Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > History Help Forum > History Help
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

History Help History Help and Homework Forum - Pre-University and University History Help and Homework Questions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 13th, 2017, 10:31 AM   #1
Citizen
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: Bristol, uk
Posts: 20
My struggle


I love history and the stories of the events and the biographies of the people involved. However, the part I struggle with is working out the significance of the event(s) in a wider context, and their effect on future events.

How do you know what events are significant and others less so?
mick745 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old February 13th, 2017, 11:31 AM   #2

Asherman's Avatar
Moderator
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 2,643
Blog Entries: 34

Hind sight.
Asherman is offline  
Old February 14th, 2017, 02:30 AM   #3
Citizen
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: Bristol, uk
Posts: 20

I am probably not expressing myself that well but sometimes it takes decades or centuries for the real implications of certain events to become clear. How do you know when those consequences are being felt?

We're all familiar with the Thomas A'Becket story for instance. However, a king 'orders' the murder of a priest. Why is this significant in the long term history of Britain and when and how does this manifest itself.

This us just one example.
mick745 is offline  
Old February 27th, 2017, 07:31 PM   #4
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: Utah
Posts: 152

Not everything is necessairly super significant. Sometimes events are just neat stories, like the one you described (especially if you visit Canterbury Cathedral and see the scene of the crime.)

To judge what is "important" draw connections from a later event back to its origin as much as possible.
Utah Jay is offline  
Old February 27th, 2017, 07:52 PM   #5

Robert165's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: North Georgia
Posts: 3,758

People may disagree with me but I kind of think the deeds of some/many/most Kings, Generals, Noblemen, etc are kind of pointless. If one general or king had not concurred some piece of land some other would have done it. Same with tax laws and penal codes etc. Perhaps I am wrong but I think the deeds of statesmen and generals are vastly overrated.

The people I think who are vastly - underrated - are the scientists and inventors. I bet half the people on this website know the generals involved on both halves of the Battle of Hastings. But how many people here know who invented the felt tip pen????

No offense to any of you history experts but this is my opinion.....
Robert165 is offline  
Old February 27th, 2017, 08:15 PM   #6

TotalAaron's Avatar
The Greatest warrior
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Australia
Posts: 3,769
Blog Entries: 6

Its A fair point, i see military leaders as more important, for they are responsible for the survival of their nations. No nation= no scientists but i do understand where you are coming from.
TotalAaron is offline  
Old February 27th, 2017, 08:21 PM   #7

Pedro's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2008
From: On a mountain top in Costa Rica. yeah...I win!!
Posts: 15,840
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherman View Post
Hind sight.
That says it all.
Pedro is offline  
Old February 27th, 2017, 08:59 PM   #8
Hellenist
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 4,224
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Utah Jay View Post
Not everything is necessairly super significant. Sometimes events are just neat stories, like the one you described (especially if you visit Canterbury Cathedral and see the scene of the crime.)

To judge what is "important" draw connections from a later event back to its origin as much as possible.
For sure I am noticing in the college lectures I listen to, many comments are about interesting things, that are not necessarily important to understanding history.

On the other hand, I think there are huge social, economic and political ramifications to the US adopting the German models of bureaucracy and education and no one knows what I am talking about because evidently, historians do not consider such things as important.

Or when we learn of the Civil War in the US we don't learn what advances in British mills had to do with that history, and what Britain's development of cotton fields in India had to do with the defeat of the South. We know next to nothing about the oil industry and international matters revolving around oil, and the economics revolving around trading oil in dollars.

History is his story and a lot gets left out of his story. Most of my old history texts are about conquest and conquer, and not inventions and resulting change. But more recent books like "Don't Know Much About History" and "A People's History of the United States" are more about the significance of the events.

Quote:
TotalAaron- Its A fair point, i see military leaders as more important, for they are responsible for the survival of their nations. No nation= no scientists but i do understand where you are coming from.
Modern day military power is almost completely about science and the technology coming out of this science. NASA is now gathering information about our earth and space, but it did not come about because people enjoy science. NASA is about national defense, and was triggered by the USSR gaining knowledge of nuclear weapons and sending Sputnik around the world, demonstrating it not only had nuclear bomb technology but also the technology to deliver the bombs. Air warfare and nuclear weapons changing the world in dramatic ways.

It was for military reasons, the 1958 National Defense Education Act, replaced liberal education in the US with the German model of education for technology for military and industrial purpose. As early as the first world war, Prussian generals realized the economic and military value of what Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex and what Hitler and the Bush family called the New World Order. Time to up date your understanding of modern day warfare.

Last edited by athena; February 27th, 2017 at 09:08 PM.
athena is offline  
Old February 27th, 2017, 09:06 PM   #9

TotalAaron's Avatar
The Greatest warrior
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Australia
Posts: 3,769
Blog Entries: 6

Modern day warfare still requires Soldiers and Officers. i was referring to pre cold war Generals and Kings. so really no i do not need to "Update" my knowledge at all
TotalAaron is offline  
Old February 27th, 2017, 09:38 PM   #10

Robert165's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: North Georgia
Posts: 3,758

Quote:
Originally Posted by TotalAaron View Post
Its A fair point, i see military leaders as more important, for they are responsible for the survival of their nations. No nation= no scientists but i do understand where you are coming from.
Well I am not such a big fan of the idea of "nations".
I know a country needs to defend itself but I think most large countries have started most of the wars......
Robert165 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > History Help Forum > History Help

Tags
struggle



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Manichean struggle Fenestella General History 5 September 13th, 2016 04:57 AM
Which independence struggle fascinates you the most? PrinceofOrange General History 161 March 24th, 2014 06:31 AM
Struggle Robespierre Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 15 October 23rd, 2013 07:28 PM
Class Struggle Christius Alerius Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 13 July 29th, 2011 12:30 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.