Quote:
Originally Posted by Broncazonk
I suppose it depends on what you are studying. If you are merely interested in reciting history, then the history is the history, and counting the beans of history is the only study.
If, however, you are trying to make history relevant to anything other than knowing or retelling the historic history, well, then you have to cast the net wider. If you study (are interested in) air strategy, grand strategy, war production, manpower allocation, logistics or tactics of any kind, well, then you have to start asking questions like, "why didn't they do this?" "What prevented them from doing that?"
Just depends on what you are interested in, I suppose.
Bronc
|
Research is more than 'reciting history', as you blandly put it.
Perhaps you could explain in detail what you mean by 'counting the beans of history', as I have not seen any explanation from you of what that phrase actually means.
As for this: '...If, however, you are trying to make history relevant to anything other than knowing or retelling the historic history, well, then you have to cast the net wider...' Once again, a generalisation which says nothing. Researchers in recent decades have cast a wide net, and have produced fresh and new information that was not previously known about. Perhaps YOU have not cast your net wide at all...
And this: '...If you study (are interested in) air strategy, grand strategy, war production, manpower allocation, logistics or tactics of any kind, well, then you have to start asking questions like, "why didn't they do this?" "What prevented them from doing that?"...' Do you not think that researchers do that? Sheesh!
Sorry, but you last post reeks of 'academic blowing smoke up your own arse' without adding a single cogent thing. Perhaps you could tell us what research you have done over the decades, how you have gone about it, and what the fruits of that research have been...