depressing. I wonder how many of those reviews are genuine and how many have been written up by Fomenko's supporters.

 

If Fomenko is right then we have all been studying a fictional Empire that is a product of the minds of the Sixteenth century

 

LOL, there are exceptions to every rule I suppose.

[phil25]

Well, given the character of several recent "great chess-players" an endorsement by one is not a tribute IMHO!!

 

Velikovsky who promoted ideas that time changed and the world reversed its direction od spin "when worlds collided" was also Russian was he not?

 

Those long cold, dark, winters have much to answer for.

 

Phil

[DecimusCaesar]

LOL, there are exceptions to every rule I suppose.

 

Well we had David Irving with his holocoust denial theories and then we have Anatoly Fomenko with his Bronze Age/Classical/Medieval denial theories. It's strange to think that so many intelligent people believe his theories. Chronology isn't 100% accurate but it is bizare to claim that Human Civilisation is only 1,000 years old. What on earth does Prof.Fomenko think occured before this era? Does he have a stone age theory?