Welcome to Monday Methods – a weekly feature we discuss, explain and explore historical methods, historiography, and theoretical frameworks concerning history.
Today's topic concerns a discussion on the role of the historian and the historian's engagement with the public.
Historians when engaging the public often emphasize different interpretations of historical events, the multiplicity of perspectives, and positionality. We teach and want to make the point that there are multiple view points of the same events and that while facts remain the same, truth can vary depending on what sources one engages with through what lens.
However, it is also no secret that currently we face a climate where "alternative facts" are invoked and "fake news" is as a term a constant reminder of a public discourse that challenges narratives and facts.
What does this mean for us as historians? Should we as some have suggested focus less on differing interpretations of history and more on the limits of interpretations? Should facts literacy and how to distinguish between justified interpretation and factually wrong interpretation play a greater role in how we engage with the public?
Give your take and discuss below!
3 Answers 2017-06-12
As far as my knowledge goes, the south possessed over much more capable commanders primarily from a military background. Examples are Lee, Johnston, Jackson, Longstreet, Hood, J.E.B. Stuart... Union commanders however, as far as I've read, primarily knew their origin in politics or business. Examples are: Burnside, Rosecrans, McClellan, Sherman... McDowell and Hooker being the exception here. Now the CSA also had a few commanders without an outspoken military background such as Forrest and Early, but the majority were career officers (correct me if I'm wrong, I may have mixed up some names).
Now as to the effectiveness of these commanders, the south clearly had the upperhand. A few of their commanders were of course not as capable, but this, I feel, was generally not the norm. In the north, Lincoln continuously relieved one commander after another (McDowell, McClellan, Burnside, Hooker and Rosecrans). This seemingly unending chain of change of command only changed after Grant came in as general commander of all union armies in 1864 (he had already proven himself at Shiloh). Under him, Sherman was also a very competent commander.
My question is: why did Lincoln continue to appoint politicians, industrialists or bankers? (Again, Hooker and McDowell being the exception). People like Longstreet, although not a politician before the war, were overall much better commanders being veterans from the American-Mexican war. Why didn't Lincoln see that a businessman or a politician were not always the best generals? Was this due to intense lobbying and pressure from outside? Or was there another reason?
Once again, please correct me if I misplaced a few of the names or made some other mistakes.
Thank you!
1 Answers 2017-06-12
[deleted]
1 Answers 2017-06-12
This is a repost of my earlier question. Frederick the Great is reportedly one of the best generals in modern European history. Apparently even Napoleon stated that he could not have defeated Prussia if Frederick had been there. However I have not been able to find specifically why this was the case. Was is perhaps due to his personal leadership or was it due to innovations and changes in the Prussian Army?
1 Answers 2017-06-12
1 Answers 2017-06-12
1 Answers 2017-06-12
I was trying to see if I could find any full length English translation of the 1292 Tax Role of Paris, and came across this article on the version list that was edited by Hercule Géraud. While only containing the professions that related to their byname, there are a few curiosities with regard to female roles.
Some of these women would have been widows who inherited their husband's business and kept it going with journeymen and apprentices, others were independently run. A few jobs are almost entirely female oriented, and the nature of the job (chambermaid, laundry worker, etc) explains this.
However, one job in particular - coffin maker - is almost entirely dominated by women according to the list. 22 coffin makers are women, while only 4 are men. No form of employment that requires the same skillset has anywhere near that number of women involved.
Is this just selection bias, or was there some reason why women in 13th century Paris were more likely to be coffin makers than men?
2 Answers 2017-06-12
I've been doing genealogy and recently discovered state documentation that says my grandfather (born in Germany in 1921) was born illegitimate. He managed, however, to marry my grandmother in 1942 despite this somehow.
I have no record of family history before him and am wondering if he in fact did have to prove his heritage and there is or was a record of his original family somewhere.
Was an Ahnenpass or something similar required for marriage because of the Nuremburg laws? Were there other examples of people who were able to get permission to marry if they simply didn't know their heritage for any reason?
1 Answers 2017-06-12
I'm assuming several incidents happened over time where it made people see how terrible it was to enslave another race. What were those key things that eventually made people realize they had been dicks for centuries?
1 Answers 2017-06-12
1 Answers 2017-06-12
Hi there, I'm not entirely sure I'm in the right place for this but I'm feeling I want to learn more about the Varangian & the Swiss guards. General history and such. Sorry if I'm in the wrong neighbourhood.
2 Answers 2017-06-12
Looking at a map of Israel, I noticed that it has a city on the Red Sea, Eilat. I was wondering why Israel has that small coastline there, and how long that was part of Israel.
1 Answers 2017-06-12
Whether in discussion of specific persons or of broader classes of people.
Is it a worthwhile pursuit to try to compare the physical fitness of historical people to that of modern people?
2 Answers 2017-06-12
I can't find any description of pre-modern Afghan literature, which seems a little strange to me. The absolute earliest probable attestation of Pashto is from the 16th century, which seems absolutely bizarre. I know this is kind of a niche question, so thanks in advance for any response!
1 Answers 2017-06-12
3 Answers 2017-06-12
Many places say he received "advanced military training"? but where?
Thanks.
1 Answers 2017-06-12
1 Answers 2017-06-11
After Martin Luther became prominent in his critique of the Catholic Church, did similar complaints arise about the eastern Orthodox Church? If not, why?
1 Answers 2017-06-11
2 Answers 2017-06-11
1 Answers 2017-06-11
2 Answers 2017-06-11
1 Answers 2017-06-11
I heard that some people dispute her portrayal of Adolf Eichmann. She saw Eichmann as essentially part bizarre clownish figure, part bureaucrat.
1 Answers 2017-06-11
Both Herodotus and Xenophon describe million man armies. Herodotus claimed the Persian horde was a million men strong when invading Greece. Similarly, when listening to a lecture the professor said Xenophon listed Artaxerxes' army at "one million men" when facing Kyrus as Kunaxa. Also, from my understanding the Hellenistic zero was used for a fractional part of a number.
So, how did this translation come to be, and what would the original Greek text have stated with a direct translation?
2 Answers 2017-06-11