Remembering dates ...

by vastzero

I hope this doesn't go against the rules but I was curious on peoples views. I've had this discussion with a friend on a few occasions and I am of the view that remembering specific dates of historical events is (comparatively) inconsequential to knowing or being able to discern the significance of those events or people. For example: I think it is far less important to know that Constantinople fell to the Ottomans on 29 May, 1453 than knowing what consequences this had for the history of the region (be it political, cultural, religious, or geo-strategic). Just curious if people would think I'm out to lunch on this. Particularly if there are history teachers / professors on here who could comment.

alpharowe3

I'm with you. My interest is being able to know the general flow of historical events and the why, what, and how. I am satisfied knowing the order of events when it comes to the "when." Not necessarily the exact dates.

Being able to parrot the date something happened is one thing but being able to understand the causes and effects of the event in question is far more valuable in my opinion.

sharkbait76

I agree that knowing the significance of events and what happened in the events is much more important then knowing the dates of events. That being said I also think that knowing the generally time something happened is helpful when looking at it in the context of the time. I don't need to know that Constantinople fell on May 29, 1453, but knowing that Constantinople fell in May of 1453, or even that it fell in 1453 can help place it in the context of the times which will help you better understand the event.

mp96

I agree to an extent and it's an issue I've had with school history all the way up to university level (where it changed completely). Knowing roughly what happened and in what order, as well as preferably also some consequences, is vastly more important than knowing exactly when it happened. This is a discussion I have with myself every know and then too because I do still think that some dates are important to know about. To give some examples:

  • Knowing that WW1 begun in 1914 and ended in 1918 is good, but that Russia was no longer part of the war from 1917 because of the Russian revolution is not as important to know as long as you know that the Russians weren't part of the whole war.
  • Knowing that WW2 lasted from 1939 to 1945 is necessary, but dates like 7 December, 1941 or 6 June, 1944, aren't as important to know about. Being aware of that they happened and what the consequences were is much more important.
  • The Cold War started after WW2, but knowing exactly what year (which is disputed) it started is not important, while knowing that it ended in 1991.
  • Then there are some dates that I personally think should be generally known because they connect to very important events (all of them Eurocentric though). Such as 490 BC, 323 BC, 216 BC, 44 BC, 31 BC, 410 AD (possibly), 476 AD, 1066 AD, 1453 AD, 1789 AD and 1815 AD. These are dates that can tell a story by themselves because of the events that happened then.

To comment on your example, I do agree that knowing that Constantinople fell to the Ottomans on 29 May, 1453 is redundant, but I do think that knowing that the last Roman outpost fell in 1453 is important.