What is the "new narrative history"? I've seen this term a couple times now in book-blurb descriptions.

I have some thoughts, but they are breathtakingly cynical, so I shall keep them in reserve and wait for a more balanced answer.

Can you please fill me in on the philosophy of history? I keep hearing this term and don't entirely know what it means.

Personalities.

How comfortable are historians at assigning personalities to historical figures prior to all the first-hand documentations of the 20th century?

Is there a way to tell what descriptions of personality is real and what is propaganda from chroniclers a long time ago? Could some actions be thought of as irrationally aggressive from someone easy to anger, while inactions be though of by weak and indecisive people? Or should historians just focus on recorded and confirmed events and actions and forget personality?

Related, should actions by historical characters always be thought of as rational or at least justified from a certain of view, or should we consider decisions being made a certain day just because the person was having a good/bad day due to the weather.

The responsibility of World War 1.

Don't worry, I can already hear your groaning at the mention of the issue. However, the approach I'm taking here is, why does it even matter? The endless debates for almost a century now over who did what, when and how. But say tomorrow, the entire world is in consensus that for arguments sake, Germany was at fault - What changes? What difference does that make in the contemporary world that has been worth 100 years of arguing and rhetoric?

I can obviously understand the debate during the inter-war years and even the immediate post WW2 years. But when you still have academics at each others throats to this day over the issue, it just bewilders me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not just stating that debate about the topic is out right silly and we should stop, I honestly just don't understand why academics still carry on arguing over the issue, so far removed. I think the more important question is why rather than who - It gets slightly grating after a while when you hear well...you do know France and Russia decided to go to war long before the outbreak of hostilities, don't you? for the 100th time when trying to discuss the over arching power dynamics of Europe during the time. Every academic seems to pick a "team" and runs with it.

Am I insane? Am I just looking at the issue entirely wrong?