Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?
historytoday.com
Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?
1–10 of 21 posts
Re: Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?
#2More generally, focusing on "Great People" [1] obscures actual history and prevents deeper understanding of what actually moves its cogs.
Re: Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?
#3G.K. Chesterton and H.G. Wells seemed to think so in their histories of England (though note that Wells' work is controversial due to an accusation of plagiarism).
Both are available at Project Gutenberg and Librivox:
>"A Short History of England" by G. K. Chesterton is a historical account written in the early 20th century. The book provides a unique perspective on English history, challenging traditional narratives often neglected by popular histories. Chesterton seeks to illuminate the experiences of the average citizen throughout England's past, particularly during the medieval period, arguing that important aspects of the populace’s legacy have been overlooked.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20897
>"The Outline of History: Being a Plain History of Life and Mankind" by H. G. Wells is a historical account written in the early 20th century. This comprehensive work aims to provide a continuous narrative detailing the story of life and humanity from its origins to the present, emphasizing a universal approach to history that transcends individual nations or periods. The book serves as an exploration of how human civilizations have developed over vast stretches of time and how they relate to broader scientific and societal changes.
Re: Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?
#4Can't really get to the thrust of the article due to paywall but almost certainly yes.
If nothing else the 1066 effect is real--as someone with a vague interest in questionably accurate period fiction novels I seem to have osmosed more basics about 4th to 10th century Britain than most anyone who grew up there was taught/retained
Re: Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?
#5Like if your read Macaulay's History of England, he does say very much on the King's and Queens, but he's not heaping praise on them, he is very critical of them, sometimes very entertainingly so.
Most of English history as per Macaulay is of conflict between the King and Parliament, with a good amount of religious discord mixed in, between the major groups like the church of England, Catholics and puritans.
Re: Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?
#6before mass literacy, history books were funded by the folks with all the resources to be read by the future owners of those resources.
And that trend continues because this article is behind a paywall!
Re: Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?
#7Howard Zinn wrote A People's History of the United States as a counter to the usual histories of the US that focus on presidents, statesmen, and robber barons of the Gilded Age.
He covers things we mostly don't learn about in school,
including the rise of the Labor movement,
native Americans,
slaves and post-Civil War freedman,
and women.
Re: Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?
#8Re: Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?
#9More generally, focusing on "Great People" [1] obscures actual history and prevents deeper understanding of what actually moves its cogs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory
I disagree with the framing here. Sure, the great man theory of history is not wholly adequate to explain human history. But neither is it useless to the point that it deserves to be contrasted with "actual history". It happens often enough that history really does change based on the whims of people in power. Dismissing the great man theory of history out of hand (as I understood your post to be doing, maybe I'm wrong) isn't any better than using it as one's only theory of history.
Re: Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?
#10More generally, focusing on "Great People" [1] obscures actual history and prevents deeper understanding of what actually moves its cogs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory
I disagree with the framing here. Sure, the great man theory of history is not wholly adequate to explain human history. But neither is it useless to the point that it deserves to be contrasted with "actual history". It happens often enough that history really does change based on the whims of people in power. Dismissing the great man theory of history out of hand (as I understood your post to be doing, maybe I'm wro…
I subscribe to the idea that those "Great Persons" are shaped by the environment they grow in, and allowed to do what they do by the will of the "zeitgeist", for a lack of a better word.
If not for Napoleon, someone else like him would have done what he did. Perhaps slightly differently, but overall history would have followed a similar path. Post-Revolution France was eager to defend against and defeat the monarchies that surrounded and threatened it. The General was only allowed to rise so high because there was a want to militarize the country.