Bad History?

[SolusLupus]

I'd read somewhere (i forget where now) that someone suggested that the wings on the hussaria would make a sort of screeching sound when they charged. Something reminiscent of a dive bomber diving. Which, if true, must have been an awesome psychological advantage on the 17th century battlefield.

I read something that suggested otherwise. It was mainly a visual effect, or it was to keep them from being lassoed... not the sound. You have to consider: They'd be charging into an area rife with combat, and they're riding Warhorses with thundering hooves.

Though if the noise was a very loud screeching, not sure on that. I kinda doubt it, though.

But yeah, regardless, they were an incredible military tool and routinely defeated forces larger than themselves. Which was necessary because Commonwealth Poland had a miniscule army and a lot of enemies.

Yeap, a small army for a large size. Also, Poland was a sea of freedom in an ocean of fundamentalism; it allowed peoples of different nationalities and religious denominations equal freedom within Poland (with, maybe, some racism here and there; no one is perfect).

Yes, there is a general Dambrowski in the polish national anthem.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music...dabrowski.html

I'm related to him, directly. I'm of noble blood.

And yes, that should've provoked an "ew" from you if you thought about it.

[hewhocaves]

yeah, I'm not sure I buy the dive bomber sound myself. (Hey... more bad history!). Then again, I'm not really sure how much lassoing was going around in medeival battles.

My guess (and it's only a guess) is that the vertical metal bars probably prevented (or at least hindered) being sliced from behind. It also had a visual effect (mostly because they were the only troops in the field with "wings".). It made them instantly recognizeable from anywhere. (bad news for the Turk at Vienna.)

Oh, and it occurs to me that people may have no idea what we're talking about. Here's a polish lancer, circa 1650
http://www.icbleu.org/artur/husakon.jpg
Please note, in addition to the massive wings over the lancer (balance, maybe for the 20' lance?), the gold trim and leapord skin pelts. This was a very rich country with a very large nobility. In fact, one of the main complaints about the PL Commonwealth was that it was becoming too Oriental and too Middle Eastern in their dress and style (the old "Alexander" problem).

Oh, and Congrats on your nobility Lonewulf. My family is descended from minor Polish nobility, but we lost everything in the two world wars. *shrug*.

To everyone else, being Polish nobility isn't really as exciting as it seems. When Lonewulf mentioned the 'free society' he was, in part, very correct. The society was ridiculously free for the nobility and pretty much free for everyone else. Nobility, interestignly enough, comprised between 10 and 15% of the whole population and, on occasion, crossed religious lines. (i.e. there were Jewish nobles and muslim nobles etc...) So those 10 - 15% could vote, had pretty much every right we have, etc... It wasn't too bad for the rest of the people, either. Independent farmers were common and there was a large (mostly Jewish) middle class. In fact the Jews constiuted a country within the country having seperate, parallel legal systems and what not. Religious toleration was mandatory. In fact, we got in more trouble with Rome than with Islam! Next to the venetian republic, historians consider us to be the most prgressive state by the 1750s. (and we hit full republic in 1792, and as a result got wiped out by the Germans and Russians).

So the point about nobility is that, two hundred years of intermrriage and war means that pretty much every pole is pretty closely related to a noble at some point.

so, long story short.. it's fascinating history and well worth a read. If interested, pick up a copy of "The Polish Way"

John

[SolusLupus]

http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/index.htm The picture in this article shows a full lancer charge by the Hussars. Very cool stuff.

[hewhocaves]

I've been to that site. good place :-)

[LurchGS]

if you want to know about the history of Poland, check out books by Dr William Urban.

[hewhocaves]

I've not read anything by W. Urban. Looking him up on BN com, he seems most interested in 15th century baltic history than Poland specifically.

God's Playground by norman davies is pretty much the standard for western readers.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...31128177&itm=3

davies' has made a career out of writing about poland

other books i would suggest include The Polish Way by Adam Zamoyski
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...81802008&itm=1
which is a nice single volume, an easy read and accesible and

bitter glory by Richard M. Watt
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...60709971&itm=1
which is an excellent acountof poland in the interwar years (1919-39)

Bitter Glory especially dos a good job of presenting several angles on the history.


Getting back to 'bad history', the industry leader in bad history on television, the History Channel, was at it again. Last night they had an episode of Battlefield Detectives on - the battle of Britan. I just couldn't look at it seriously! Here's why:

1) to illustrate the map of germany taking over europe, they colored in countries as the germans overran them. Only they used a map OF MODERN DAY EUROPE! *slams head into wall*.

2) their 'hi-tech computer graphics' was a televised version of Electronic Arcade's game 'European Air War'. While I understand that computer games are becoming more lifelike, realistic and use a better physics model it really hasn't gotten to the point where it can be used to answer serious historical questions. And to top it off, at one point they showed portions of the main menu to show what certain german fighter planes looked like! *slams head again*. I would expect that the history channel could afford a picture of a messerschmidt.

3) They eroneously stated that the Polish ariforce was destroyed on the ground on the first day of the September Campaign. which is false. The airforce was dispersed and remained efective throughout the campaign, inflicting heavy losses on the germans. (from the german point of view). however, much like the ground campaign, they were simply overwhemed by superior numbers.

In short the whole epoisode looked like it was put together on a shoestring budget and at the last minute. The main point of the episode - that it was the RAF integrated 'Fighter Command' with a multilayered defense - was the significant factor in the british victory in the Battle of Britan is sound. however the presentation of the episode has the effect of marginalizing this otherwise good argument.

[LurchGS]

I've not read anything by W. Urban. Looking him up on BN com, he seems most interested in 15th century baltic history than Poland specifically.

I'm not an expert - I just know that Dr Urban has been flown to Poland BY Poland (the govt, museums, schools) a fair number of times for his input into something (I suppose I should find out...)

God's Playground by norman davies is pretty much the standard for western readers.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...31128177&itm=3

davies' has made a career out of writing about poland

other books i would suggest include The Polish Way by Adam Zamoyski
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...81802008&itm=1
which is a nice single volume, an easy read and accesible and

bitter glory by Richard M. Watt
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...60709971&itm=1
which is an excellent acountof poland in the interwar years (1919-39)

Bitter Glory especially dos a good job of presenting several angles on the history.


Getting back to 'bad history', the industry leader in bad history on television, the History Channel, was at it again. Last night they had an episode of Battlefield Detectives on - the battle of Britan. I just couldn't look at it seriously! Here's why:

1) to illustrate the map of germany taking over europe, they colored in countries as the germans overran them. Only they used a map OF MODERN DAY EUROPE! *slams head into wall*.

ouch - that's not right - though you can imagine why they did it - what american child of today would recognise pre-war europe?

2) their 'hi-tech computer graphics' was a televised version of Electronic Arcade's game 'European Air War'. While I understand that computer games are becoming more lifelike, realistic and use a better physics model it really hasn't gotten to the point where it can be used to answer serious historical questions. And to top it off, at one point they showed portions of the main menu to show what certain german fighter planes looked like! *slams head again*. I would expect that the history channel could afford a picture of a messerschmidt.

ok, that is REALLY deep. I wonder if this was actually a HC production, or if they bought some grad student's product.

3) They eroneously stated that the Polish ariforce was destroyed on the ground on the first day of the September Campaign. which is false. The airforce was dispersed and remained efective throughout the campaign, inflicting heavy losses on the germans. (from the german point of view). however, much like the ground campaign, they were simply overwhemed by superior numbers.

In short the whole epoisode looked like it was put together on a shoestring budget and at the last minute. The main point of the episode - that it was the RAF integrated 'Fighter Command' with a multilayered defense - was the significant factor in the british victory in the Battle of Britan is sound. however the presentation of the episode has the effect of marginalizing this otherwise good argument.

Another thing I rarely see mentioned in any discussion of WWII history - Bletchley Park - while it WAS the site of the breaking of many of the german codes, it's rarely brought to light that the 'Bomb' (the computer that did most of the work) was a Polish invention smuggled into England. This piece of gear was insanely important to the allied victory, but it's nearly never mentioned

(you are not alone in swearing at the HC - Mom is a professional historian, Dad a very good ammateur - more than once they've fired off missives to the HC when something they consider glaring makes it past the board)

[hewhocaves]

I'm not an expert - I just know that Dr Urban has been flown to Poland BY Poland (the govt, museums, schools) a fair number of times for his input into something (I suppose I should find out...)

i'm not saying he's good or bad. i'll try to pick up something by him and see if he's a good read :-) I like to feel immersed by the historical authors i read - the ones that i picked i think are entertaining as well as informative. your mileage may vary.

ouch - that's not right - though you can imagine why they did it - what american child of today would recognise pre-war europe?

yeah, well. then we need to fix the children, agreed? (stupid 15 second culture)

ok, that is REALLY deep. I wonder if this was actually a HC production, or if they bought some grad student's product.

undergrad, more like. it was bad. and i'm better at the game than the jokers they had playing it LOL.

Another thing I rarely see mentioned in any discussion of WWII history - Bletchley Park - while it WAS the site of the breaking of many of the german codes, it's rarely brought to light that the 'Bomb' (the computer that did most of the work) was a Polish invention smuggled into England. This piece of gear was insanely important to the allied victory, but it's nearly never mentioned

ah! excelltent point!

(you are not alone in swearing at the HC - Mom is a professional historian, Dad a very good ammateur - more than once they've fired off missives to the HC when something they consider glaring makes it past the board)

yeah, the day after thanksgiving is apparantly lowest common denominator day. HC had a UFO block on most of the day. apparantly, the consumption of turkey makes us all stupid, in their opinion. if you want to look for the bad history there... it's in the deciison to air that dreck!

and that is why i have hundreds of actual books crammed into my tiny apartment.

[Parrothead]

I have a copy of Davies' Heart of Europe: A Short History of Poland from a E. European history course I took in university about 15 years ago.

Another thing I rarely see mentioned in any discussion of WWII history - Bletchley Park - while it WAS the site of the breaking of many of the german codes, it's rarely brought to light that the 'Bomb' (the computer that did most of the work) was a Polish invention smuggled into England. This piece of gear was insanely important to the allied victory, but it's nearly never mentioned

It is mentioned in William Stevenson's book A Man Called Intrepid (a movie was made in the 70's, starring David Niven). They managed to get the machine out, a week before the German invasion in 1939.

[hewhocaves]

I have a copy of Davies' Heart of Europe: A Short History of Poland from a E. European history course I took in university about 15 years ago.

Fascinating stuff, no doubt. And they certainly did muff their chance sometime in the 1500s.

As for the Bletchley Park thing, I'm not surprised. Battles and big events often grab the front page. Personally, I was very surprised when the 50th anniversary Warsaw Uprising was covered fairly well in the US. That's a desperate story if you want to read one (not the ghetto one, the big uprising in 44').

But yeah, when you're trapped between the sickle and the swastika you kind have a real need to know what your neighbors are up to. Another contributing factor to the reliance on intelligence was that it was realtively cheap GNP-wise. Interstingly enough, Poland was making fairly decent military equipment, but was selling it off to other countires to help stabilize the economy (there was a depression on, after all). One of the underlying points of why this all happened in 39' was that the Germans were fairly close to completing their armament goals while Poland was still three or four years away.

Oh, and it didn't help that there was a drought.

John

[jaydeehess]

Has anyone read the fiction "Cryptonomicon"? One of the heroes is a code breaker in WW2. I was curious just how much license was taken with actual history in that book. The math is all OK.

[Graham2001]

It is mentioned in William Stevenson's book A Man Called Intrepid (a movie was made in the 70's, starring David Niven). They managed to get the machine out, a week before the German invasion in 1939.

I'd be careful trusting A Man Called Intrepid, according to Nigel Wests Counterfeit Spies, William Stevenson played 'fast & loose' with some of the facts.

[Duane]

Next time you're in 1865 you'll have to try it.

Wouldn't it just be easier to get a 1860's era gun and try shooting a mansized target from 50 yards?

I don't think it's impossible either, it would just be really really hard.

[CRHTO]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned before ...

Has anyone here heard of Anatoly T Fomenko and his book History: Science or Fiction?

[Walrus]

Fomenko is certainly......... imaginative. His "New Chronology" is the historical equivalent of the many bizarre conspiracy theories that are regularly discussed on this board. I recall reading somewhere that in the 1980s the Soviet academic establishment grew increasingly distressed with his theories, which are in violation not only of established scientific and archaeological evidence but also of official Marxist-Leninist doctrine. (In the Soviet Union, history was regarded as a science- my copy of the official Soviet history was published by the "USSR Academy of Sciences Institute of History.") Ultimately he became a popular writer with a distinctly Russian nationalist bent. I personally don't know of any reputable historians who think that Fomenko's "theory" is even worth an in-depth rebuttal, although someone has probably bothered at some point. It's obscure enough in the U.S. that I doubt any of my history professors here have heard about it. It's not as well-known as Gavin Menzies' work, which I got to publically debunk a few years ago.

[CRHTO]

Fomenko is certainly......... imaginative. His "New Chronology" is the historical equivalent of the many bizarre conspiracy theories that are regularly discussed on this board. I recall reading somewhere that in the 1980s the Soviet academic establishment grew increasingly distressed with his theories, which are in violation not only of established scientific and archaeological evidence but also of official Marxist-Leninist doctrine. (In the Soviet Union, history was regarded as a science- my copy of the official Soviet history was published by the "USSR Academy of Sciences Institute of History.") Ultimately he became a popular writer with a distinctly Russian nationalist bent. I personally don't know of any reputable historians who think that Fomenko's "theory" is even worth an in-depth rebuttal, although someone has probably bothered at some point. It's obscure enough in the U.S. that I doubt any of my history professors here have heard about it. It's not as well-known as Gavin Menzies' work, which I got to publically debunk a few years ago.

I had never heard of it until the author (or one of his supporters, I don't remember) came to speak at my university last year. Apparently he was invited by a professor emeritus of mathematics. My Roman history professor told us about it and we all had a good scoff at it. There were a fair number of people at Fomenko's lecture that took him quite seriously, though, from what I heard.

Where did you get an official Soviet history? I want one! Buried in a box somewhere I have a biography of Che Guevara published by a soviet press, but I've never had a chance to read through it.

[Disinfo Agent]

In the Soviet Union, history was regarded as a science-

It's regarded as a science outside the Soviet Union, too.

[Walrus]

I bought my Soviet history from a used book store in St. Petersburg. It's in 11 volumes (it's supposed to have 12- I'm not sure what became of the last one.) Unless you read Russian, I'm not sure how much use it would be to you. Mine was printed during the Brezhnev era, but there's an earlier Stalin-era equivalent that I've seen in a research library. I had a real adventure mailing it home- anyone who's ever been in a Russian post office will know why.

As for Disinfo Agent's comment, I respectfully disagree. I personally come from an academic background (the William and Mary history department) that firmly classifies history as one of the humanities, rather than as a social science. While some of the work that historians do (like establish chronologies) might be regarded as scientific, much of the more interesting work professional historians do does not satisfy falsifiability. For instance, there is a universal historical consensus that the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945; but there is an utterly vitriolic, decades-old argument as to exactly why the US government chose to do this. Unless some "scientific" method is found to determine what people were thinking 60 years ago is found, and a way to evaluate exactly what the interplay of various human actors in making the decision is invented, any historian writing on the subject will be reduced at least partially to speculation. This particular example erupted into open political conflict in the mid-1990s when the Air & Space Museum put the Enola Gay on display, and no one could agree on an "official" narrative to present with the plane. In the end, they settled on no narrative, just to stem the political outcry. Although I wish that history could be a science (as it would make my life much easier), it isn't one.

[Disinfo Agent]

As for Disinfo Agent's comment, I respectfully disagree. I personally come from an academic background (the William and Mary history department) that firmly classifies history as one of the humanities, rather than as a social science. While some of the work that historians do (like establish chronologies) might be regarded as scientific, much of the more interesting work professional historians do does not satisfy falsifiability. For instance, there is a universal historical consensus that the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945; but there is an utterly vitriolic, decades-old argument as to exactly why the US government chose to do this. Unless some "scientific" method is found to determine what people were thinking 60 years ago is found, and a way to evaluate exactly what the interplay of various human actors in making the decision is invented, any historian writing on the subject will be reduced at least partially to speculation.

And a method has been found. Look at the records. Look at the circumstances of the time. Look at the alternative procedures, and what they would have entailed. Argue for/against. Await criticism and further evidence.
It seems to me that this is exactly what geology and paleontology do. Are they not sciences, in your opinion?

[Walrus]

There is a problem with the "historical sciences" that they don't satisfy falsifiability very well. Still, paleontology and geology have a distinct advantage over history in that they provide overarching theories that describe past and present natural processes. In paleontology, it's evolution. In geology, it's concepts like plate tectonics. Unfortunately, an over-arching "theory of history" is elusive, and past contenders (like Marxism) have had unintended consequences, to say the least. Karl Popper railed against the idea of a predictive theory of history (he called it "historicism"- he was concerned about Leninism and Fascism, which both had this characteristic). Although geology and paleontology rely on guesswork, their practitioners have a "road map." Sadly, historians do not. In the abscence of well-established principles of historical development, equivalent to those in historical sciences such as paleontology and geology, I believe it is misleading to call history a science. If one is willing to excuse a "science" from the criteria of testability could history be referred to as such.

Unfortunately, it's not a simple as just "looking at the records." It's a matter of interpreting them, and this is where things get hairy. In the case of Hiroshima, the historical records aren't clear, as the various officials involved had a variety of opinions and attitudes regarding the bomb's use. Meanwhile, the only way to evaluate "alternative procedures" is to argue from a counterfactual standpoint, which, while seductive, is ultimately impossible. There's no way to prove anyone's counterfactual scenario false. With Hiroshima, the argument generally revolves around the number of US casualties in a hypothetical invasion of the Japanese home islands. Those who believe that the bomb shouldn't have been dropped quote contemporary sources who said the invasion would only cost 30,000-70,000 US casualties, while apologists for the bomb argue that US casualities would have exceeded 1 million. As the invasion never happened, we can only speculate- there is no way to definitively evaluate the "no bomb" scenario. Like I said, I really wish that it was as simple as just quoting contemporary sources. But a historical scenario isn't just a math problem we can evaluate- at some point, it comes down to utter speculation. In these cases- and the bombing of Hiroshima is a perfect example- different groups of historians spend their entire careers arguing one side or the other. It becomes a case of "he said, she said," because the evidence for a more definitive argument doesn't exist. The "discussion" devolves into a vitriolic festival of name-calling.

Given this troubling dimension of historical study, it's little wonder that so many historians have eschewed positivist conceptions of reality. While I wholeheartedly disagree with the antiscientific bent of many modern historians, history is not a science in anything but the most generous sense."

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

The Question, A-Bomb, Or No A-Bomb, Becomes Easy, If you Remember, Three Things:

1. Unlike with Normandy, The Japanese, Knew EXACTLY, Where we Would Be Landing, on The Island of Kyushu; There Simply Aren't, That Many, Suitable Locations.
2. They Had Trained, Kamikaze Pilots, To Dive on Loaded Transports; Japanese Estimates, Were That they Would, Take Out, At Least, a Division, If Not Two, That Way.
3. Also, The Civillian Populace, Was Readied to Fight, Guerrilla Warfare, To a Level, Not Even Experienced, Later, in Vietnam; They were Even Taught, to Kick an Allied Soldier, In The Groin, To Incapacitate him.

Estimates, Made at The Time, Anticipated Losses, Equal to What Instead, Befell Hiroshima, For Each Side, Per Month, If Not Weekly!!!!

Add to That, Fears that The Soviets, Would Invade Hokkaido, And Therefore, Have a Say, In Post-War Japan, As they Already Did, In Germany, And, you Have a Recipe, For a Kill As Many, As you Can, War-Winning Weapon:

Ergo, The Atomic Bomb!!!

[hewhocaves]

I'm going to agree with Walrus on this one. History is not a hard science like physics or geology and it has trouble being a "soft" science as well. (actually, all of the soft sciences have problems, hence their 'softness'.)

Part of the problem, especially when determining intent, lies in the data. With the geological record, you can at least presume that the intent of the record is factual. geology isn't trying to disorient you intentionally. Trilobites don't pop up in the Pliestocene.

But can you say that about every historical document, especially when determining intent? Could you honestly believe that every government memo, every private diary doesn't have the possibility of being ironic, deceptive or coy? Can you be certain that what the writer wrote was his honest thoughts, or something simply to placate his superiors?

Furthermore, conclusions which seem obviously clear today may not have been clear at the time. People have been known to hesitate needlessly or jump ahead carelessly.

Lastly, whole reams of history have been intentionally subverted and/or destroyed. There has been (and still is) outright censorship. And people can change positions instantly and over a whim. Taken together all these things mean that history just can't be held up to the same standards - it's too complex and irreduceable. even if you knew what everyone was thinking at the present moment, you could not extrapolate our future for the next hundred years. Because, remember, that is another function of science - to be able to predict specifically based on current theorey.

john

[hewhocaves]

Add to That, Fears that The Soviets, Would Invade Hokkaido, And Therefore, Have a Say, In Post-War Japan, As they Already Did, In Germany, And, you Have a Recipe, For a Kill As Many, As you Can, War-Winning Weapon:

Ergo, The Atomic Bomb!!!

btw.. following that line of reasoning, we should have been able to project our nuclear supremecy into taking over all of europe. after all, we had the technology and the capability for continued production of the atomic bomb. in the short term we should have been able to leverage that into pushing the soviets back into russia.

clearly, the "war winning bomb" is not, in and of itself, a war winner. I think you'll find that the answer lies more in the American idea of ending wars nicely and neatly. There's a big explosion, a parade and every one goes home. It's almost as if hollywood scripted it. It's very sellable to the public.

John

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

btw.. following that line of reasoning, we should have been able to project our nuclear supremecy into taking over all of europe. after all, we had the technology and the capability for continued production of the atomic bomb. in the short term we should have been able to leverage that into pushing the soviets back into russia.

We Should Have!!!

If Patton, Hadn't Discredited himself, Followed By his Death, After Being Hit By a Car, we Just, Might Have!!!

World War II, Left the Western Allies, Especially The United States, In EXACTLY The Same Positon, As Nazi Germany, Had Been After The Invasion of Poland; a Powerful Army, Tempered By Combat, With Resources Captured, From a Technologically Advanced Enemy ....

The Soviets, On The Other Hand, Had an Army On Its Last Legs, With Most Of their Millitary Aged Men, Laying Either Dead or Dying, In Fact, Fully 80%, Of Russian Men Born In 1923, Were Already In The Ground, Most Of them, Probably Killed As Teenagers, In The Suicidal Battles, of 1941.

Also, To Make The Soviet Situation, Even Worse, The Germans Intentionally Surrendered, The Choice Artifacts, To The West, Thus Making themselves, Too Useful, to Execute, a la Wehrner von Braun!

clearly, the "war winning bomb" is not, in and of itself, a war winner. I think you'll find that the answer lies more in the American idea of ending wars nicely and neatly. There's a big explosion, a parade and every one goes home. It's almost as if hollywood scripted it. It's very sellable to the public.

John

Unfortunately However, This Is Also True ...

Such a War, Would Probably Have Followed American Occupation, of Japan and Southern Korea, And Involved an Invasion, From Both Ends, of The Soviet Union, at Once ...

The Form, It Would Have Taken, Would Most Likely, Have Been a Blitzkrieg Style Encirclement, Followed By a Threat to Use Nuclear Weapons, On Populated Areas ...

If Done Correctly, Probably After, The Nuclear Destruction of Moscow, The Soviets Most Likely, Would Have Agreed To a Retreat, To The Pre-1939 Frontiers, If Only, So they Could Better Respond, To Ukrainian Nationalists, Even Then Rising, In the Forrests, Around Kiev!!!

[Disinfo Agent]

There is a problem with the "historical sciences" that they don't satisfy falsifiability very well. Still, paleontology and geology have a distinct advantage over history in that they provide overarching theories that describe past and present natural processes. In paleontology, it's evolution. In geology, it's concepts like plate tectonics. Unfortunately, an over-arching "theory of history" is elusive, and past contenders (like Marxism) have had unintended consequences, to say the least. Karl Popper railed against the idea of a predictive theory of history (he called it "historicism"- he was concerned about Leninism and Fascism, which both had this characteristic).

Note that, although we can say that the theory of evolution in general does describe the past, the present and the future, paleontology per se only concerns itself with the past.

I am familiar with Popper's ideas, but what he criticises is historicism, the notion that history progresses in a well-defined, general direction (as in feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism). I don't think he ever denies that history can be a science, as long as it concerns itself with the accurate description of the details of the past, rather than trying to identify broad trends to predict the future.

I do agree that history is a very special science, if nothing else because we can never travel back in time, to test our reconstructions of the past. We must rely on indirect evidence and lots of interpretation. But then, all we know about electrons is though indirect observation, too.

Although geology and paleontology rely on guesswork, their practitioners have a "road map."

What road map is that?

In the abscence of well-established principles of historical development, equivalent to those in historical sciences such as paleontology and geology, I believe it is misleading to call history a science. If one is willing to excuse a "science" from the criteria of testability could history be referred to as such.

I disagree that history is not subject to falsification. A new document that is discovered, a new archeological find, can refute an existing theory.

Unfortunately, it's not a simple as just "looking at the records." It's a matter of interpreting them, and this is where things get hairy.

Of course, no science is ever as simple as looking at the data. There is always interpretation.

In the case of Hiroshima, the historical records aren't clear, as the various officials involved had a variety of opinions and attitudes regarding the bomb's use. Meanwhile, the only way to evaluate "alternative procedures" is to argue from a counterfactual standpoint, which, while seductive, is ultimately impossible. There's no way to prove anyone's counterfactual scenario false.

With Hiroshima, the argument generally revolves around the number of US casualties in a hypothetical invasion of the Japanese home islands. Those who believe that the bomb shouldn't have been dropped quote contemporary sources who said the invasion would only cost 30,000-70,000 US casualties, while apologists for the bomb argue that US casualities would have exceeded 1 million. As the invasion never happened, we can only speculate- there is no way to definitively evaluate the "no bomb" scenario.

There's no way to prove anything in science, as a rule. What we do is gather evidence that either supports or contradicts our theories.

Like I said, I really wish that it was as simple as just quoting contemporary sources. But a historical scenario isn't just a math problem we can evaluate- at some point, it comes down to utter speculation.

I agree, but, as I wrote above, no natural science is ever as simple as quoting a source or solving a math problem. (Not that solving a math problem is necessarily trivial.)

In these cases- and the bombing of Hiroshima is a perfect example- different groups of historians spend their entire careers arguing one side or the other. It becomes a case of "he said, she said," because the evidence for a more definitive argument doesn't exist. The "discussion" devolves into a vitriolic festival of name-calling.

Then it has ceased to be a discussion over history.

Given this troubling dimension of historical study, it's little wonder that so many historians have eschewed positivist conceptions of reality. While I wholeheartedly disagree with the antiscientific bent of many modern historians, history is not a science in anything but the most generous sense."

Again, I disagree. It's a very special science, with very special restrictions and caveats attached to it, but it is a science.

[Disinfo Agent]

I'm going to agree with Walrus on this one. History is not a hard science like physics or geology and it has trouble being a "soft" science as well. (actually, all of the soft sciences have problems, hence their 'softness'.)

Part of the problem, especially when determining intent, lies in the data. With the geological record, you can at least presume that the intent of the record is factual. geology isn't trying to disorient you intentionally. Trilobites don't pop up in the Pliestocene.

But can you say that about every historical document, especially when determining intent? Could you honestly believe that every government memo, every private diary doesn't have the possibility of being ironic, deceptive or coy? Can you be certain that what the writer wrote was his honest thoughts, or something simply to placate his superiors?

Furthermore, conclusions which seem obviously clear today may not have been clear at the time. People have been known to hesitate needlessly or jump ahead carelessly.

Do you honestly believe that good historians aren't aware of those problems?

Lastly, whole reams of history have been intentionally subverted and/or destroyed. There has been (and still is) outright censorship.

In most of the world today, I think the main problem in history is not outside censorship, but the biases of historians themselves. However, that problem also exists in other sciences.

And people can change positions instantly and over a whim. Taken together all these things mean that history just can't be held up to the same standards - it's too complex and irreduceable. even if you knew what everyone was thinking at the present moment, you could not extrapolate our future for the next hundred years. Because, remember, that is another function of science - to be able to predict specifically based on current theorey.

That's not history. It's historicism.

Think about the following questions:

- Can biology predict which species will be around in a hundred years?
- Can chemistry predict where a molecule will be in a hundred years?
- Can physics predict for how long Saturn will have rings?

[Walrus]

"It's a very special science, with very special restrictions and caveats attached to it, but it is a science."

I think this actually makes my point perfectly. History can only be a "science" when one makes special excuses for it. I personally think it's unfair to the definition of "science" to include a field like history, which is in practice a generally unscientific endeavor. "Indirect evidence" for things like electrons is very different than historical evidence, because electrons behave consistently; human actors do not. The problem is that most historical "theories" are not falsifiable for one reason or another. Take, for instance, the argument over the provenance Beowulf. There's only one manuscript, and there's no reason to believe that any new Old English manuscripts will ever be available. Specialists have spent the last two centuries poring over the manuscript and every related piece of material, hoping to establish Beowulf's provenance. But in history, there are no "smoking guns"- and because of this, perfectly well-informed and competent scholars have come to very different conclusions, and there is no satisfactory way to dismiss their contradictory claims. Beowulf is such an unusual artifact that it its provenance has vital implications for understanding the nature of Anglo-Saxon culture, but we have no way of disproving anything but the more outrageous claims that have been made about it. Because certain vital points of history lack falsifiable evidence, we are stuck at the level of conjecture indefinitely. I hate to make the comparison, but history is only a science in the sense that "Intelligent Design" is- only when one is allowed to operate on a principle of "I don't understand how this happened, so I'll invent causal relationships in the abscence of evidence" can they be considered "science."

"We Should Have!!!"

This counterfactual scenario is out of touch with the political and military realities of 1945. Roosevelt accepted the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe because there was nothing that really could be done about it. If the Soviet army had really been so drained and useless, I don't see why the western allies would have requested Soviet assistance in the Pacific. Another major problem is that the political will simply didn't exist for an anti-Soviet war in 1945. The American populace was tired of the war, and the Soviets were our allies at the time. Although many figures in the US military were deeply distrustful of Communism, an unprovoked aggressive war against the Red Army was not something that the US government would approve.

[Disinfo Agent]

"It's a very special science, with very special restrictions and caveats attached to it, but it is a science."

I think this actually makes my point perfectly. History can only be a "science" when one makes special excuses for it.

Except I wrote "restrictions", not "excuses".

I personally think it's unfair to the definition of "science" to include a field like history, which is in practice a generally unscientific endeavor. "Indirect evidence" for things like electrons is very different than historical evidence, because electrons behave consistently; human actors do not.

I do agree that history involves a different kind of evidence, even a different methodology, than the natural sciences.

The problem is that most historical "theories" are not falsifiable for one reason or another. Take, for instance, the argument over the provenance Beowulf. There's only one manuscript, and there's no reason to believe that any new Old English manuscripts will ever be available. Specialists have spent the last two centuries poring over the manuscript and every related piece of material, hoping to establish Beowulf's provenance. But in history, there are no "smoking guns"- and because of this, perfectly well-informed and competent scholars have come to very different conclusions, and there is no satisfactory way to dismiss their contradictory claims. Beowulf is such an unusual artifact that it its provenance has vital implications for understanding the nature of Anglo-Saxon culture, but we have no way of disproving anything but the more outrageous claims that have been made about it. Because certain vital points of history lack falsifiable evidence, we are stuck at the level of conjecture indefinitely.

There may well be things science will never understand in other fields of knowledge, too. E.g.:

- What's inside a black hole?
- Did anything exist before the Big Bang?
- What caused the unusual axial tilt of Uranus?

I hate to make the comparison, but history is only a science in the sense that "Intelligent Design" is- only when one is allowed to operate on a principle of "I don't understand how this happened, so I'll invent causal relationships in the abscence of evidence" can they be considered "science."

I vehemently disagree. ID is, essentially, a "God in the gaps" argument. History is nothing of the sort.

"We Should Have!!!"

This counterfactual scenario is out of touch with the political and military realities of 1945. Roosevelt accepted the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe because there was nothing that really could be done about it. If the Soviet army had really been so drained and useless, I don't see why the western allies would have requested Soviet assistance in the Pacific. Another major problem is that the political will simply didn't exist for an anti-Soviet war in 1945. The American populace was tired of the war, and the Soviets were our allies at the time. Although many figures in the US military were deeply distrustful of Communism, an unprovoked aggressive war against the Red Army was not something that the US government would approve.

Since you apparently believe that history is nothing more than an arbitrary reconstruction of the past according to certain preconceptions of the historian, I take it what you wrote about WWII above is all, strictly, an arbitrary reconstruction molded on your preconceptions. Is this right?

[Walrus]

The "We Should Have" and what follows is a reference to what ZaphodBeeblebrox said in his post.

I do not believe that history is "arbitrary," but I'm familiar with what actual historians do. Being familiar with science as well, I do not feel that it is honest to conflate the two. While I wish that history was a science, so much of history is untestable that I believe it is better categorized as one of the humanities than as a science. Decades ago, when positivism was more popular in the academy, there was such a thing as "scientific history"- but it died out. I personally believe that this was due to its failure to live up to its billing. The work that these historians did was just as marred by preconception and bias as those of their less "scientific" peers. I like, even love, science, but I'm not willing to cut corners to categorize history as a science. It's not fair to either science or history to conflate the two.

[Disinfo Agent]

Decades ago, when positivism was more popular in the academy, there was such a thing as "scientific history"- but it died out. I personally believe that this was due to its failure to live up to its billing. The work that these historians did was just as marred by preconception and bias as those of their less "scientific" peers.

That's why I don't give much credence to labels. I'm especially skeptical of fields which make a question of naming themselves "scientific".