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

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,745
USA
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.
Is scientific procedure similar to the Scientific Method? If so, where is the control group in historical research? Why is the control group important for scientific experimentation? What is an example of a historical control group, in reference to the battle of Agincourt?

And where are these "facts" of Agincourt coming from? Are you claiming that what Enguerrand de Monstrelet wrote nearly 40 years after the battle, being the primary source, is a fact? Describe to me how what he wrote is similar to 1+1=2 or E=MC².
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,036
Italy, Lago Maggiore
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.
Imagine if English historiography would be focused on Napoleon and Charles De Gaulle ... it would be at least a bit curious!
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,036
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Is scientific procedure similar to the Scientific Method? If so, where is the control group in historical research? Why is the control group important for scientific experimentation? What is an example of a historical control group, in reference to the battle of Agincourt?

And where are these "facts" of Agincourt coming from? Are you claiming that what Enguerrand de Monstrelet wrote nearly 40 years after the battle, being the primary source, is a fact? Describe to me how what he wrote is similar to 1+1=2 or E=MC².
On a light note, I know some mathematicians and they [as a simple mental exercise] try and create a math formalism for everything ... battles included!

What I have noted is that they don't think to relativity, but to chaos theory, game theory and the math of dynamic systems. I cannot say if @AnonymousProfesor is thinking to this.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,888
Portugal
So, when you state that History is not a science you are stating your opinion, and a line of tought, and not a consensual understanding among the academia. I was just underlining that. When you stated that history was not a science you seemed to state has that was a consensual mater. I was recalling you that it isn’t. Pardon me if I wasn’t clear before.

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.
Exactly my point. You do not think history as a science… and that reflects your perspective, as my understanding that is a science reflects mine. More than our understandings, reflects our bias, our schools of thought.

Your last sentence is true to history as to any science, or in a more generic way to any area of knowledge.

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.
The first sentence is irrelevant to the matter, or more exactly is a fallacy (usually known as “Straw Man”). You don’t need to use irrelevancies of fallacies with me. If what I say is incorrect, just say it directly and point what part is incorrect.

The second sentence made me search for the meaning of the word “whacko”. The first entry was in the Urban Dictionary. When in a history forum I have to go more to the Urban Dictionary than to a History Dictionary, then something is quite wrong. Anyway, if by “whacko in a university” you are depreciatively referring to a line of tough, that you don’t agree, held by academics in the last 100 or 150 years, then yes, it is a “whacko in a university”.

The third and last sentence is your opinion, similar to Kevinmeath´s, held also by many “whacko in a university” [sic]. As stated my perspective is different, also held also by many “whacko in a university” [sic]. Thus the existence of a long frequently debated question in the Academia for the last century and half, to say the least.
 
Sep 2019
184
Slovenia
@aggienation did you read this part of your own link?

For example, scientists studying how stars change as they age or how dinosaurs digested their food cannot fast-forward a star's life by a million years or run medical exams on feeding dinosaurs to test their hypotheses. When direct experimentation is not possible, scientists modify the scientific method. In fact, there are probably as many versions of the scientific method as there are scientists! But even when modified, the goal remains the same: to discover cause and effect relationships by asking questions, carefully gathering and examining the evidence, and seeing if all the available information can be combined in to a logical answer.
 

Mangekyou

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
7,953
UK
.
Agincourt was a great victory yet Patay was greater. English power in France was forever broken and downhill from there. Scotland did well in the other front of the war at Piperdean and Sark, which crumbled the Northern English status Quo of Percy dominance and was a factor in the wars of the roses. Spectacular and stunning victories like Agincourt obscure the fact that the mid 15th century largely was a disaster for England, who were lucky that the French engaged in the Italian Wars and that Scottish king James II blew himself up at Roxburgh or they may have faced invasion from both sides. But that's speculative history.
By Patay the French had the upper hand. That wasnt the case for the English at Agincourt.

History books often favour the underdog
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,745
USA
The first sentence is irrelevant to the matter, or more exactly is a fallacy (usually known as “Straw Man”). You don’t need to use irrelevancies of fallacies with me. If what I say is incorrect, just say it directly and point what part is incorrect.

The second sentence made me search for the meaning of the word “whacko”. The first entry was in the Urban Dictionary. When in a history forum I have to go more to the Urban Dictionary than to a History Dictionary, then something is quite wrong. Anyway, if by “whacko in a university” you are depreciatively referring to a line of tough, that you don’t agree, held by academics in the last 100 or 150 years, then yes, it is a “whacko in a university”.

The third and last sentence is your opinion, similar to Kevinmeath´s, held also by many “whacko in a university” [sic]. As stated my perspective is different, also held also by many “whacko in a university” [sic]. Thus the existence of a long frequently debated question in the Academia for the last century and half, to say the least.
Some of the stupidest and most asinine theories created in the last 100-150 years were done so in universities. Phrenology, eugenics, cultural anthropology (lol), etc., so there is no way you're going to convince me that just because a private or public institution is paying someone with a job title of professor that it is a good investment, let alone actual science. Even in 2019 this is not the case.

History is not a actual science, as it cannot be proven to be fact. The most a historian can do is stay true as possible to the primary and secondary sources, most of which are biased if not outright lies.

Its advanced story telling. Its the old guy who sits around the camp fire telling the tribe about the tale of their people. Just done with books, stuffy rooms, and boring people.
 
Oct 2019
37
U.S.
Some of the stupidest and most asinine theories created in the last 100-150 years were done so in universities. Phrenology, eugenics, cultural anthropology (lol), etc., so there is no way you're going to convince me that just because a private or public institution is paying someone with a job title of professor that it is a good investment, let alone actual science. Even in 2019 this is not the case.

History is not a actual science, as it cannot be proven to be fact. The most a historian can do is stay true as possible to the primary and secondary sources, most of which are biased if not outright lies.

Its advanced story telling. Its the old guy who sits around the camp fire telling the tribe about the tale of their people. Just done with books, stuffy rooms, and boring people.
So your saying we shouldn't use a skeptical and measured view of history when trying to present the facts? People who study medieval historical arms and armor have a very scientific approach rediscovering old texts and filling the gaps in our knowledge.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,745
USA
So your saying we shouldn't use a skeptical and measured view of history when trying to present the facts? People who study medieval historical arms and armor have a very scientific approach rediscovering old texts and filling the gaps in our knowledge.
I'll saying: HISTORY AS A FIELD IS NOT A SCIENCE

No, reading an old book to figure how somebody said something works is not science, even if you wear a labcoat during it...
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,750
Some of the stupidest and most asinine theories created in the last 100-150 years were done so in universities. Phrenology, eugenics, cultural anthropology (lol)
The challenge is that eugenics from 1901 onwards was theoretically solidly based in Mendelian genetics, the execution sucked however, but eugenics never ended. We still do it. Most of eugenicists were busy chartering hereditary disease. No one has faulted that work – it just changed the name from eugenics to medical genetics and the like. As long as we screen and advice in hereditary conditions, and we do, that major branch of eugenics isn't just alive but doing well. (In a sense molecular biology has allowed science to progress beyond the fundamental eugenic problem of controlling human sexuality as a precondition for controlling heredity, to controlling processes on a molecular level allowing a modern eugenics sans sex.)

Phrenology was the first widespread purely materialist scientific theory. For his time Gall was stunningly visionary neurological theorist. Spurzheim later went to the UK and rebooted the whole enterprise there, dumbing it down radically in the process. Gall was wrong about most things in practice, but otoh amazingly correct in theory. The lasting legacy of phrenology in the sciences is scientific materialism.

Nothing at all wrong with cultural anthropology. (Which in the English and French languages isn't a science by semantic definition anyway. It is in Germanic or Slavic languages though – more power to them for having more inclusive definitions of "Wissenschaft" and the like.)

All that list does is list controversial cases of science. But they're not controversial for simply being wrong. ALL science so far has been wrong – more or less subtly, to a lower or higher degree. It's sometime referred to "the history of science paradox": Science is endlessly progressing, and the precondition for that progress is that it has so far been wrong.

So listing controversial science from history like that actually misunderstands how science works.

And then research is something else.