I don’t know, I think you draw the boundaries a bit too tightly around the notion of history as a science. Clearly, there are lessons to be learned and I agree that the records of the past provide us with a vast reservoir of human behavior. Our nature has not changed much over the centuries and that is the reason it is wise to study the past. But the lessons are never straightforward. Take, for example, arguments over the origins of WWI. That has never been resolved amongst historians which points to why the “clear lessons” school is wrong and potentially dangerous in its reductionism. If we cannot agree on its origins how can we ever expect that when a similar crisis occurs in the future (and we can agree it will, even if we don’t agree that it will be identical), the historical actors involved in the real time decision making process that will lead to war or peace will have that perfect clarity to make the right choice even if they are enthusiastic students of the past? History can never be directly prescriptive. It can only provide gentle counsel to those who know where to look. Jared Diamond’s geographic determinism in his other works leads to the kind of simplistic reductionism that can cause more harm than good. Any “rule” of history is immediately subject to study and dissection. For example, is it always wrong to “appease” dictators or is it every now and then ok to do so?
For me, studying history has really only one clear and incontrovertible benefit for the true initiate: it allows the student to understand that every human action has multiple consequences well beyond the first order consequences that are immediately apparent from the first. The one “rule” that is always true is that if you can’t see past first order consequences, you’ve learned nothing from history.
Sadly most historians are liars. The few exceptions tend to get buried by narrative shills. The few exceptions: Rodney Stark, (How the West Won, God’s Battalions, Bearing False Witness) Harold Lamb (The Crusades vol 1: Iron men and Saints, The Crusades vol2: The Flame of Islam) and of course David Irving (several books on the Second WW).
I don’t know, I think you draw the boundaries a bit too tightly around the notion of history as a science. Clearly, there are lessons to be learned and I agree that the records of the past provide us with a vast reservoir of human behavior. Our nature has not changed much over the centuries and that is the reason it is wise to study the past. But the lessons are never straightforward. Take, for example, arguments over the origins of WWI. That has never been resolved amongst historians which points to why the “clear lessons” school is wrong and potentially dangerous in its reductionism. If we cannot agree on its origins how can we ever expect that when a similar crisis occurs in the future (and we can agree it will, even if we don’t agree that it will be identical), the historical actors involved in the real time decision making process that will lead to war or peace will have that perfect clarity to make the right choice even if they are enthusiastic students of the past? History can never be directly prescriptive. It can only provide gentle counsel to those who know where to look. Jared Diamond’s geographic determinism in his other works leads to the kind of simplistic reductionism that can cause more harm than good. Any “rule” of history is immediately subject to study and dissection. For example, is it always wrong to “appease” dictators or is it every now and then ok to do so?
For me, studying history has really only one clear and incontrovertible benefit for the true initiate: it allows the student to understand that every human action has multiple consequences well beyond the first order consequences that are immediately apparent from the first. The one “rule” that is always true is that if you can’t see past first order consequences, you’ve learned nothing from history.
This was the nice light article I needed to start my Monday. Churchillisms and Ancient Greek translation. Love it!
Thank you! Anything to make Mondays a little easier to get through!
Thank* you 🫣
I love this article! It's also amazing how you've written it in two languages- I aspire to write like how you have someday.
Can't wait to read more!
Thank you! Stay tuned!
Sadly most historians are liars. The few exceptions tend to get buried by narrative shills. The few exceptions: Rodney Stark, (How the West Won, God’s Battalions, Bearing False Witness) Harold Lamb (The Crusades vol 1: Iron men and Saints, The Crusades vol2: The Flame of Islam) and of course David Irving (several books on the Second WW).
I'd really like to think that tidbit with Lady Astor is true :-)
Me too! (although it's probably not 🫣)
https://substack.com/@yesterdaysnews1?r=6169cz&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=profile
Great article. It brings to mind this quote:
Wie es eigentlich gewesen (Show what essentially happened).
-- Leopold von Ranke
The acceptance that "some bias is good" is slowly (?) harming the history profession.
I also enjoyed Ray Dalio's video.
Ah, yes. Isn't it the father of modern historioraphy himself. Thank you for your kind comment!
Beautiful post! Very important to learn as we move forward in life. Thank you for your work!
Thank you, for your kind comment.