Pancho35

Well political is often seen in precise terms as separate things as war but in the broad manner I am using it to compare to social history(which also includes economic and cultural history) , I think of political history as involving politicians, kings, leaders, countries changing with ideas, changing constitutionally, revolution, diplomacy, relations between countries, war, etc. that old chestnut.

When I talk about the French Revolution as being political, I refer to the overthrow of the king and the current government, a new government formed, which ends up creating tension with the other European countries and war.

The revolution was just so radical, in time where most countries were ruled by monarchs, it can't help but attract political historians.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

Tennenbaum

It does, however I would assert that kings and queens are in fact part of society, an important part. They are also a product of society, in that no man exists independently of their culture. Their actions are governed by social and economic rules and motivations. Politicians (including Kings and diplomats) deal with political problems in a social way. They interact socially. They bargain and manipulate. They use economic leverage and desire economic prosperity. I daresay that there is no political goal that is not in fact a social goal.

Hegels Tripartite State is purely imaginative, IMO.

gaius valerius

But you miss the point, the "rules of conduct" of political and diplomatic matters - which doesn't deprive them of their influence or nullifies them, just pointing out their origin - usher in the socio-economic foundations of society (amongst others). What was the cause of WW I? The Franco-Prussian war? Imperialism? Where do all those factors originate? Nationalism? Economic and political competition? Where do those originate from? Why do groups strife? How come it are exactly those groups that strife? How come this or that group was in control of the government? Why did this or that group abide to those rules of conduct? Why was Germany militarist? How did this relate to the older social structure of Prussia? How come Prussia had that distinct structure? How is Second Serfdom involved? And so on and so on, bringing us deeper and deeper (though you don't necessarily have to take it further in time).

Pancho35

^ Sorry I totally made a huge typo on that post, what I meant to say that not everything is caused by underlying causes that are social, such as World War 1. Everything about World War 1 was political or diplomatic- alliances, arms race, Belgian neutrality, country specific motivations like the Dardanelles etc.

If your argument is that social history is more important as it is deeper study into political history, then I say that political history is more important in that is the first you thing one studies, no coincidentally because it is most important. I would equate social history with fun and interesting but optional and side details like movie trivia that is not necessary to understand for the most part. For the most part I mind you I fully recognize the importance and place for social history, reinforced I say by some of the words of Tannenbraum.

Social and political are connected than I once that. And in a lot of ways it seems wrong to separate and categorize the two so strictly.

Tennenbaum

It's my argument that you can't separate them at all. Politics is social history. Military history is the history of battles and strategy/tactics. It's even hard to separate that one out.

Speculatin'

History generally bores me, at the academic level. But I have gotten interested in aspects of history now and then. Lately my interest in history involves researching my family tree. That includes pre-history, at the DNA level.

One reason for the French Revolution, I read or saw somewhere, was that the French population refused to adopt the potato as an alternate basic food. The Germans, for example, did take to the potato. And it saved them during the Little Ice Age and the Thirty Years War. Cavalry can destroy a grain crop, but have little effect on potatoes beneath the ground.