Topic: A question on military historians speaking on war, and never having fought.

[CLPenney]

Greetings everybody,

Before going any further, I will say I hope this is the right area for this post. If not, I am terribly sorry, it seemed like the best area.

My question, though I would feel better with answers from soldiers themselves, is open to anyone with thoughts on the issue.

'Is it disrespectful for someone who has never served to speak on conflict and how it was/is for service men and women?'

I ask this because, personally, I've always been fascinated by the history of militaries around the world. I am currently studying such things in university, and may wish to go on and teach it myself some day, but one fear has always been with me. What if I somehow do injustice to those who served? The very people I look up to and who’s histories I try and teach? What right do I have to do such a thing?

I guess the overall question is 'do you think teachers of military history loose some of their clout if they never served?'

I may serve myself someday. I love my country and would be honoured to serve her, and keep harm from befalling her. That being said, I would at least like to educate people on those who have served, and I have nothing but the highest respect for both the service men and women, and the teachers.

I guess I just wish to hear the views of others.

Thank you in advance for replying, please pardon any spelling mistakes I might have missed.

Good night and God bless.

[Britney Spears]

Not at all. Indiana Jones' s quote applies equally to history as well as archeology; 99% of it is done in the library, and all in all it isn't all that exciting.  A person's individual experience is just that: personal, it might help in some cases but it isn't any more or less relevent than the experiences of the thousands of other people who were also participants in a war. The first thing any kind of historian learns is how to gather data, how to spot and predict bias in his sources, how to WRITE, how to write in a disinterested, unbiased manner. In fact, serving in an operational theatre will probably not be beneficial if you intend to write about that theatre later on, since you are no longer a dispassionate observer and data gatherer/analyst and your view will be clouded by your personal biases, soldiers generally don't make good academics. Being a historian is a profession no less demanding than any other.

Certainly, some time in the military is beneficial to a young person no matter what career they may pursue later, having a feel of organizational friction and how big, bureaucratic organizations like the military work is beneficial but the army isn't the only way, I don't think you need it to be a military historian. John Keegan never served a day in the army, none of the people who taught me history have, but they can still be great historians.

[George Wallace]

........, soldiers generally don't make good academics. Being a historian is a profession no less demanding than any other.

I would beg to differ on you there.  Soldiers usually do make good academics.  Many have developed 'discipline' while in the military, which stands them in very good stead in the academic fields, much more so than the undisciplined rabble straight out of high school.   

I suppose, if you have been a student of military history, you have read the work of such people as John Marteinson, Brian Reid, Desmond Morton, G.W.L. Nicholson, George F. G. Stanley, Viktor Suvorov, and endless others who have attained high or higher academic credentials, all of whom have excellent military careers behind them.  I suppose, sfrom your comments, that you think these guys just don't have what it takes to be in that demanding profession as a historian?   

[Michael Dorosh]

Military experience is beneficial but not a requirement to be a historian. Some of the leading military historians never served a day in their lives.

David Bercuson comes to mind. Stephen Ambrose had limited military experience also. Still, I would place Granatstein above either, and he did serve, briefly, as an officer in peace time.

Roy Farran was a soldier's soldier who served with the SAS and had more medals than most people have pairs of underwear, but his regimental history of the Calgary Highlanders was sub-par (though possibly not considered that at the time it was written - regimental histories have come a long way from 1945 to the present).

Donald Graves is an excellent historian who has never been in a war (AFAIK), but Brian Reid is in the same league - at the top of the strata - and had extensive experience as a staff officer (and it comes through in his writing).

As Britney points out, other fields are the same. The best book written on the Apollo program was by a non-astronaut, Andrew Chaikin. But how do you define "best"? As a technical brief, it sucked - as readable prose, it wins out.

Often, criticism of history comes down to how good a story teller the guy is. Graves tells great stories about the SALH, but also had technical knowledge that assists him. On the other hand, those with technical knowledge often write poorly for non-soldier readers who can't penetrate the jargon they use or the stuff they take for granted (see the early regimental histories like Farran's). If you read some early post-war regimental histories written by guys who were actually in the war, you had better know what a TEWT, FUP, LOB and Sausage Machine are, as those books were liberally laced with such terms and usually without benefit of a glossary. Often these early histories were intended as souvenirs for fellow soldiers and not with future generations or civilians in mind.

I don't know that university imparts any special skills on a military writer, either; the ideal situation would be a person with military experience, technical understanding of not just his trade but many, technical skill as a writer, world experience and education, and storytelling ability.  I don't know of many people who fit all those bills. Lew Mackenzie comes to mind, Farley Mowat is a much better example. But there are excellent authors who don't have all those prerequisites, and they outnumber, I think, those who do.

Respect has nothing to do with it. Man is curious by nature. Any soldier who would be offended by someone showing an interest in his profession, no matter who it was from, would be shortsighted.

[couchcommander]

Often times it is beneficial, at least from my perspective, to have someone look at military affairs and military history from an outside perspective; their viewpoint is radically different than others. It allows a certain objectivity (although no one is ever completely objective) to be applied if done correctly, and can lead to beneficial reform.

It was mentioned before, but there are both good and bad historians, who have both served and never served. A good historian will do extensive research focusing on primary sources whenever possible, analyse them critically, then convey his findings (including historiography!!! Don't forget!) using well written English. Many, even published "historians", I've found to forget to use primary sources or to be critical in their examination of them (nothing quite boils my blood like former journalists who've decided they are an expert on something and present their "viewpoint" as a history).

So yea, you can be a good or bad historian either way, IMO.

Oh, and you'd be surprised just how many degrees and very well informed opinions are floating around behind all these dumb grunts. I sure was.

[George Wallace]

Let's also make the distinction between the unbiased 'Historical' works and the biased "Editorialised" works.

I do not disagree with Michael on the points of what qualifications make a good Historian.  I disagree with Britney's casual remarks of what skills disqualify a person from being an academic and/or Historian.

[Michael Dorosh]

Well, one can also look at the dude who wrote "Jarhead". Certainly he had military experience, but was a "soldier" in name only by mere technicality, and wrote what is charitably described as "gossip" rather than military history.  Given a choice between him writing about the Marines, and a civilian with a degree, or a journalist like Rick Atkinson, I know where my money would go.

[Britney Spears]

One does not become a historian straight out of high school, and the military isn't the only way tod evelop discipline, in fact for most people it isn't the best way either. I'm not referring to mid to senior level officers who hold graduate degrees, I'm referring to the common rank and file. Tolstoy and Surovov were hardly representative of the majority of the army and I  doubt that modern armies will ever produce people like that again. I'm not saying it's impossible for soldiers to become historians later, but the OP's question is "Do military historians who have never served have any credibility?", to which the answer is "absolutely".

[George Wallace]

.... I'm not referring to mid to senior level officers who hold graduate degrees, I'm referring to the common rank and file.

As am I.  Many young soldiers have left the military after their first or second contract and gone back to school.  They have sent word back to friends and acquaintances in their old units, as to how much easier University was now that they had 'discipline' and good study habits, that they developed in the military.  Those, along with a bit of maturity, put them well ahead of their peers in many cases. 

If you haven't been there, I guess you wouldn't agree.

[couchcommander]

Let's also make the distinction between the unbiased 'Historical' works and the biased "Editorialised" works.

Indeed, lets - unfortunately the mainstream print media doesn't seem to. I can't say how many times I've walked into chapters, looked at a book History of Whatever , gone "hrm, this could be good"... read few pages..."hrm, this is crap"... looked at the about the authour..."Bill Dickalot was a journalist with CBS for 40 years covering the Middle East who has decided to use his infinite knowledge that comes automatically with being a journalist to write an authoritative history to set the record straight....etc."

and re: the soldiers in university - I have a few friends who are former NCM's going to get their commission - they are all, without an exception, highly motivated and doing very well.

The biggest problem they have is realizing that in the academia, you have to listen to everyones opinion WITHOUT throat punching them no matter how dumb.

[Old Sweat]

As someone who has written a bit of military history and was a serving soldier, let me opine that my experience helped me understand much of what I read. However, any good historian or journalist with a desire to get to the bottom of the events can probably decipher the material. To write successfully  takes a great deal of background knowledge that can only come from deep, extensive research, the majority of which will never make it into print.

Most campaigns, as well, lie outside the realm of experience of anyone alive today. Thus the experience factor would only be valid in very limited circumstances that vary from person to person. However the historial research process is more or less constant. For example, if one decided to complete a paper on operations against the hill tribes on the NW Frontier of India in the 1890s, there is a ton of material avalable. However to understand the campaign the writer would have to get into tactics, weapons and organizations; something that is not beyond the capability of the majority of intelligent writers. The trick is to put yourself in the mindset of both sides to see how and why they did what they did. I believe it was CP Stacey who wrote that regardless of the era, human beings have reacted remarkably alike over the years. After all, commanders have been going reconnaissance, making estimates and issing orders for thousands of years. The trick is to discern how and what was done well and not so well and attempt to find out the what, where, when, why, how and who.

[TMM]

They have sent word back to friends and acquaintances in their old units, as to how much easier University was now that they had 'discipline' and good study habits, that they developed in the military.  Those, along with a bit of maturity, put them well ahead of their peers in many cases. 

If you haven't been there, I guess you wouldn't agree.

+1

I've been there but without the military experience.

I took driving lessons at 33, take improv classes now, will be taking a history class in the fall and I know that my study habits now are immeasurably better than when I was actually in school. When I do go back to uni that will help be immensely.

Back to topic, as a civi I like to get as many sides of the story as I can get my paws on. As I've learned from my parents' WWII tales two people in the same place at the same time will have different memories and experiences.

[Bert]

'Is it disrespectful for someone who has never served to speak on conflict and how it was/is for service men and women?'

I ask this because, personally, I've always been fascinated by the history of militaries around the world. I am currently studying such things in university, and may wish to go on and teach it myself some day, but one fear has always been with me. What if I somehow do injustice to those who served? The very people I look up to and who’s histories I try and teach? What right do I have to do such a thing?

I guess the overall question is 'do you think teachers of military history loose some of their clout if they never served?'

From my perspective, military service provides an additional context for observing,
understanding, studying, and interpreting conflict or military history.  It is not a
requirement or a direct path to complete knowledge. 

History and interpretting current events are somewhat like opinions.  An opinion
is a position where you don't have fact all the facts.  If you had all the facts, you
wouldn't need an opinion.   Military service doesn't change this outcome. 

What we know of the battles of the pre-modern humans, the Chinese, the Greeks,
Alexander the Great, the Khan Empire, the Romans, to name a few came from a
variety of sources containing fact, bias, interpretation, and mis-representation. 
Using the sum of the sources, our understanding of history is derived.  The point
is to gather knowledge for the most complete understanding possible.  Teaching
this is not an injustice.  History is not a pure science like mathematics.

[Kat Stevens]

Well, "a journalist known to this site" has somewhat of a military record, and I don't think anything he's ever written would make decent bog roll, let alone qualifying as in depth journalism or history.  In other words, no, not required.

[Britney Spears]

As am I.  Many young soldiers have left the military after their first or second contract and gone back to school.  They have sent word back to friends and acquaintances in their old units, as to how much easier University was now that they had 'discipline' and good study habits, that they developed in the military.  Those, along with a bit of maturity, put them well ahead of their peers in many cases.

George, we are not talking about the same kind of academia. An undergrad degree in history is a piece of cake, anyone and his dog can get one, it would take *me* about 6 drunken month to get one for my second degree and I'm the slackest troop you'll ever see. It won't make you a historian, not even close. Once we start talking about PhDs and Post Doctoral work, "study discipline" simply isn't an issue anymore, there's no way anyone could have made it that far without a huge amount of dedication. People at this level are real historians who have dedicated their lives to their fields of study, and deserve to be recognized as such.

Like I say, there are far more prominant military historians with a civillian background than there are Tolstoys and Grossmans, if you want to be a historian, be a historian, it won't be easy, and if you're good you'll command a lot of respect. If you want to be a soldier, be a soldier, and when you retire, you can always start with the memoirs.

[George Wallace]

George, we are not talking about the same kind of academia. An undergrad degree in history is a piece of cake, anyone and his dog can get one, it would take *me* about 6 drunken month to get one for my second degree and I'm the slackest troop you'll ever see. It won't make you a historian, not even close. Once we start talking about PhDs and Post Doctoral work, "study discipline" simply isn't an issue anymore, there's no way anyone could have made it that far without a huge amount of dedication. People at this level are real historians who have dedicated their lives to their fields of study, and deserve to be recognized as such.

Like I say, there are far more prominant military historians with a civillian background than there are Tolstoys and Grossmans, if you want to be a historian, be a historian, it won't be easy, and if you're good you'll command a lot of respect. If you want to be a soldier, be a soldier, and when you retire, you can always start with the memoirs.

Why 'dems fightin words Brit......Are you seriously trying to tell me that a soldier really doesn't have the abilities, capabilities, dedication, compunction to achieve a Masters, PhD, or any other Degree (not just History) that (s)he so desires?  Are you seriously being that arrogant?  Surely you jest?......You are jesting aren't you?  That is completely asinine.  Which ivory tower were you born in?

[Britney Spears]

No, I did not. I am saying that the discipline a 17 yr old picks up during basic training will do him good in his undergraduate degree, but people doing graduate and post doctoral work are at a different level entirely and your comparison simply isn't relevent. Undergrad degrees are EASY. Basic Training is different but still EASY. Neither can be directly compared to high level academic work, it's a completely different set of skills. I'm not sure how you managed to misunderstand my post to such an extent, am I not making myself clear?

[Michael Dorosh]

No, I did not. I am saying that the discipline a 17 yr old picks up during basic training will do him good in his undergraduate degree, but people doing graduate and post doctoral work are at a different level entirely and your comparison simply isn't relevent. Undergrad degrees are EASY. Basic Training is different but still EASY. Neither can be directly compared to high level academic work, it's a completely different set of skills. I'm not sure how you managed to misunderstand my post to such an extent, am I not making myself clear?

The average 17 year old doesn't have the maturity for advanced academic work in any event; just like a junior high school student on average lacks the maturity to enter an undergraduate program.

[George Wallace]

Sorry Brit.....you are on another wavelength.......and it is you who have got the problem understanding.........

Who is arguing about 17 year olds' on basic training?  

The point was that a soldier after his first or second contract (Puts him in around the 20 to 25 year old range) has through his military training gained 'discipline', (let's clarify that for 'you' and say "self-discipline") and some maturity that puts him in much better stead to learn than the undisciplined rabble straight out of High School.

All the rest of your previous post is utter crap.  

I am now going into IGNORE MODE.....Night!

[TCBF]

"If you want to be a soldier, be a soldier, and when you retire, you can always start with the memoirs."

- Ah, memoirs - write them too soon and the living are all up in arms.  They - and their lawyers - screaming for blood.  Relatives of the casualties read the book, then go back into therapy.  Wait too long on the other hand, and you are dead.

-  FICTION, on the other hand, can be a cash cow.  The gift that keeps on giving.  Using your experiences to write more than one book of fact (?) - writing a few books of fiction.  Keeps the lawyers and the RCMP from darkening your door, as well.

" I am now going into IGNORE MODE.....Night!"

- Parthian shot?  Now George, one should always leave on a courteous note, should one not?

[Britney Spears]

The point was that a soldier after his first or second contract (Puts him in around the 20 to 25 year old range) has through his military training gained 'discipline', (let's clarify that for 'you' and say "self-discipline") and some maturity that puts him in much better stead to learn than the undisciplined rabble straight out of High School.

So, you graduated high school at age 25?   

Of course, anyone can see the mistake in this example. People don't start university at age 25, a 25 year old soldier won't be competing with other 25 year olds starting their first degree, because a keen 25 year old academic will already be halfway through his Phd program, especially in a field like history. You're going to need a bit more than "self discipline" ,"maturity"  and fast gun drills to write and defend a doctoral thesis, and that's just the first step to becoming a historian.

Not sure how any of this is relevent to my original point, so not much else I can add.......

[TCBF]

Hey, after all, all of this 'inclusion' and 'welcoming newcomers with open arms into our professional culture' is for the MILITARY to adopt, NOT academia!

 

Tom

[paracowboy]

'do you think teachers of military history loose some of their clout if they never served?'

no. (For those who have lost track of the original thread)

[George Wallace]

Of course, anyone can see the mistake in this example. People don't start university at age 25, a 25 year old soldier won't be competing with other 25 year olds starting their first degree, because a keen 25 year old academic will already be halfway through his Phd program, especially in a field like history. You're going to need a bit more than "self discipline" ,"maturity"  and fast gun drills to write and defend a doctoral thesis, and that's just the first step to becoming a historian.

Kind of off topic, aren't you?  Are you now trying to make it a "Race to get a PhD" type of argument?  Who cares how old the person is when they get their degrees?  It is the end product.  Do they have what it takes to be a good Historian.  That is what the question and debate is about.  

How many have run into members of academia who have multiple degrees hanging on the wall, but at the same time couldn't follow instructions on how to find their way to the bus stop.  Sure these guys may be smart.....on one level......but complete morons on most others......darn right off on another tangent.  Who cares?  The fact is, Historians who were ex-soldiers have some first hand knowledge of what they write about as opposed to someone who has not been there, done that, nor got the T-shirt.  They may be able to pick up the little nuances a little better and quicker than a person with no familiarity with the military.  Perhaps the saying, "Like so many things in life, it may look good on paper, but it just doesn't work in real life." may be used in some of these cases.

I agree that there are many great Historians with no military background, as there are many who do.  There are good and bad in both categories.  One ex-military Journalist/Author has already been alluded to as being on the "poor" side, but then again, he never entered academia did he?

[Centurian1985]

'Is it disrespectful for someone who has never served to speak on conflict and how it was/is for service men and women?'
I guess the overall question is 'do you think teachers of military history loose some of their clout if they never served?'

Academics who have never served usually do an excellent job of reporting unbiased facts (there are many biased exceptions, as in all fields).  They are not able to decribe how a soldier actually feels, but often do a good job of interviewing a soldier and then describing what that soldeir felt and experienced.  On the other hand, many historians who were former soldiers present a much more personal viewpoint of a situation (but unfortunately often present a biased interpretation of history as they saw it, and the units they served with, due to their loyalty to the units they belonged to).

E.g. In A Bridge Too Far, the book by Cornelius Ryan on the Allied advance through the low countries emphasizes that Montgomery was told about the German SS panzer unit that halted the British advance prior to the beginning of the operation; the autobiography of Montgomery fails to mention this and treats the presence of German troops as a surprise.  In reverse, a recent thread discussed a historian in the UK who claimed General Franks was incompetent in failing to cut off retreating Iraqi troops in 1991, while those who were actually monitoring the battle knew that Franks was acting under orders.

[Michael Dorosh]

I agree that there are many great Historians with no military background, as there are many who do.  There are good and bad in both categories.  One ex-military Journalist/Author has already been alluded to as being on the "poor" side, but then again, he never entered academia did he?

If this is the same person I'm thinking of, he did benefit from being captured in Afghanistan and making a harrowing escape. 

[CLPenney]

Greetings again.

I just wanted to thank those replying to my topic. I do not have much to say myself, except that this thread is becoming very interesting.

Fair well, God bless.

[calgarytanks]

Hugh Henry wrote an excellent pH.D dissertation that became a popular book - his topic was the Calgary regiment at Dieppe, and he gives a very detailed overview of the regiment on the beach, from a complete nominal roll of who was there, which tank they were in, which landing craft their tank landed from, and includes some nice personal touches as well. It was turned into a glossy picture book called Dieppe: through the lens of the German War Photographer (or something close to that). He captured the essence of the fight on the beach extremely well for an academic who wasn't there. Yes, it is possible.

[swahili]

Whooooooo, maybe this topic needs a bit of a refocus 

The original question I suppose was, Can a teacher teach military history and be respectful?

Yes, of course! I'm a history student working on my BA4 and with hopes of becoming a teacher. So, this is in my area. Maybe I can relate a story which while isn't about military history, touches on this topic kind of.

I took native history with a non-native teacher. While speaking with another aboriginal about this class, we had this conversation about how she had HUGE doubts on the class as she really did not believe a non-aboriginal could teach aboriginal history and give it justice. But, she took the course anyways - with every thought geared towards that he would not be able to pull it off...

However, she was a convert at the end. He had such passion and respect for the culture and the people, that she was absolutely sold on that a non-aboriginal WITH PASSION AND RESPECT could teach a subject they do not have first-hand knowledge about....

As many of you could imagine how strange it would be to have someone teach your culture's history (it's mine too!) to others and not be of that culture, you'd be a bit weary. However, I thought he did an amazing job and this other girl who took it the year before, thought so too.

So, I believe the same could happen with military history. I think if you give a subject the passion, respect and such, your enthusiasm and love of the subject will come through. Yes, having first hand (primary) experience is good, it's not always necessary.

Good luck with the teaching, hope to be there someday soon too

swahili

[Red 6]

I definitely think military service isn't a prerequisite for being a good historian. Look at men such as John Keegan. His book The Face of Battle is recognized as one of the best works of the genre. You can argue about Stephen Ambrose's documentation, but no one can dispute his work in bringing the deeds of the American soldier to the reading public. There are so many other examples, it would be impossible to mention them all.

All things being equal, military service with a solid academic grounding does bring an author a certain credibility. Look at David Grossman. His book On Killing (granted not specifically a history book) is so well received, in part because he IS a retired soldier.

I think the bottom line is the quality of the work, not whether an author has or hasn't served.

[Michael Dorosh]

I definitely think military service isn't a prerequisite for being a good historian. Look at men such as John Keegan. His book The Face of Battle is recognized as one of the best works of the genre. You can argue about Stephen Ambrose's documentation, but no one can dispute his work in bringing the deeds of the American soldier to the reading public. There are so many other examples, it would be impossible to mention them all.

All things being equal, military service with a solid academic grounding does bring an author a certain credibility. Look at David Grossman. His book On Killing (granted not specifically a history book) is so well received, in part because he IS a retired soldier.

I think the bottom line is the quality of the work, not whether an author has or hasn't served.

Face of Battle is a masterpiece IMO, no question. Excellent example.  You're right about Ambrose bringing history to the general public - but there are better historians who have done that without sacrificing the research - Cornelius Ryan comes to mind. You may not be familiar with Daniel Dancocks, but he is another. Ambrose....God love him, but the plagiarism and the technical errors just didn't do him justice.  Another one in that league is Mark Zuehlke. Popular history is ok, but only if done well. In my opinion, Ambrose is probably borderline (I haven't read enough to judge but get the impression his errors of fact are minor) but Zuehlke is not done well.

[Centurian1985]

Of course, anyone can see the mistake in this example. People don't start university at age 25, a 25 year old soldier won't be competing with other 25 year olds starting their first degree, because a keen 25 year old academic will already be halfway through his Phd program, especially in a field like history. You're going to need a bit more than "self discipline" ,"maturity"  and fast gun drills to write and defend a doctoral thesis, and that's just the first step to becoming a historian.

Off topic, but you do not need to be able to write a doctoral thesis to be a historian.  What matters is knowing the subject that you write about.  Many non-academic writers are writing histories from a personal viewpoint.  While not valid for academic review, they are still a form of 'historian'.     

[couchcommander]

There is a difference between history and personal viewpoints. Just like there is a different between history and writing down a bunch of stuff that happened. One is an account, the other is a chronology, neither are history - but may form part of it.

[Red 6]

IMHO, military service isn't as important as solid academic grounding. There are so many great historians who never served. Look at, for instance, Russel F. Weigley, the noted author of The American Way of War. But people like Charles MacDonald, who served as an infantry officer and wrote the classic work Company Commander later went on to write several volumes in the World War II Army historical series.

To my mind at least, popular history is an important part of the genre. For example, Flags of Our Fathers, written by the son of one of the Iwo Jima flag raisers, has been on the NY Times best seller list for a long time. It doesn't purport to be an in depth book about the campaign, just one man's attempt to connect with his dad and the other men who took part in the flag raising. This book seems to have really touched something in folks here in the US. Are people reading it in Canada?

I think it all boils down to the research an author puts into his or her work and the way the information is presented.

[xavier]

Keegan is another historian who never served. He couldn't because of clubfoot. Yet he's regarded as one of the best Anglophone historians on the military.

I agree that research, talent and genuine interest in the subject will be a great help

xavier

[Red 6]

You're right Xavier. Michael and I both mentioned John Keegan earlier in this thread. He is definitely at or near the top of the list as a military-oriented historian.

[Centurian1985]

There is a difference between history and personal viewpoints. Just like there is a different between history and writing down a bunch of stuff that happened. One is an account, the other is a chronology, neither are history - but may form part of it.

Ok, I'll agree on that definition... but then what is history?  The actual historical 'truth event' itself which cannot be reproduced?

[CDN Zipperhead]

Someone should also mention that John Keegan may not have served IN the military, he did SERVE the military as a Professor at the British Military University "Sandhurst" for most, if not all, his professional life.

[Michael Dorosh]

http://www.fylde.demon.co.uk/middlebrook2.htm

Great article by Martin Middelbrook, author of FIRST DAY ON THE SOMME. 

The first doubt crept in. I had left school at seventeen and had written nothing longer than a business letter for nearly twenty years. How could I write a book? I went to my friend John Howlett – a University Graduate, a College Lecturer. Would he like to join me? I had the time and opportunity to do the research; he would do the writing but we would share the credits if the book ever came to be published. John was enthusiastic and agreed. We even had some letterheads printed with THE FIRST DAY ON THE SOMME emblazoned across the top and with both of our names and addresses.

Sitting at her untidy desk was a dumpy lady, smoking. But she had a nice smile and was both patient and helpful. She told me two things that set immediately set me on the right path: that I should concentrate on research from ‘original sources’ (an unknown phrase to a poultry farmer),

Middelbrook's books have become classics despite his backgroung being the "Egg Board".

[couchcommander]

Ok, I'll agree on that definition... but then what is history?  The actual historical 'truth event' itself which cannot be reproduced?

I'm not so sure one definition exists, really.

 To me at least though, writing "history" implies a level of analysis; being just as concerned with why something happened as precisely what happened. "History" also to me implies a level of objectively, though no one is ever going to get it 100%, and in fact I have read some very very slanted books that somehow ended up making it into the libraries, an attempt should be made to convey the facts of the matter, not just ones that suit your argument.

In the end, IMO, history is all about historiography.

*edit* Actually something a prof told me a long time ago just came to mind."History just isn't about 'who, what, and when', it's about 'why, and how' as well."