Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen
And one more thing: history is an analytical science. Combat chronicling is not history.
|
Jukka
I certainly respect your opinions and interests.
The problem is you don't respect other individuals interests. Your next problem is that, at least on TOCH you are a minority with your own dedicated interests.
To say that history is an analytical science is wrong. History is whatever you make of it. Mankind's past is basically a time gone buy, just like the seconds it take you to read these sentences.
History is what you make of it. It could be everything or nothing. You can basically chose any subject you want and the minute you look one second behind, it has turned into history, never to come again.
To use the word analytical is in a way correct. Everyone who look into his/our/mankind's past analyse it, whether the individual understands it or not.
If we didn't we would never understand ourselves.
To state that chronicling is not history, is a fundamental mistake. Most historians whether they are archeologists or reading historians are basically relying upon exactly that. Lacking chronology leaves the archeologist with nothing to hang up his findings upon and the historian basically with no story to tell. It makes no difference if you write a wartime history, technical history or whatever dedicated historical topic you chose.
Just try and write a technical history without a chronology. Where would that take you?
Cheers
Stig