You as author of a great historical work...

May 2015
326
California
I would write a history of Peace and Peacemakers, since most of the histories I've read are about war and the generals or kings who commit acts of war. I think it would be nice to see the other side of things. I'm talking about Ghandi, King, or Thich Nhat Hanh who lead major modern peace movements, guys like Francis of Assisi, maybe some ambassadors during the crusades, churchmen responsible for the Peace and Truce of God, stuff like that.
 
Jul 2015
892
Netherlands
Unsurprisingly, I would want to write an extensive account of the Occitan wars as I think there has been a lot of misaccounting and its actual importance is still underexposed. It may sound of regional importance only, but it was not. The work needs to line out how the Popes instigated an international war in independant territories where England, France, Germany and Aragon all came to have major interests. Boundaries, Europe as well as Christianity changed forever. Not one book has completely satisfied me in this regard.

It would break down in the following timeframes;
1.000 - 1.181; pre-crusade Catharism and the position of the Catholic church
1.181 - 1.260; Occitan wars / Cathar genocide by means of the Albigensian crusades and the Inquisition
Late 13th century - early 14th century; late Catharism in the Pyrenees and Italy during Inqusition
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,036
Italy, Lago Maggiore
To be the author of a great historical work I should be first of all a great author. As who works with computers, unfortunately I haven't got a great patience. Otherwise I would develop the trace of the Siege of Malta I posted in a thread years ago.
 
Oct 2017
110
South Australia
I realize Im resurrecting an old thread but seems like an interesting one.

I really want to write an essay on why the Confederates lost the Battle of Gettysburg. I'd probably follow the pattern of most of the scholarship on this topic so far by trying to figure out who was most responsible and how it could have turned out differently (e.g. were Longstreet's suggestions feasible?), but from a revisionist viewpoint. I'd be trying to figure out the decisive moment of the battle.
The points I've got so far are:

Was the decisive factor the Confederate's getting drawn into a battle because of the absence of Stuart's cavalry, and lacking reconnaissance from him?

Similarly, was it A.P. Hill's action in engaging Buford's cavalry, starting the battle?

Was it Ewell's failure to seize the high ground on the first day, when it was wide open to him?

Was it Longstreet's conduct of the attack on day two, as many (particulalrly Lost Cause writers) have argued?

Was it actually Pickett's Charge - i.e. was a Confederate victory still achievable prior to it?

I'd also like to look at the flip side of this, why the Union won Gettysburg, perhaps in the same essay, or maybe a separate one.