Approaches To History

[M. Porcius Cato]

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.

 

Sure, narratives can contain analytical support or revision of prior historical reconstructions. I should have emphasized in bold letters that it's not the revisionism per se that I like, but bringing in NEW EVIDENCE and tracing out the implications of that new evidence for the received wisdom. Otherwise, what's the point in writing a new narrative if you're just saying what everyone else has said earlier?

 

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.

 

I agree. A revision with no new evidence (e.g., archaeological) and/or no new methodology (e.g., prosopography, statistics, etc) is just unjustified opinion.

 

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??

 

I assume that what's being revised is a previous interpretive reconstruction of events, hopefully in light of the best evidence available at the time.

[Virgil61]

...

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?

 

Any book whose author can present a decent and well-argued thesis rather than a rehash of previous data in a more accessible format is what I prefer. While I enjoy the original sources--Caeser, Livy, Plutarch, Tacitus, etc--I keep in mind that using them as sources can be problematic; they come from the same general backgrounds and hold their own biases which I usually try to keep in mind.

 

Biographies are fine, some are excellent, but really just an addition rather than my primary source--Plutarch and other ancients excepted.

 

Many historians tend to approach a series of events from a particular viewpoint. Any honest academic critique that makes the reader to look at something from a different angle is usually appreciated, even when I disagree.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Any book whose author can present a decent and well-argued thesis rather than a rehash of previous data in a more accessible format is what I prefer....Many historians tend to approach a series of events from a particular viewpoint. Any honest academic critique that makes the reader to look at something from a different angle is usually appreciated, even when I disagree.

 

Favorite examples?

[Virgil61]

Any book whose author can present a decent and well-argued thesis rather than a rehash of previous data in a more accessible format is what I prefer....Many historians tend to approach a series of events from a particular viewpoint. Any honest academic critique that makes the reader to look at something from a different angle is usually appreciated, even when I disagree.

 

Favorite examples?

 

I suppose I should have inoculated myself by adding that they are only slightly less scarce than a Salmon Rushdie book signing in Tehran. Perhaps good revisionist historis is a better more inclusive way of stating what I like.

 

A Critical History of Early Rome is what I'm currently reading (with about three other books). The author strips away a lot of accepted notions about what is known about that era as well as casting doubt on most of the sources whose second-hand info we rely on.

 

At the risk of causing you a stroke or sidetracking the conversation I appreciated Michael Parenti's book and what he was trying to do.

 

Frankly though, I think other fields are riper for this approach than classical history. Eric Hobsbawn's series of "Age of..." books are a particular favorite, especially the first two dealing with the revolutions of the early 19th century and the industrial revolution. A small but now infamous study; Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland, is particularly chilling.

 

Along the same lines, for anyone interested in early Soviet history but raised on the Richard Pipes and Robert Conquest school, books like 'Everyday Stalinism' by Sheila Fitzpatrick and 'Magnetic Mountain: Stalinism as Civilization' are a bit of an eyeopener. They put forth the prospect that, lo and behold, the average Soviet citizen from the peasant and working classes not only put up with purges but gained from them as well. A bit like 'Hitler's Willing Executioners' pointing at the average German's complicity in the holocaust I suppose.

 

'Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World' was a favorite of mine years ago, the premise being that revolutions from above or below resulted in totalitarian governments and that economies which developed a middle-class that reached a critical mass resulted in democratic revolutions.

 

Two other books stand out; 'The Great War and Modern Memory' which is everything it's written about and 'Europe and the People Without a History'.

 

And I'd like to see 'The Conquest of Gaul' given similar treatment as 'The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War'. That was an impressive job.

 

That's all I can think of at the moment.

[Pertinax]

" I often study the joys and regrets of the ancient people, and as I lean over their writings and see that they are moved exactly as ourselves, I am often overcome by a feeling of sadness or compassion, and would like to make those things clear to myself" " As we of the present look upon those of the past so will posterity look upon our present selves, therefore have I put down a sketch of these contemporaries and their sayings at this feast , and although time and circumstance may change , the way they will evoke our moods of happiness and regret will remain the same "

From "The Orchid Pavillion" by Wang Hsichih in the ninth year of Yungho....AD 353

Re iterated by Lin Yutang :

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Importance-Living-...TF8&s=books

in this great work.

[DecimusCaesar]

That's a nice quote Pertinax, it reminds me of some of the writings of other ancient people, although they are moved to write down the exploits of heroes rather than the ordinary every day things.

[spittle]

I remember a documentary that discussed a tablet of ancient origin, I cannot remember the actual details but the jist of the sentiment was something like

 

"Children no longer respect the authority of their parents and each generation grows worse than the last. The world is going mad and there seems to be no way of reversing the trend"

It was over 4000 thousand years old and could be the griping of middle aged people anywhere on earth today.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I remember a documentary that discussed a tablet of ancient origin, I cannot remember the actual details but the jist of the sentiment was something like

"Children no longer respect the authority of their parents and each generation grows worse than the last. The world is going mad and there seems to be no way of reversing the trend"

It was over 4000 thousand years old and could be the griping of middle aged people anywhere on earth today.

 

I'm skeptical about the tablet business, but I agree that the old and middle-aged have been griping about the decline of civilization since Hesiod (whom you'd be better off citing than some vague tablet).

[The Augusta]

I tend to approach history in layers, rather like Phil, but my approach does depend upon why I am reading it in the first place. We are all lovers of the Classical world here, but naturally we have our various areas of interest and expertise. For instance, I am mostly interested in the late Republic and early Principate, but have enough curiosity and love of all things ancient to attempt to broaden my knowledge into other eras. I am at present studying the Punic Wars, and I began with Livy. However, were I to extend my studies into the Severan dynasty (which also interests me, but I know very little of the history) I would probably begin with a good narrative overview. This is because my interest in the Severans is only lukewarm at the moment, but nevertheless the spark is there. I would 'sample' the history through a more populist type of text to see if it fired my interest further, and if so, I may well then progress to more serious in depth study. By contrast, my interest in the Punic Wars has always been deeper, therefore I began in a more scholarly manner (for want of a better term) by going to the primary source(s).

 

M.P. Cato's general condemnation of the biography interested me, and I can indeed see his point. I will readily admit that I am drawn to history for two main reasons: I am interested in the people, great or small, who have shaped our present world for good or bad, and I find it most enlightening to see such people within the context of great political or social change. For the second of these reasons, I understand Cato's reasoning, that the biography often does not examine the subject against the backdrop of his/her context in history. However, the other side of this is that often a biography is the first introduction we have to a historical subject. For instance, when I read Plutarch's Lives years ago for the first time, I was immediately fascinated by Sulla. He had colour, and I found myself comparing him with Marius, no doubt as Plutarch intended. Until Plutarch at 16 years old, I had never heard of either Marius or Sulla! I know that the ancient biographers are perhaps not a good example to use here - I don't think Cato included them in his general condemnation. However, because Sulla had caught my imagination, I decided to widen my studies. If biography achieves only this small thing, it has perhaps achieved its aim.

 

I agree with Cato, however, that some modern biographies that just set out to glorify the subject, contribute very little to scholarship, but I would say, in their defence, that they are perhaps aimed more at the layman and not the serious scholar.

 

There is also a case to be made for why we are approaching the history, and not just the how. Surely this will effect our methodology. I would love to know more about the Persian Empire, for instance, but I would not wish to become an expert in the topic, to either contribute to scholarship or use the acquired knowledge in a professional capacity. My reasons for study would be a personal interest only, and I would therefore start with something like Tom Holland's book. Someone who is studying for a degree, however, would approach the subject in a different way.

 

To sum up with myself as a case study - if I may beg your indulgence, I am now awaiting delivery of the Liddell-Hart biography of Scipio Africanus, which members of the forum recommended to me as a furtherance to my studies - it has been despatched by Blackwell's today. As I really am becoming very deeply interested in the Punic Wars, I do not intend to stop there. I will read, compare and do my best to evaluate the various primary sources and make my own judgement on Liddel-Hart's interpretation of his subject - and who knows, that may lead even further down the path. It's a method which seems to have served me well over the years.