Anglo-centrism in "Western" medieval history in regards to battles like Agincourt

Peter Graham

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
2,625
Westmorland
Most Americans are Scotch Irish or German as much as anything so an English bias is a bit strange to have
A surprisingly large number of Americans are actually American.........

But it comes back to the same point. If you thunk a period of history is under-represented or a group is under-represented, crack on and represent it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulius

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,036
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Maybe among actual scholars i agree with you, but larger coverage of history in the English speaking world does dwell overmuch on English victories until the American Revolution, and most of the coverage of defeat is more about countries other than England. I know "pop culture" history tends to be iffy anyway, But it reinforces misconceptions and i see this in many "history books" to this day. Many people like to project their modern sense of exceptionalism onto historical events. I've heard Agincourt compared to modern social class struggle on tv documentaries despite the fact that both sides were relatively similar feudal societies run by Norman/French lords
Ok, I'm reading the thread and there was a point I wasnt' able to grasp: that generic reference to "Western" Medieval history ... actually the reference is more specific, that is to say to the English speaking world [unless you mean that only the English speaking world is "Western"].

Now, to consider the matter of the thread, why should it be different? It's a common attitude present in the national historiography of "victors" [the countries and or the societies who have obtain success and kudos in history]. You can put France with the Anglo-Saxon world about this: French historiography is "very French" ... It's less present in the historiography of the "losers". In fact, as an example, in Italian historiography there is not a lot of "Italian-centrism", on the contrary ...

I guess it's about mass psychology, in particular sense of pride and membership. Americans are generally proud to be American and they are proud of their victorious history. In other countries there isn't all this national pride about history [as said, for example in Italy ...].
 
Jan 2019
13
Northumberland-England
I've been away for a few days, so missed the whole thread and now just about everything has been said that I'd want to say, especially by Peter Graham.
My two pennorth for what it's worth, is to remember that France didn't win the Hundred Years War, but that England threw it away.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,888
Portugal
Sorry history is not a science and can not be treated as such.
Not directly introduced by you, but this is an off topic discussion. But since I have a different perspective I felt obliged to intervene.

You are a person interested in history and as such I presume that you know that that is an ongoing theme, a long debate, if history (and we could add here all the other Social Sciences) can be considered science. There are historians and intellectuals on both sides of the barrier.

Anyway, in the possibility that it is not a science, its discourse is surely scientific. Even if we don’t see it here much.
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,030
Navan, Ireland
Not directly introduced by you, but this is an off topic discussion. But since I have a different perspective I felt obliged to intervene.

You are a person interested in history and as such I presume that you know that that is an ongoing theme, a long debate, if history (and we could add here all the other Social Sciences) can be considered science. There are historians and intellectuals on both sides of the barrier.

Anyway, in the possibility that it is not a science, its discourse is surely scientific. Even if we don’t see it here much.
Sorry history is not a science because so much of it is made up of opinions, interpretations and changing view points.

Context continually changes and so does our view of events while in a science either something is or is not correct.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,888
Portugal
Sorry history is not a science because so much of it is made up of opinions, interpretations and changing view points.

Context continually changes and so does our view of events while in a science either something is or is not correct.
I assume that you are aware that this is a long discussion in the academia since the 19th century.
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,030
Navan, Ireland
I assume that you are aware that this is a long discussion in the academia since the 19th century.
So?

I do not think history is a science and trying to turn it into one will effect your understanding of it. It may be comforting to think you have the 'answer' but history is more complex than that.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,745
USA
I assume that you are aware that this is a long discussion in the academia since the 19th century.
And in the 19th century there were doctors who thought they could tell personality by examining the bumps on a human's skull...

Just because some whacko in a university came up with his pet theory doesn't mean its valid. History is NOT a science.
 
Sep 2019
184
Slovenia
Procedure in history of collecting and compering facts, clues, testimonies and documents about the past events is scientific procedure. Othervise also evolution is not science.

But the interpretation is another thing and of course it is connected with philosophy. Yet also philosophy is not disconnected with reason but rather it is closely connceted with it.
 
Feb 2019
863
Serbia
Why is it surprising that English historyography focuses on English victories? Every nation glorifies their victories and doesn't cover their failures that much. It's hardly exclusive to England.