Historiography Discussion Posts

.docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

501

Subject

History

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by charityK22

graHistoriography Discussion Posts Module 1: Defining Historiography: First, introduce yourself to the class. Include your major and anything you would like to share about yourself. Then address the prompt below. In your own words, but supported by specific examples from the assigned readings, define historiography, and explain how it differs from the traditional practice of history. Avoid dictionary definitions; create your own definition. Answer: Greetings, my name is Charity Keith, and I am looking forward to earning my master’s degree in American History. Recently, I completed my bachelor's degree in psychology with a concentration in child and adolescent development. I believe my psychology background will be an asset in studying American history. I am excited to use my knowledge to explore the social, cultural, and economic forces have shaped the nation’s history. I am confident that earning my master’s degree in American History will be a valuable investment in my career. Throughout our text, we provide a decent overview of historiography history. It encourages us to think critically about the development of our field and to consider how our own work fits into a larger narrative. By understanding the past, we can better understand the present day. As such, it entails more than the memorization of facts, dates, and figures. It was interesting to read that Breisach described historical analyses in a "scientific manner". 1 This scientific approach allows historians to consider all facts and evidence objectively, without bias or preconceived notions. This helps them draw conclusions that are more accurate and reliable. Breisach's work provides an important example of how historians can use the scientific method to gain insight into the past. Generally, people assume that these basic facts are all they need to know about history. However, the scientific method allows historians to go beyond the bare facts and uncover the underlying patterns and implications of past events. This deeper understanding of history provides a more accurate picture of past events and helps us make better decisions for the future. There are still many tasks to be completed in addition to the research and writing already completed. There is no exception to this rule. The American Revolutionary War is a prime example. There is still a great deal for historians to say about this period of history, even though you might think that all the research has been completed. No matter how much research has been conducted on the American Revolutionary War, there is always something new and exciting to learn. This is why it is important to continue researching and studying this important period in history. There is always more to learn, and we must continue to strive to understand the complexities of the war. As well as discussing historiography's past, present, and future, this text also examines its benefits. The text suggests that there are three worlds, "one that is, one that was, and one that will be" 2 . Historians can use historiography to gain insight into past actions and events, as well as to predict future ones. Furthermore, historiography can be used to explain complex historical phenomena and to analyze how certain events have affected the present. Historical studies involve the use of historiography to analyze everything by historians. In other words, it means there is at least one individual studying every field possible, whether it is medicine, history, or psychology. Thus, historiography is an invaluable tool for studying the past and understanding the present. 1. Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2007), 1. 2. Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2007), 2.  Response 1: Hello, Ashley! That is truly remarkable! I would like to congratulate you on your dedication and hard work. As you pointed out, understanding and studying historiography is extremely important. It is my belief that the study of history is an exploration of the context within which the subject matter of history is situated. It is also important to consider the opinion of other people, the historical context of the period, etc., when studying a particular period in history. Taking this approach will enable us to acquire a more comprehensive understanding of the topic at hand.  Response 2: Hello Dana, I appreciate your viewpoint regarding historiography. Misperceptions regarding the Revolutionary War are common, as you mentioned. It has been the case since the beginning of time that humans have made several errors of perception, and at times believe that history is merely a record of historical events. Our desire to gain a deeper understanding of the facts drives us to seek a deeper understanding of the facts. As human beings, we require a deeper and more holistic understanding of history. What is the need for such a perspective, in your opinion? Having a thorough understanding of our past will enable us to make informed decisions for the future. Through this process, we may be able to gain a deeper understanding of how certain events have affected our lives and how our actions today will affect our future. We may be able to appreciate cultures and viewpoints that differ from ours when we have a deeper understanding of our history. Module 2: Greek and Roman History: What challenges did Greek and Roman writers encounter in their attempts to analyze historical events? What was the purpose of writing history according to these historians and others discussed in the Breisach book? What are your own purposes for writing history? Why is history important to you? (Avoid clichés, like George Santayana's questionable argument that "those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.") What challenges have you experienced in your own historical projects? Answer: Greek and Roman writers encountered several obstacles and difficulties in analyzing and writing about historical events. Today, many historians take the high technology available for writing, researching, and studying history for granted. It is easy for us to take for granted things such as the internet, libraries, databases, search engines, as well as even something as simple as a calendar and the concept of time. As a result, we are incredibly fortunate. However, these luxury items were unavailable to the Greeks and Romans. As Greeks and Romans analyzed and wrote historical events, they encountered the problem of chronological inconsistency. Despite being known as the father of history, Herodotus is widely believed not to have written chronologically. Therefore, he did not try to guide the reader to the right path in time but instead let the story lead him or improvise as he went. According to Breisach, Herodotus's extensive account would have required a chronological sequence of events, but he devised it. In his history, the plotless ethnographic and geographical descriptions did not provide a consistent time frame, and his narrative sections tended to suggest the sequence in time based on the logic of the stories." [1]. It would be challenging for a historian to analyze historical events without a chronological sequence and for someone attempting to understand the works of the time without a chronological sequence. It is worth noting that the Romans were also subject to a lack of chronology, "For centuries, Romans settled for a record of the past that was uncoordinated" [2]. It is only possible to analyze history accurately with a chronological sequence. Exploring the events that led up to them would only be possible with a chronological sequence. Those who study and write history also face significant challenges because of a need for proper sources. Several factors contributed to the increased popularity of contemporary history. One of these factors was the need for more appropriate information. It took more work to rewrite the historical account in the distant past. Historically, Greek historians were attracted to contemporary history since its sources were readily available and more closely matched their method of acquiring information.[3] As writers, we are all motivated to write for a specific audience and to accomplish a particular goal. According to Breisach, Greeks also entertained people outside of documenting their history. The right way of writing to affect the public mattered greatly to Greek historians, starting with Homer. The story of history is, above all, an inspiration, and a teacher (and sometimes entertaining). [4] Aside from entertaining its readers, the Romans also intended to allow them to envision Rome's greatness and rise to power. According to the authors, "the histories were tightly woven around the theme of Rome's rise to the status of a major power." [5] Many of these historian's writings must be viewed through a specific lens. The reader must understand that some historical accuracy may have been sacrificed to achieve ulterior goals. My interest in history began when I was a child. The importance of knowing history grew more apparent as I grew up. Most historians were writing with an agenda in mind, which led me to question their motives. My reading broadened and became more critical, and my understanding of history became more sophisticated. In watching documentaries and visiting historical landmarks, I have always been intrigued by the study of American history. As I grew older, it became clear to me that I have such a passion for history because it directly impacts my future. History often repeats itself, but we can trace back events that have had a profound impact on the present or that will have a profound effect on the future. Writing history is not only an opportunity for me to inform others but also for me to gain a greater understanding of myself. Throughout my academic and professional careers, I have learned much about different topics and periods of history. Historical research can be very time-consuming and challenging, but it is also gratifying. Determining a historical project's scope is the 1 2

most challenging. I find it difficult to narrow my focus on a particular topic because so many exist. Whenever I select a case, I immediately find myself entangled in a rabbit hole of information utterly unrelated to what I am writing about. 1. Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007),11. 2. Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007),42 3. Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007),22 4. Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007),17 5. Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007),46 Response 1: Hi Kristi, As I delve into the works of different historians, I am struck by the unique styles and interpretations each writer brings to the table. The way historians incorporate their personal perspectives into their work provides readers with fresh and insightful outlooks on historical events. I appreciate your perspective on the importance of using history to educate and share knowledge with others. Unfortunately, many individuals are hesitant to explore history in its entirety, and some may need to verify its sources before accepting information. As you noted, not everyone is willing to dig deep, which poses a significant challenge in history and highlights the importance of educating people on the significance of verifying sources to accurately understand historical events. I wholeheartedly agree that many stories about aristocracy require a precise chronological sequence. It is intriguing to consider that historians such as Thucydides and Herodotus may have used their work as propaganda to glorify war for their city-states. Similarly, like Thucydides, Polybius aimed to view history as a structured process [1]. It is worth considering whether Thucydides' writings may have been biased due to external pressures. In conclusion, history is an indispensable subject that should be studied and understood by all. It is essential to recognize the impact of past events on our present and future and learn from them to create a better tomorrow. Source: Breisach, Ernst. Historiography: Ancient, medieval, and modern. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Response 2: Dear Olajuwon, I hope this message finds you in good health and spirits. I wanted to take a moment to express my heartfelt appreciation for the thought-provoking and courageous post you shared about your work as a historical interpreter on a plantation. Your unwavering commitment to promoting the truth despite facing resistance from those who choose to ignore the harsh realities of our past is truly admirable. It is disheartening to see individuals who resist teaching our children about the complexities of history. However, I firmly believe that it is only by confronting these challenging topics and learning from our past that we can create a more just and equitable future. Your dedication to this cause is incredibly inspiring, and I cannot emphasize enough how essential your work is in advocating for truth and justice. As a person of African American descent, I wholeheartedly understand the importance of challenging the whitewashing of history and learning about the experiences of people of color. Your post resonated deeply with me, particularly your mention of Cheyney's interpretations of "Not Your Momma's History" and her efforts to challenge ingrained biases and promote a more inclusive understanding of history. Educators like Cheyney are paving the way for future generations to recognize the contributions of all individuals and cultures to our shared history. Once again, thank you for your inspiring work, dedication, and invaluable contributions. I truly appreciate your bravery and commitment to promoting a more accurate and inclusive understanding of our past. I look forward to reading more of your posts in the future. Module 3 Medieval and Renaissance Historiography: How do these three sources differ in their interpretations of historical events? Can you identify any biases or preconceived notions that helped the writers of these documents select sources and reach certain conclusions? Consider the ways that bias might influence the study of the topic you chose for your historiography project. Based on your work so far, can you identify any real or potential biases in the existing secondary literature? Is bias always something to be avoided, or can bias be valuable to historical study? Answer: This week readings presented a unique and interesting approach to historical interpretations. Each of the reading’s offered a distinct perspective on the subject, providing valuable insights into the complexities of historical analysis. The authors have employed rigorous research methods while also paying close attention to the nuances of the historical context. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a precious historical text that offers a detailed and factual account of significant events from that period. What sets it apart from other historical records is that it refrains from any subjective interpretation of the events it documents. Instead, it presents a straightforward, objective narrative of the actions and events that took place, complete with timelines[1] . The Chronicle provides an unfiltered perspective on the past by skillfully avoiding any personal bias or interpretation of the underlying motivations, actions, behaviors, or emotions that led to these events. This makes it an indispensable resource for historians and researchers alike. A deep religious perspective characterizes Saint Augustine's unique writing style, distinguishing him from other writers. His belief heavily influences his writings in the existence of a 'City of God' - a concept that shapes his worldview. Additionally, Saint Augustine often attributes significant events, including the outcomes of just wars, to divine intervention, further emphasizing his unwavering faith in God [2]. Saint Augustine's work is riddled with religious bias as he attributes man's actions to a higher power rather than being solely dictated by human actions. This bias injects an element of falsehood into his work, as there is no way to verify or confirm that a higher power is responsible for the acts of man. Despite this, Saint Augustine justifies every action of the Romans as being the will of God. Francesco Guicciardini's work, while less overtly biased, shows a subtler form of bias in his focus on figures who held significant political and religious statuses. These include princes, popes, and other titled men, signifying a top-down perspective commonly found in historical interpretation[3] . It is essential to note that historical interpretation should be objective and free of personal biases or beliefs to ensure that the information conveyed is accurate and reliable. The task of interpreting historical events is complex and demands awareness of personal biases and assumptions. Even the most diligent historian is bound to have some bias, as it is difficult to separate oneself from the cultural, social, and political contexts that shape our perspectives. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a historical document that presents information without interpretation, offers a valuable example of how to avoid bias. However, most historians interpret events for their meanings and the reasons behind them, which can introduce a level of subjectivity into their work. Understanding the values and beliefs of people who lived during a particular time is one of the primary challenges of interpreting historical events. It is easy to project one's judgments of right and wrong onto the past without considering the vastly different circumstances. For instance, modern scholars frequently criticize Saint Augustine's religious bias. However, it is vital to remember that religion was an integral part of the cultural landscape during his time, and it would have been challenging for him to view events differently. In conclusion, interpreting historical events necessitates a delicate balance between objectivity and subjectivity. Although it is impossible to eliminate bias, historians must strive to be conscious of their predispositions and maintain a critical perspective when interpreting historical events. In doing so, historians can produce more credible and reliable historical accounts that accurately reflect the complexities of the past. I expect to encounter biases during my research, mainly since my focus is on the French Revolution's historical interpretations of women's roles. Historical works are often influenced by the author's cultural background, beliefs, and values. These biases can be conscious or unconscious and impact how the author presents the information. However, I do not necessarily see bias as a wholly negative aspect of historical works. Instead, biases in historical interpretations can provide valuable information. By analyzing these biases, we can gain insights into the societal customs of the studied period. Moreover, biases can lead to differing views of events, making it difficult to determine the complete truth. For example, historians who hold a particular political view may interpret the events of the French Revolution differently than those who do not. Similarly, male historians may have portrayed women's roles differently than female historians in the Revolution. Therefore, it is essential to be aware of these biases and approach historical works cautiously and critically. Relying on factual sources like The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and primary sources is crucial to gaining a more accurate understanding of historical events. These sources provide firsthand accounts of events and can help corroborate or disprove historical works' biases. It is also essential to consider the context in which the sources were created and evaluate the author's reliability. Doing so can build a more nuanced and informed understanding of history. 1. James Ingram, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, (New Haven, CT: Yale Law School, 2008), https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/angsax.asp . 2. Saint Augustine, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: The City of God, Vol. 2. (Buffalo: The Christian Literature Company, 1887), https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/schaff-a-select-library-of-the-nicene-and-post-nicene-fathers-of-the-christian-church-vol-2 , Book XV, Ch. 4.

3. Francesco Guicciardini, The History of Italy, trans. Austin Parke Goddard, (London: Z Stuart, 1763), https://archive.org/details/historyofitaly01guic/page/n3/mode/2up . Response 1: Dear Abbey, Thank you for sharing your thoughts on Guicciardini’s storytelling approach and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. I must say that I completely agree with your perspective on Guicciardini’s approach. His storytelling technique is undoubtedly more intriguing and inspirational than that of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. However, his liberties with facts and opinions cannot be ignored. On the other hand, the scribes behind the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles had a specific objective in mind when they recorded events, which was to preserve every detail concerning the history of England as thoroughly as possible. While lacking creativity, the chronicles make up for it with precision, providing valuable information that modern-day historians can use to reconstruct historical narratives. Nonetheless, I have a slightly different opinion on your claim that the chronicles are neutral. The scribes primarily focused on a particular caste or class of castes, despite their apparent simplicity. Thus, these events were not recorded to provide a complete history of British history but rather to provide information about the history of those who owed them a debt of loyalty, such as the royals and other clergy members. This focus limits the scope of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, which raises questions about their neutrality. Overall, your perspective on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles and Guicciardini’s approach is insightful. It is fascinating to see how storytelling techniques and objectives can affect historical narratives. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Response 2: Hello Kendrick, Your discussion post was truly exceptional, offering a comprehensive analysis of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles that shed new light on the complex dynamics of medieval British society. Your insightful observations revealed a deep understanding of the partiality shown towards the clergy and against the pope, and underscored the vital role played by the Catholic Church in shaping the political and social landscape of the time. Your post highlighted the significant influence wielded by the pope across Europe during this period, where he presided over crucial events such as christenings, coronations, marriages and even granted divorces to monarchs. This authority lent the pope immense clout and influence in the eyes of British subjects, and his responsibility to safeguard the spiritual welfare of the entire kingdom, including the monarchs, further solidified his position of authority. Moreover, your analysis of the pope's capacity to mediate conflicts between monarchs and other influential personalities in British society added a new dimension to our understanding of this historical period. The pope's ability to intercede in political matters made him an immensely significant figure, and his role in shaping the course of European history cannot be overstated. Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge the influence of the pope when examining historical records like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. Your contribution to the discourse was invaluable, and I appreciate the depth and detail you brought to the discussion. Module 4 The Enlightenment and Historiography: How do these works reflect Enlightenment ideals? How did these authors try to explain human history? Consider the nationalistic writings of Jules Michelet and George Bancroft, also from The Modern Historiography Reader. How and why do these writings differ from the universalistic tendencies of the Enlightenment thinkers? Answer: Voltaire and Hegel are two well-known figures of the Enlightenment, often cited as exemplars of Enlightenment principles. They both placed great emphasis on intellectual reasoning to interpret human history [1]. However, it is worth noting that Voltaire's definition of human history is limited to Mediterranean and European populations. Hegel's perspective is also flawed, as he proclaims that here also rises the sun of self-consciousness about the West, suggesting that human history (or universal history) travels east to west, for Europe is the end of history.[2] These thinkers categorized history based on art movements or the evolution of the relationship between individuals and their nation-states instead of using specific dates or timelines. In contrast, Giambattista Vico and Thomas Carlyle offer a more analytical and thoughtful approach to studying historical documents than Voltaire and Hegel. Vico critiques historical texts, such as the Iliad, by identifying Homer's characters as incompatible with our modern civilized and social demeanor.[3] Carlyle adopts a more philosophical outlook when studying history, exemplified by his opening sentence in Astraea Redux: The oak tree grows in silence, deep within the forest, for a thousand years.[4] Despite their distinct styles, these Enlightenment thinkers shared a common goal - to move beyond mere chronological accounts like The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and capture the essence of human experience in the historical narrative. They aimed to understand the motivations and thought processes that drive human behavior and shape historical events. By doing so, they hoped to provide a more nuanced and complete understanding of the past. Michelet and Bancroft were two writers who departed from the universalistic tendencies of their contemporaries during the Enlightenment period. Michelet's writings were centered on the French Revolution, while Bancroft's focused on the newly formed United States of America. Bancroft emphasized the crucial role of human interactions in forming government, highlighting that relying solely on solitary thought can lead to a maze of speculation. While I concur with Bancroft's perspective, it contrasts significantly with Carlyle's. In his writing, Michelet detailed how the French Revolution breathed new life into France's historical record, resulting in unparalleled accessibility. Rather than prioritizing universalistic ideals, these writers focused on narrower subjects, such as new nations and the people and documents that shaped them. By doing so, they provided a more descriptive and detailed perspective of their respective topics, helping us better understand the complexities of historical events. {1}Voltaire, The Works of Voltaire, Vol. XII (Age of Louis XIV), trans., William F. Fleming (New York: E.R. DuMont, 1751), https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/fleming-the- works-of-voltaire-vol-xii-age-of-louis-xiv. {2}Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, The Philosophy of History, (1837) ed., Glyn Hughes (nl: np, 2011), http://sqapo.com/hegelhistory.htm . {3}Giambattista Vico, Principles of the New Science Concerning The Common Nature of Nations, trans., David Marsh (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1999), quoted in Adam Budd, ed., The Modern Historiography Reader: Western Sources (London: Routledge, 2 010), 64. {4}Thomas Carlyle, "Astræa Redux," The French Revolution: A History (London: James Fraser, 1837), 39-46, quoted in Adam Budd, ed., The Modern Historiography Reader: Western Sources (London: Routledge, 2010), 14. Response 1: Hello Beth, In my research on "Women in the French Revolution," I found that historiography is a prime example of how Hegel's philosophy can be applied to history. By analyzing the events that took place during the French Revolution, the historiography illustrates how Hegel's dialectical method of thinking can be used to interpret history. As I delved deeper into this topic, I realized that humanity is currently undergoing a maturation process. Initially, there was shock and denial, but over time, people began to accept the idea of revolution and the role of women in it. This acceptance is a positive sign of progress and maturity, indicating that society has entered a new stage of development. While there are still those who cling to a protective nationalistic approach, such as Bancroft, the majority now acknowledges the horrors that women faced during the French Revolution. As time passes, people become more accepting of the facts, and the narrative evolves. This shift is indicative of a maturing society, as predicted by Hegel. Hegel's philosophy provides a framework for understanding the evolution of history, as demonstrated by my project. This indicates that humanity has made some progress in valuing freedom, which is a hallmark of the Enlightenment. However, this progress is bittersweet, as it also shows that much work still needs to be done. We must continue to progress and ensure that these atrocities never happen again. Response 2: Hi William, I just wanted to let you know that I found your discussion post challenging but equally thought-provoking. I must admit that after reading it, I had mixed feelings of both being overwhelmed and intrigued simultaneously. However, after taking some time to analyze it, I was able to break it down into smaller, more manageable components, which made it easier for me to understand and respond to. Your presentation of the ideas behind each thinker we were assigned to read was excellent and very engaging. I found your argument about the importance of these ideas and how they can be applied to the modern world very compelling. Overall, I think your work was impressive and well thought out. Regarding the similarities between the authors of the Enlightenment and nationalist writers, I agree with your observation that they share some common ideas. However, I think it's important to note that nationalist writers tend to be more focused on the interests of their nation, while Enlightenment authors are more concerned with universal themes. Nationalistic writers glorify their country, whereas Enlightenment writers aim to improve humanity. When it comes to the influence of these authors, I believe that both Bancroft and Voltaire had a lot at stake when it came to influencing public opinion. However, I think that Bancroft had an advantage over Voltaire, as he was a citizen of the United States. This gave him the power to influence the public more effectively. On the other hand, Voltaire had the freedom to write more freely without being tied to the interests of a particular nation. It's also worth noting that both

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help