I would like to add that a lot of modern historians tend to view ancient and more recent history through the prism of modern Political Correctness, something which annoys me greatly. No one in those days had any inkling that what they were doing was wrong in any sense of the word; it was considered the way things were. This practice smacks of modern academics sharing a philosophy with political parties expressing their smugness in their brand of "enlightenment".

Please, ladies and gentlemen, the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Hellenes, Romans on up to the men who fought the Civil War or led the British domination of India are no longer in a position to argue their point of view or refute what you are saying about them. Whatever needed to be corrected in our human behavior has already been done, so there's no need to use these past examples with which to beat everyone else over their collective heads with the claim that we're all rotten, evil SOBs. How is what you're doing that much different from the practice of "Romanizing" Gauls or "Hellenizing" Persians?

My two ¥

The main problem with the system is that in it, the facts of history aren't the important thing. What these historians find important is getting their interpretation of history along with their political statements across to the broader population. And teachers accept this method and promulgate it, making students basically memorize the revisionist political statements about the history that is taught to them in general. The fact is that this is contrary to what history is meant to be. That is - the knowledge of historical events and the ability to critically analyze what happened and why it happened. A great many teachers think that they're doing this by pushing clearly biased textbooks' agendas at students and telling them to regurgitate it on paper rather than by giving them primary, secondary, and even tertiary sources of substance and telling them to analyze them critically.

edit.

[This message has been edited by el_bandito (edited 09-03-2007 @ 11:02 PM).]

Different conversation, bandito.

Sorry, I'll edit it.

Yes, we understand that you did a lot of research. That doesn’t mean you have to source every single goddamned statement.

Indeed, Peter Heather was a bit annoying about that. I'd say modern historians do too much repetition in separate books. I'd also say there are far too few detailed descriptions of campaigns and such by modern historians.

I have more respect usually for ancient historians.

"Yes, we understand that you did a lot of research. That doesn’t mean you have to source every single goddamned statement "

to be a bit fair people are nasty when it comes to putting down others words everyone wants credit where credit is due but yes I do agree with you its a bit too much....

and once again I do agree with what some have been saying alot of history being taught today has a bias taint to it that is rather annoying most dont want to just present facts

Just my two eurocents...

Quoted from Legio Yow:

4. Footnotes
Yes, we understand that you did a lot of research. That doesn’t mean you have to source every single goddamned statement.

I disagree strongly with this. It's a good idea to cite one's sources because it gives readers a way to verify what that historian's saying, and may be helpful for people seeking ,,deeper" info on a certain topic. Indeed a more casual mortal not interested in oversophisticated academic issues may not find them interesting, but if someone doesn't like the footnotes, he can always ignore them! So what's the problem? The more footnotes the merrier

Quoted from Yusaku:

I would like to add that a lot of modern historians tend to view ancient and more recent history through the prism of modern Political Correctness, something which annoys me greatly.

Yes indeed that's annoying, but the lack of objectiveness seems to be common among historians of all eras, doesn't it? There are very fair historians here and there, like Thukidydes, who are not interested in forcing their opinion on reader but in history facts, but they've always been exceptions, most of historians are always more or less biased towards some idea(s) or another. like that ancinet guy herodotus with his boasts abou how great, invicble etc. are the Greeks esp. his Athenian compatriots, or ,,enlightened" Voltaire with his heavy critism of feudal early Mediaevial monarch Charlemagne for the fact he acted as feudal early Mediaevial monarch and not like an XVIIIth-century absolutistic one, which Volatire would like him to. Or loads of others. In other words: Yes the modern historiography is viewing history through the prism of ideologies of its own age, which is undeniably wrong, but this is unfortuantely the most common attitude in all ages. Nihil novi sub solem, you know

Don't overlook the fact that university textbooks are often selected as much by their list of sources (i.e. further reading) as by their actual contents - this is why the likes of Scullard is still used. By including a comprehensive list of references a historian can not only avoid plagiarism accusations but increase the chance of being selected as a university text, and thereby substantially increase the profits garnered from the book.

Gandalf, Herodotus was not an Athenian, he was Herodotus of Halicarnarssus.

herodotus with his boasts abou how great, invicble etc. are the Greeks

Which boasts are these?

This is one reason why I enjoy Byzantine history so much. It's been neglected for so long that the recent revival lacks many of the problems of other fields. Sure some people wrote thematic histories, but from my experience they were primarily either tied to a very specific timeframe (say the period of Justinian, or rather of Procopius) or organized around a broader timeline. But the best historian in the field currently has gone to great effort to produce what should be the new standard in Byzantine chronological history, and he did it without sacrificing thematic elements. Warren Treadgold's exhaustive "History of Byzantine State and Society" is arranged first chronologically and second thematically, and his focus is largely on political, social (including religious), and finally economic history (which is important for understanding the other two, certainly). He also includes military history, but with the Empire it is pretty tightly liked to political history, and his companion book "Byzantium and Its Army" deals much more thoroughly with imperial military history (including detailed analysis of numbers, logistics, etc.).

Also, it seems to me that in many cases it is the old guard of sorts who tend to write better histories. Look at Ambrose's histories of the World Wars. They include plenty of battles, are arranged chronologically while exploring themes, etc. If I had to guess I'd say it's mostly the generation of historians educated during the '80s and '90s that so far has been all about themes, with harsh post-modern bias. I smell the taint of marxist historiography in the focus on socio-economic forces, and it is usually easy to see the influence of radical feminism or nationalist revisionism.

Granted, I haven't read everything, but I think there are still several good historians out there today. You simply have to sift through all the muck in order to find them (which task admittedly is far easier in some fields than in others).

The problem I've been having with Byzantine history is that so many of the primary sources haven't yet been translated into English. I've read Anna Comnena and Michael Psellus, and I've got the first 6 books of Procopius on order, but it seems like other potentially useful sources like Scylitzes(sp?) are regularly used by professional scholars without being available to the more casually interested student. Even Procopius was a bitch to find, really.

I basically agree with Yowzer, though I'm not so vehemently opposed to it.

Whilst narrative is the core of history, thematic approaches are often useful. And for a couple of reasons it's much easier to do thematic stuff for PHDs and post doc work nowadays. there are only so many different slants that can be put on chronological accounts after all but more importantly, thematic history allows itself to be written in 'bite size chunks' more easily. And many doctorates are now done through submission of many papers rather than one 'magnum opus'.

The modern fashion to distain written source material is rather odd. It always amuses me how often the ancients are proven correct by archaeology after being poo-pooed by a modern academic as niaf or just plain wrong.

Military and political history have taken a back seat. Partly because they do not always lend themselves as readily to the thematic approach. But mainly it is fashion. And the fact that economic and social history are newer and there is more fertile ground to work on, again making it easier to get funding or approval for research.

I like footnotes though it does annoy me when they contain greek quotes when the rest of the work (including quotes) are in translation.

if someone doesn't like the footnotes, he can always ignore them! So what's the problem? The more footnotes the merrier

Because footnotes should be used to further clarify statements, or add extra information that doesn't fit with the flow of the topic, or even a direct quote from a primary source. The only time you should footnote sources is when you use a direct quote, or want to attribute a specific theory to someone, not if you are simply stating facts (For example, "Lincoln was elected in 1860 doesn't need a footnote). You use your bibliography to show what sources you use.

Whilst narrative is the core of history, thematic approaches are often useful.

Well, certainly. But you need some narrative or else the reader doesn't have any proper sign posts.

As others have said, much of the reason that military history has fallen out of fashion is well, its all been done already. Books like Harris' War and Imperialism in Republican Rome and (ugh, I dread to say it) Hanson's The Western Way of War have done pretty much all that can be done. We're never going to know how a Roman infantry battle really went, and all we can do at this point is speculate, so why waste your time when honestly, the specifics don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

As for narrative history (which I think might be a more appropriate name for what you call chronological, Legio), there are several reasons that it is looked down upon by many academics (in both the field of history and classics). As DVF said, there's only so many ways you can slant a narrative history, and if you go too far, people will call you out on it. Furthermore, its damn hard to write narrative history, because you always forget something. And of course, that one thing will be something that your reviewer considers to be of the utmost importance.

Narrative history also suffers from a bit of (rightly deserved, in my opinion) elitism from the other branches. For example, it seems that just about anyone can call himself an expert and write a narrative history that's just collecting the original sources and putting them in order, add some dramatic language, and he's a best seller. There's no attempt at analysis or producing a thesis.

Why would the academic bother with such a book when they would much rather read the original sources themselves? Dare I say it, the only truly worthwhile narrative histories I have ever read (and its not even that much of a narrative) are Syme's Roman Revolution and Kagan's Peloponnesian War, and I still have issues with both of them in many ways (okay Syme, we get it, you're really writing about Mussolini). Others have been very interesting and have added perhaps one or two useful bits of knowledge, but most simply read like a historical novel attempting to sound smart (I'm looking at you Tom Holland).

This isn't to say that narrative history should be neglected by the reader. By all means, when you first get interested in the subject, go out and get a modern narrative history to help you get a basic understanding of the subject, but don't expect that to be the end, or even the most important part of the field.

Now, there seems to be a curious misunderstanding here about the nature of the study of history (at least as far as it relates to antiquity, which is the only field I'd feel comfortable in analyzing the academia of). Legio, you cite an example of a hypothetical historian of the Song Dynasty, and how that historian would, for example, write only of the gentry class and the effects of the examination system, ignoring the emperors. There is nothing, in fact, wrong with that. That hypothetical historian assumes that the reader already knows about the general narrative history and has no need to retell everything. Why waste the reader and the writer's time?

The whole concept of an article or a monograph is to focus very tightly on one single issue, be it a historical event, a battle, a piece of literature, cultural phenomenon, work of art, or a theme (in the sense that there is a theme of false Republicanism in the Augustan principate, or whatever). The writer does not have the space in a journal to produce an entire narrative of the events that prompted his inquiry, and assumes that the reader has a general knowledge (for example, that this or that emperor in the Song dynasty issued this or that edict). Now, if the writer is composing a piece on how he believes certain events happened in a way different than the dominant theory, then yes, some narrative is required. Or, if the writer is talking about a rather obscure topic, some narrative might also be necessary. Otherwise, it should not be included. Do not waste your time or the reader's time.

Now, as for a supposed pathological hatred of the sources, at least among ancient historians/classicists, I dissent. Throughout the 19th century, the Germans especially focused almost solely upon the classical sources. Once new techniques such as archeology developed, of course people are going to be more interested in that, just because well, the Germans have already done it. There certainly have been theories out there that do not focus much on the texts, but if you look at the specific field those theories apply to, they don't need to spend as much time with the texts as say, someone who studies the political trends of the Senate.

Most academics who I have encountered prefer the "close reading" theory, that places importance not only on reading the texts as literally and as closely as possible, but also analyzing the texts in conjunction with say inscriptions and works of art. Here's a good example. If you read only the texts, you get this idea that Romans really looked down upon interracial marriage. Well, if you look at inscriptions, you will see that interracial marriage between Romans and "barbarians" is remarkably common, especially in military colonies (obviously). Here's an example from my own experiences. I was presenting my first paper, and based my understanding of the Egyptian god Serapis solely on what Tacitus' said in his Histories regarding the god, namely that he was invented by the Ptolemies. Well, I happened to have an expert on Serapis and Isis in the audience and she ripped me a new one about how it has long been known by academics that Serapis in fact originated at Memphis and had been an old deity by the time he was promoted by the Ptolemaic dynasty. If I had just taken the time to look at any modern works, I would've saved myself a grievous error and not looked like a tool in front of a large audience.

So while most historians/classicists don't see the texts as the be-all end-all of knowledge of antiquity, they acknowledge that when knowledge of the texts is combined with analysis of other sources, including art, coinage, and the works of modern historians, they are a powerful grouping.

As for the footnotes comments,

Because footnotes should be used to further clarify statements, or add extra information that doesn't fit with the flow of the topic, or even a direct quote from a primary source. The only time you should footnote sources is when you use a direct quote, or want to attribute a specific theory to someone, not if you are simply stating facts (For example, "Lincoln was elected in 1860 doesn't need a footnote). You use your bibliography to show what sources you use.

I agree in some ways, but disagree in others. Using the Chicago style (which is what most American scholars in this field use), you don't need to footnote every single thing, but you need to prove that you didn't make it up. Every single statement that is not an accepted fact or common sense needs to be cited in some fashion or form. Anything you paraphrase or draw from someone else, in any fashion or form, even if its just a simple idea that you would've come up with on your own, you must cite, otherwise you're plagiarizing. And nobody wants that.

As for the bibliography, nothing should be in the bibliography that was not cited in the paper. A rough rule that I use is when writing a narrative (which is what you seemed to be concerned with), include a footnote at the end of each paper. Perhaps an endnote if you don't like that half the page can be footnotes instead of main text. If I'm writing about the Year of Four Emperors in Tacitus and talking about how Mucianus and Vespasian conspired to join the war, I'm going to cite Tacitus at the end of the paragraph even if I didn't directly quote. It's just a convention and avoids controversy.

Please do respond, because I love discussions of historiography.

I think there has been some confusion: I am not just talking about essays. This also includes books, which I find to be of far greater importance anyways.

Another point to note: I am not advocating that everyone jump to military history or something. Simply, I think it deserves some notice.

Now, Vasta, your post is too long to respond to your points individually, so I'll just go general.

First, about chronological history: I do not mean to suggest that historians should focus solely on the narrative, or even primarily. However, I think that a narrative needs to be provided, if only slightly. If you are giving a history of Rome, you need to mention Caesar. Even if you are just writing an article for people who you know will know Roman history backwards and forward, you should provide at least a few sentences of context. And if you are writing a full book, well, then you should give a full on, detailed narrative history, for a few reasons: One, just in case the reader has forgotten or didn't know one detail that crops up, and two, so the reader will know where their understanding of the chronology differs. If you want to put the narrative in an introduction, do so. But it should be there.

And finally, just on the off chance a non academic who is simply a bit interested he will have a good frame of reference. The academic who only writes for academics is a poor academic indeed.

By all means, when you first get interested in the subject, go out and get a modern narrative history to help you get a basic understanding of the subject, but don't expect that to be the end, or even the most important part of the field.

The difficulty is that it is extremely difficult to find narrative histories. If you can find a good narrative history of China besides Gernet, for example, you have my gratitude.

As for narrative history (which I think might be a more appropriate name for what you call chronological, Legio)

They are both equally legitimate. I simple prefer "chronological", because I find it more precise.

the specifics don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

I hate to burst your bubble, but really, the study of history doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things. A world without historians would be much poorer, but hardly impoverished. So, once we acknowledge that the practical gain is hardly astronomical, we must remember that the reason historians exist is to inform about the past, and they shouldn't simply ignore one whole area because they believe it of "lesser importance".

Actually, military history is arguably the one field that does grant great practical benefits (For generals, that is).

[This message has been edited by Legio Yow (edited 09-05-2007 @ 08:12 PM).]

Military and Political, that is.

Even if you are just writing an article for people who you know will know Roman history backwards and forward, you should provide at least a few sentences of context.

This is certainly reasonable, and indeed, expected. I don't believe that I gave the impression that it shouldn't be in there (although sorry if I did, that post was written in intervals over an hour or two, hence its length). What I argue is that this is really all that is needed in most academic works. Now, if you're writing your thesis, you'll certainly put in every last bit of narrative you can find, but that's just because you want to fill space.

And finally, just on the off chance a non academic who is simply a bit interested he will have a good frame of reference. The academic who only writes for academics is a poor academic indeed.

While I am all for scholarly works being read by a wider audience, you really should not anticipate, for example, an article in Greece & Rome being read by someone who merely saw Gladiator and wants to branch out. If you intend on writing a book that you're hoping will be sold out at Borders, yes, you ought to include as much background information as possible, but at the same time, those books tend not to be of the highest academic quality. They're more of the Tom Hollands et al who tell a fine story, but do not provide much analysis.

As for some of the other comments, I really am not well versed in any aspect of historical academia in any other field than Mediterranean and Near Eastern antiquity so I am not sure what else exists out there. It might be entirely possible that for Chinese studies there is nothing out there but an analysis of Pot X from dig site B.

And I know history is really just the game of the landed gentry, and the field of ancient history is just seen as a side hobby from philology, but what I was specifically referring to was within the field. Knowing that the Romans rotated their lines every 2-3 minutes or whatever the theory currently is does not greatly change our understanding of the army, and there is very little evidence anywhere that could help us truly determine it, so those aspects of military history go to the wayside.

As for the larger things, what troop movements were and maneuvers in the great battles, well, we've already determined much of that to the best of our ability. Like I said earlier, those 19th century Germans were good. And there are still some aspects of military history that are thriving. I know there's a lot of interests in logistical matters right now, just based upon articles that I've seen coming out.

I think there has been some confusion: I am not just talking about essays. This also includes books, which I find to be of far greater importance anyways.

See my earlier comments about why new narrative histories are not appearing on the bookshelves (too hard, already been done, etc.) As for books being more important than essays, I heartily disagree. The real works of scholarship are coming out in essays and monographs. By the time something makes it to a book (something that is truly an academic work and not just a popcorn history), it has already been several peer-reviewed essays.

You are also neglecting the importance of peer-review. Articles are subject to strict peer-reviewing (in the better journals they are strict at least) and works that have no value are given the boot, and those that have gems of ideas but need more work receive the dreaded "revise and resubmit" (gotten several of those myself). While some books do receive this beating, most, so long as they can get past a general editor, are not reviewed by other academics until post publishing. And let's be fair, no average person is going to look in a journal or sign up for the Bryn Mawr Classical Review so he can figure out if that book on the end cap at Borders is any good, or is spouting off crap.

If one wants to study "real" history and classics, they need to get themselves into the real meat and potatoes of journal articles, because while popcorn works are a lot of fun to read, they are not adding much to the field.

Hanson's The Western Way of War have done pretty much all that can be done

I'm still amazed that Hanson's rather ludicrous representation of the mechanics of hoplite battle have not been shredded. Likely it is because ancient military history is not where one expects to make a name. Hanson is excellent on many things to do with hoplite warfare but his 'shattered spears' and 'shield pushing' nonsense rests on dubious evidence in the first case or sheer practical impossibility in the second. It's now the received wisdom - and generally overturning the received wisdom is popular with young academics.

I also think his assertion that the 'western way of war' is somehow unique and focussed on pitched battles is somewhat tenuous.

Knowing that the Romans rotated their lines every 2-3 minutes or whatever the theory currently is

Actually the current 'best thinking' is that rotation of ranks was impossible in combat but, if it was ever practised within a unit - for which there is precious little evidence (as opposed to one unit relieving another) it must have been during lulls in the fighting.


Most studies of the Roman army concentrate on its life outside of battle. I think this is because in order to consider how it might have operated within battle one would have to look at how armies operated outside the classical period. In short it's a job for a military historian not a classicist. (Or a classicist who is a military historian, but he's semi retired - and to be fair he did write a rather good book on that subject). And sadly most military historians who look at battle are miliary men who are looking for 'general principles' (Cannae = Desert Storm or whatever) rather than 'the battle experience'.

[This message has been edited by D Furius Venator (edited 09-06-2007 @ 02:06 PM).]

Furius, write a book already. Seriously.

If you read only the texts, you get this idea that Romans really looked down upon interracial marriage. Well, if you look at inscriptions, you will see that interracial marriage between Romans and "barbarians" is remarkably common, especially in military colonies (obviously).

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Those writing the histories were the upper crust who presumably did tend to sneer at the barbarian brides (and why not, they sneered at almost everything else...) Whereas it's the poor bloody legionaries (and hangers on) who're wedding the foreign damsels. Even then though who says that wasn't out of lack of opportunity to take a proper Roman woman as wife?

The Theodosian Code contained a law against taking barbarians (or rather noncitizens, a lump in which barbarians were included) as wives. It was maintained by some of the later Germanic kingdoms, oddly enough, even though it was originally inserted specifically against them.

You are also neglecting the importance of peer-review. Articles are subject to strict peer-reviewing (in the better journals they are strict at least) and works that have no value are given the boot, and those that have gems of ideas but need more work receive the dreaded "revise and resubmit" (gotten several of those myself).

Not at all. Because of peer review, articles tend to be something of a work in progress, while a book, or at least the good ones, are finished (I'm assuming that the ideas of the author have had some testing on the academic battlefield: I never said articles are useless). Also, you can write an article claiming that Virgil was a pre-Christian Christian, but insane nutjob theories are somewhat more difficult to put in books. The fault of a book is academic conservatism (You are less likely to be on the "cutting edge" of academic research, which is good or bad depending on how you look at it) while the fault of the article is academic radicalism, which is surely the greater flaw. To expand, with an article there is a certain pressure that the thesis has to be original, that it has to debunk previous notions, and this is dangerous, because it interferes with the objectivity that is ideal for the historian.

It is my personal opinion that getting published or teaching should be the greatest aspiration of a historian (This is not to say that the greatest historians are those who are published). I also think that a historian who can't write a page without putting his audience to sleep is a bad historian, no matter how good a researcher he is.

Furius, write a book already. Seriously.

Yeah, no kidding.

[This message has been edited by Legio Yow (edited 09-06-2007 @ 05:51 PM).]

Quoted from MislacedPope:

Gandalf, Herodotus was not an Athenian, he was Herodotus of Halicarnarssus.

He was born in Halicarnassus, yes, but he was later exiled and spent much of his life in Athens, and his Histories do show Athenians in quite a gloryfying way.

Quoted from Dr Furius Venerator:

Which boasts are these?

Boasts maybe wrong word here, but I was writing my first post in hurry and I'm not a native speaker; I guess it should have been in more moderate tone. I meant that he totally exaggarates the size of Persian armies so make Greekish victories even more glorious (Not to deny his achievements as ,,Father of History", it was simply a example of the fact that lack of objectivism isn't limited to modern historiography only).