CC History Faculty

[Guiscard]

Religion (see Gibbon, Xianity)

Gibbon is a difficult one... For decades we've taught Gibbon as a valid fairly objective history, but the decline and fall really was a fairly thinly veiled social critique of his contemporary situation. Furthermore, we are looking at pre-Rankian times when history was a simple strand of literature. He had to sell books. The arguments are interesting, but are perhaps too subjective to be of any real value. Which is a shame, as he's the most famous historian of all time.

[ignotus]

Religion (see Gibbon, Xianity)

Gibbon is a difficult one... For decades we've taught Gibbon as a valid fairly objective history, but the decline and fall really was a fairly thinly veiled social critique of his contemporary situation. Furthermore, we are looking at pre-Rankian times when history was a simple strand of literature. He had to sell books. The arguments are interesting, but are perhaps too subjective to be of any real value. Which is a shame, as he's the most famous historian of all time.

I always regarded Marc Bloch as one of the famous historians of all time. After more than 70 years his work still strikes me as new.

[suggs]

Religion (see Gibbon, Xianity)

Gibbon is a difficult one... For decades we've taught Gibbon as a valid fairly objective history, but the decline and fall really was a fairly thinly veiled social critique of his contemporary situation. Furthermore, we are looking at pre-Rankian times when history was a simple strand of literature. He had to sell books. The arguments are interesting, but are perhaps too subjective to be of any real value. Which is a shame, as he's the most famous historian of all time.

I hear you-he was, as we all are,a man of his time, a rationalist railing against religion, and also what he perceived as moral degeneration.
But i dont think you can seriously study the fall of the roman Emp. without at least reading bits of Gibon.
PLus, as you say, its classic literature in its own right.
Its still true that the best historians are the ones who write well-Give me a Taylor or a Gibbon or a Ferguson over strict, but dull history!

[suggs]

But your central point is correct-Christianity didnt cause the collapse. There was a church in the east thats still doing pretty well!

[Guiscard]

Religion (see Gibbon, Xianity)

Gibbon is a difficult one... For decades we've taught Gibbon as a valid fairly objective history, but the decline and fall really was a fairly thinly veiled social critique of his contemporary situation. Furthermore, we are looking at pre-Rankian times when history was a simple strand of literature. He had to sell books. The arguments are interesting, but are perhaps too subjective to be of any real value. Which is a shame, as he's the most famous historian of all time.

I always regarded Marc Bloch as one of the famous historians of all time. After more than 70 years his work still strikes me as new.

Certainly. The Annales school is intensely important historiographically... And it marks an interesting progression from Gibbon, to Von Ranke who reacted against Gibbon's enlightenment critique to and Bloch who, in turn, reacted against Rankian historiography.

[Guiscard]

Its still true that the best historians are the ones who write well-Give me a Taylor or a Gibbon or a Ferguson over strict, but dull history!

Definitely. Well, definitely if you're anyone but an academic (and even then...) And you cannot study the decline without reading the decline.

[muy_thaiguy]

Hey Ignotus, what time frame was Vlad the Impaler holding off the Ottomans? I know that he was one of the few able to do so, but I can never remember what years it was.

[suggs]

Its definitely time for a Rankean resurgence!
Just the facts, ma'am...
(but in a lively tone!)
i'm a bit dodgy on this, but I know the Battle of Kosovo was imporant somewhere along the line! (re:the Ottomans).
I guess google Vlad...

[suggs]

well i google vlad, he was around in 1456, King of Romania for a bit and the inspiration for "Dracula".

[ignotus]

Vlad III. Drakula (Drakula or Drakulea in Romanian means son of Draco, as his father Vlad II. was in the knight's of Dragon's Order; Ordo Draconis)

Vlad III. actually first came to power with a help from Ottomans, because his father left him in Ottoman prison as his personal bound of loyalty to sultan.
-First time he came to power in Walachia (with Ottoman help) in 1448 but it was for just a couple of months.
-During that few months he escaped Ottoman captivity and tried to persuade foreign Christian rulers to help him return to the throne. Janko Hunjadi, count of Transilvania helped him so he returned to Walachia and ruled 1456-1462. In that time he tried to centralize his power so he fought with towns who didn't wanted a strong count (citizens of Brašov made a dreadful story about him which Stoker used later). Ottomans did finally overthrown him in 1462 so he went asking help to Matiaš Korvin who was a Hungarian and Croatian king but he captured Drakula and held him in prison till 1475. Korvin did that to support his brother's (Radu's) claims to throne.
-In 1475 Korvin released Drakula from prison and helped him defeat Ottoman candidate for throne (after brother's death) but when Ottomans counterattacked in winter of 1476 they killed Drakula.

[Twill]

ignotus, norse and suggs (and a bit to MTG as well), keep it on topic and don't try to destroy this thread.

Guiscard, my hat is off to you for putting up with this

(yes Norse, I'm stalking you. It's a conspiracy)

Keep it on the topic that was originally posted please - serious historical debate (emphasis on serious)

Have a good one
Twill

[ignotus]

ignotus, norse and suggs (and a bit to MTG as well), keep it on topic and don't try to destroy this thread.

Guiscard, my hat is off to you for putting up with this

(yes Norse, I'm stalking you. It's a conspiracy)

Keep it on the topic that was originally posted please - serious historical debate (emphasis on serious)

Have a good one
Twill

You really didn't get the point Twill...

But OK i guess!

[Guiscard]

ignotus, norse and suggs (and a bit to MTG as well), keep it on topic and don't try to destroy this thread.

Guiscard, my hat is off to you for putting up with this

(yes Norse, I'm stalking you. It's a conspiracy)

Keep it on the topic that was originally posted please - serious historical debate (emphasis on serious)

Have a good one
Twill

You really didn't get the point Twill...

But OK i guess!

He's saying I was right to tell Norse to f*ck off... 1 History Point to me... Now lets continue.

Going back to Marc Bloch and the French Annales school, what are your opinions? One of my undergraduates asked me about that the other day and, as it was years since I studied historiography proper, I was a little stuck for an opinion... I've read Blochs medieval work specifically, but find it a little distracted for my tastes.

[ignotus]

I found his comparative approach (which he almost founded in historiography) and his great knowledge of simple facts fascinating. Furthermore i think he influenced other great historians like Braudel and other historians who later followed Annales School of historiography.

[Guiscard]

I found his comparative approach (which he almost founded in historiography) and his great knowledge of simple facts fascinating. Furthermore i think he influenced other great historians like Braudel and other historians who later followed Annales School of historiography.

Ahh so definitely a fan... The problem I have is that I'm primarily a crusader historian, and so we work from a fairly finite number of sources (William of Tyre et al.). That leads to a very Rankean approach where the fact is sacrosanct. If its in an account it is entirely applicable. Everything else is too subjective. (Thats not entirely true, but you get the idea...)

[ignotus]

I found his comparative approach (which he almost founded in historiography) and his great knowledge of simple facts fascinating. Furthermore i think he influenced other great historians like Braudel and other historians who later followed Annales School of historiography.

Ahh so definitely a fan... The problem I have is that I'm primarily a crusader historian, and so we work from a fairly finite number of sources (William of Tyre et al.). That leads to a very Rankean approach where the fact is sacrosanct. If its in an account it is entirely applicable. Everything else is too subjective. (Thats not entirely true, but you get the idea...)

Yes, I guess it's true. But you can use comparative approach when studying, for example, Tempalars and Knights of Saint John or social differences in crusader states. Bloch's & Braudel's approach lays on facts too.

[Guiscard]

OK. lets try and get this going again. New question...

Which period of history (for example, Antiquity, Classical, Early, High or Late Middle Ages, Early Modern, Enlightenment... whatever you fancy) has done most to influence the formation of the modern world? Is it the early-modern period? A reaction to the Napoleonic terrors of the early 19th Century? Is it the Medieval idea of kingship and sovereignty carried over to a government? Is it the classical Athenian concept of democracy?

Discuss.

[ignotus]

OK. lets try and get this going again. New question...

Which period of history (for example, Antiquity, Classical, Early, High or Late Middle Ages, Early Modern, Enlightenment... whatever you fancy) has done most to influence the formation of the modern world? Is it the early-modern period? A reaction to the Napoleonic terrors of the early 19th Century? Is it the Medieval idea of kingship and sovereignty carried over to a government? Is it the classical Athenian concept of democracy?

Discuss.

End of 18th and beginning of 19th century. American and French revolution had shown to man kind that ideas like liberty, equality and brotherhood of men is possible. Then came the national ideas and liberty thought started producing new technical, medical and all kinds of different inventions that really helped man kind to go from agricultural society to industrial society.

EDIT: My topic is locked down. His main idea was to give answers to real history issues, not to make another flame war. It seems that some people didn't get his original purpose.

P.S. If you have any other serious questions...

[Guiscard]

OK. lets try and get this going again. New question...

Which period of history (for example, Antiquity, Classical, Early, High or Late Middle Ages, Early Modern, Enlightenment... whatever you fancy) has done most to influence the formation of the modern world? Is it the early-modern period? A reaction to the Napoleonic terrors of the early 19th Century? Is it the Medieval idea of kingship and sovereignty carried over to a government? Is it the classical Athenian concept of democracy?

Discuss.

End of 18th and beginning of 19th century. American and French revolution had shown to man kind that ideas like liberty, equality and brotherhood of men is possible. Then came the national ideas and liberty thought started producing new technical, medical and all kinds of different inventions that really helped man kind to go from agricultural society to industrial society.

EDIT: My topic is locked down. His main idea was to give answers to real history issues, not to make another flame war. It seems that some people didn't get his original purpose.

P.S. If you have any other serious questions...

We could certainly place the roots of those kind of ideas in that period, but what about the state structure, the political systems... even the idea that we should be divided up into 'states'. It seems s natural to us, but oviously it hasn't always been the case...

[muy_thaiguy]

Do you guys think that another General could be on the same par as Alexander The Great (III) of Macedon? There are some that come to mind, but none that can think of are on the same level.

[suggs]

I found his comparative approach (which he almost founded in historiography) and his great knowledge of simple facts fascinating. Furthermore i think he influenced other great historians like Braudel and other historians who later followed Annales School of historiography.

Ahh so definitely a fan... The problem I have is that I'm primarily a crusader historian, and so we work from a fairly finite number of sources (William of Tyre et al.). That leads to a very Rankean approach where the fact is sacrosanct. If its in an account it is entirely applicable. Everything else is too subjective. (Thats not entirely true, but you get the idea...)

The Annales school undoubtedly had a masive historiograohical impact.
But impacts, to paraphrase Baldwin, can be a terrible thing!
OK thats harsh. But ultimately i tink you have to confine Bloch, LeFebvre, Braudel, Ladurie et. al to the dustbin. Not unlike Freudianism, "Total" historians, in their attempt to describe evrything, end up explaining very little.
Braudels seminal "Mediterreanean" a case in point. After you waded through the first wo books on the geolgy and then then the "social" you get to his brief poloitcal analysis of Philip II- which is entirely standard, and uncontraversial!
I actually find the whole socio-economic approach to very misleading.
But see Isiah Berlin for a better explanation!

[Guiscard]

Do you guys think that another General could be on the same par as Alexander The Great (III) of Macedon? There are some that come to mind, but none that can think of are on the same level.

A general in what manner? He didn't find much resistance in Perisa, the military reforms had primarily been enacted by his father... The mythology surrounding the character, in part promoted Alexander himself, still lingers today really. He was a great general, and a great conqueror, but his Empire was built upon little resistance, much as our colonial exploits in Africa were, and it crumbled non-the-less.

[suggs]

Well, if you mean general in the "on the battlefield sense", then the boy Alex was top notch.
Hannibal, Robert Lee and Napoleon probably his equal,. I'd be tempted to put Lee right up at the top. The rights or wrongs of the cause he was fighting for are irrelevant to a dispassionate analysis of his battlefield talents.
By rights, with the rsources that the two sides had, the south should have been knocked out within 2 years.
As it was,Lee almost singlehandely, to quote probably the best of the second division generals, made it "A damn close thing..."

[ignotus]

Well, if you mean general in the "on the battlefield sense", then the boy Alex was top notch.
Hannibal, Robert Lee and Napoleon probably his equal,. I'd be tempted to put Lee right up at the top. The rights or wrongs of the cause he was fighting for are irrelevant to a dispassionate analysis of his battlefield talents.
By rights, with the rsources that the two sides had, the south should have been knocked out within 2 years.
As it was,Lee almost singlehandely, to quote probably the best of the second division generals, made it "A damn close thing..."

I can agree with all of the above noted generals.

Well, in category great kings - great commanders I nominate Gustav II Adolf of Sweden and Polish king Jan III Sobieski.

[Guiscard]

Well, if you mean general in the "on the battlefield sense", then the boy Alex was top notch.
Hannibal, Robert Lee and Napoleon probably his equal,. I'd be tempted to put Lee right up at the top. The rights or wrongs of the cause he was fighting for are irrelevant to a dispassionate analysis of his battlefield talents.
By rights, with the rsourcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gus ... _of_Sweden
Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedias that the two sides had, the south should have been knocked out within 2 years.
As it was,Lee almost singlehandely, to quote probably the best of the second division generals, made it "A damn close thing..."

I can agree with all of the above noted generals.

Well, in category great kings - great commanders I nominate Gustav II Adolf of Sweden and Polish king Jan III Sobieski.

Gustav Adolf is a good choice. Really interesting change in the accepted military tactics of the time, in the same style as Nelson. And the Battle of Vienna is a good choice too.