Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Beale
Ed,
The courtroom analogy is interesting because UK courts operate on two standards: beyond reasonable doubt (criminal cases) and on the balance of probabilities (civil ones). Note that neither demands absolute certainty but each standard is used to arrive at a verdict. Courts routinely make inferences from patterns of behaviour or documentation to bridge the gap between what is known for certain and what is not.
The Roman period is as relevant as any other when discussing historical method. We have a certain amount of writing from the period (copied and recopied over centuries, and occasionally modified to suit the tastes of intervening periods) but we also have archaeology which has yielded original, unmediated writings and physical evidence — weapons, clothing, crockery, artworks etc. — illuminating things that were written about by Pliny, Tacitus or whoever. We have soil and pollen analysis, landscape archaeology, DNA, aerial photography, the list goes on.
We understand the Roman period better as a result and there is no reason to suppose that the same will not be true of the 20th century and its wars.
|
Nick,
I could care less how the courts work in the UK. Let me be blunt: We either know something through artifacts or we don't. Knowledge is not found in the following statements: "Most historians believe..." "It is widely accepted that..." Followed by comments that are based, as far as Romans are concerned, on their behavior elsewhere. Example:
"The Romans passed through the city of Y on their way to attack a city north of Y. There are no physical records or burials or what have you, but based on previous accounts - which were written down - the Romans likely attacked Y on their way to the target city."
Is there a known pattern? Yes. Did we learn anything in this case? No.
Churchill allegedly said that history would be kind to him since he would write the history. In my years of doing historical research, I do not color it to taste. Whatever the references say is what they say. The end. I am not running for any office or need to tailor my research to any group/party and so on.
I have spent a number of years studying the Second World War and the Cold War. That study becomes more substantial when more than one source is available. The U.S. and UK classified quite a few records by the end of hostilities. These were unavailable to researchers until the mid-1990s. The Germans had petitioned the United States for a return of these records because the German People Wanted to Recover their History. Allied intelligence had recovered and also produced millions of pages of documents from the period. One aspect finally played out by 2001 when records created by the OSS, and inherited by the CIA, were reviewed.
THAT is how actual research is done. That is how and why the period will be written about. It will not be based on patterns. It will not be based on guesses, no matter how educated.
A new book just landed on my desk. It is following a pattern of what I call "the new idiocy." The title: The Hand behind Unmanned. Quick, anyone. What is this book about? Anyone? Surely, there is a pattern at work. But, like the book being discussed here, it is beyond the knowledge of the average book buyer. The subtitle offers a clue: Origins of the U.S. Autonomous Military Arsenal. But, again, it falls flat. Autonomous what? Military arsenal? A bit broad, don't you think? How about
: The Origins of U.S. Unmanned Military Weapons, Aircraft and Related Equipment, followed by, I don't know, the time period in question?
Note to the publisher (includes American slang): A complete fail as far as keyword searches go. Don't do this again.