Leave History To Historians thread

No, it's history. There's factual and objective reasons why the Roman empire fell, people just can't agree on them, so it takes lots of historical research and complex historical analysis to comprehend it at least partially.

All in all history is like football, everyone thinks he's the expert because it's a relatively easy field for casuals to get into, but not everyone can be a top tier coach / tactician / trainer.

w u t ?

Well compared, history talks "romanswuzcool"-tier pub talks are in second place after football discussions. Its good with beer.

>All in all history is like football, everyone thinks he's the expert because it's a relatively easy field for casuals to get into, but not everyone can be a top tier coach / tactician / trainer.
I'm stealing that analogy if you don't mind.

Also, learning history by memorizing dates and names is like learning football by memorizing players and scores. Yeah, you want to know those factoids to formulate expert opinions, but it's certainly not the end of your analysis.

irony m8

try fucking killing yourself and become a statistic imo

looked up 'irony' in the OED, couldn't see where it said 'being a retard for (You)s'.

Oh, some historically important figure appeared, look m8es he recommend me to kill myself, well, what choice I have?;^)

>> As a mass noun. The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect; esp. (in earlier use) the use of approbatory language to imply condemnation or contempt (cf. sarcasm n.). In later use also more generally: a manner, style, or attitude suggestive of the use of this kind of expression. Cf. ironia n.
As you wish.

obviously the butthurt triggered and probably plagued of dsm mental illnesses one

Actually, you are right. I misunderstood the message.

I did get is as a reference to the fact, that people love talking about Roman empire much and history as a science is reduced for them to some constant topics, such as culromanwarriors. I haven't read the second part. Your consideration me as a retard is legit.

>leave history to historians
>leave government to the One Party

haha no

Nonsense

meme history like battles is cancer. history to support an ideology is cancer. history to talk to others about how much you know about history is cancer. history to study the functioning of all levels of a society in very specific historical and cultural circumstances is good -- this is an actual interest in history, as in a study of the human subject

'what happened' is that some people recorded events that may or may not have happened as recorded. history is the study of records

everything in which an entrenched group has total control and suffers no competition or critic from outside sources becomes shit
just look at modern art
it all looks like shit but if you criticize it they just shout "you can't understand it"

that's because you're not supposed to judge it on its looks since it doesn't attempt to look good -- by that metric it is successful and therefor good. maybe you don't understand it after all

>everything in which an entrenched group has total control and suffers no competition or critic from outside sources becomes shit

you actually describe the state of the academy at the end of the 19th century, which led to the development of 'modern art'

>you actually describe the state of the academy at the end of the 19th century
maybe in Britain, certainly not in the US or Germany
>which led to the development of 'modern art'
literaly nothing to do with it

i mean in france where modern art found its beginning and yes it had everything to do with it

Where did you get your PhD?

>history is pure facts
There are no facts in history. Only accounts.

Lads.
Could it be that, perchance, history is not unequivocably defined; and as such, anyone can enjoy it as they come? There might indeed be (some) "right" and (many) "wrong" definitions of history, but at the end of the day, anyone has his own view and only on account of that he "does" history. Discussing about it on a bukharan silk road emporium is trivial at best.

>It doesn't matter where you get your information from, what happened fucking happene
Actually this is the only thing that matters since your positivist notion is looked down upon by the majority of working historians.
Historian here (working on my Ph D). I was happy when this board opened up and tried having some discussion. I even posted sources and literature. Most of the time though discussions evolved into /pol/posting and/or people literally couldn't understand how historical science operates (cause they obviously never read academic literature). Now I just come here to troll and steal memes I send to my colleagues who are really quite fond of them

>What is the Roman Empire? How do you define it falling? Which Roman Empire are we talking about? Did it actually fall? Maybe it's just evolved since most people living in the former Empire actually kept Roman Law and some of them Roman political institutions etc.
Pretty much this although I would argue that we can never be sure of causality itself or in history.

>at the end of the day, anyone has his own view
Fine but they are qualitative differences between those views. There is something called epistemic responsibility in my book. I mean you wouldn't accept me stating that the Earth is flat or that light consists of matter. Yet when it comes to history people tend to accept retarded shit (like /pol/lacks believing that shoah didn't happen).

>or that light consists of matter

Isn't it both particle and wave?

A particle without invariant mass.

I believe the sentence just before the one you quoted reads there being, in fact, right and wrong views about what history is, and as such, what pertains to it (aka being able to discern the truth, however sourced, and /pol/ propaganda, however "sourced"). As you say, people tend to accept retarded shit because they're not taught proper history at school, and much less how to recognize it.
Pic related.

Qualified historians aren't some monolithic, single minded, and single purposed group like a political party.

So true. I have seen a thread in which OP asked Veeky Forums why it loves war and battles so much. General answer was:
>bright explosions cool tanks
Isn't this a sum of Veeky Forums essence?

k

>political parties are monolithic
They aren't. Not even in China but I see your point.

>he fell for the "history is fact" meme

History is the compiled accounts (and arguments on the veracity of these accounts) of historical figures/societies with a fuckton of assumptions thrown in to get a cohesive story. We find commonly believed theories to be false or only partially true all the fucking time. History isn't just "x happened on x year" you moron. You're always getting somebody's angle, even (perhaps especially) in primary source material.

If you know anything about military history, but might be interesting for the 20 replies before it dies. I'm working on my bachelor's, but I try not to fuck up the board too much.

... you've never taken a history course or read an actual text in your life.

>what happened fucking happened
oh boy

>it's not shit if it tries to be shit

>implying a group won't stick together to maintain the Status Quo

maintaining the narrative that gives them money/power will always prevail over truth without competition, just look at modern Historical Revisionism

People who argue that History is a science are as retarded as those who argue that Economics is a science.

Econmics is a science but not a natural science like people pretend it to be. Also people who argue that history isn't a science clearly have never encountered or read any professional historian.