I was looking at a world history book this morning and noticed the same thing happened again and again: A strong king, emperor or whatever comes up leads the empire to awesomeness and is suceedeed by a crappier king where the empire falls. There are other recurring themes that I thought could be avoided. So I wondered if any of the ancients studied history and new they were making the same mistake. I know that the rigorous historical process was invented by the greeks (herododus I think but I am not sure) but I don't know how deep that analysis was.
Did the ancients study history
I believe they were very well aware of the history..
A King becomes great not only on his ability but also on the trust gained among the People/ministers around him.
and always, history was biased towards the winners of the war.
Dont think.. History as a fancy story.. Match it up with the current life style..
One can notice... crap people ascends thrown when some better people deserves it...
A King becomes great not only on his ability but also on the trust gained among the People/ministers around him.
and always, history was biased towards the winners of the war.
Dont think.. History as a fancy story.. Match it up with the current life style..
One can notice... crap people ascends thrown when some better people deserves it...
I think the ancients studied history. However, I believe they studied in a different way than we do now. They probably studied it similarily to just learning what happened.
As far as the king thing goes, I believe the sons of a king were probably spoiled and therefore were not good or trusted rulers. I wouldn't trust a young person who had been babied his whole time
-kevin
As far as the king thing goes, I believe the sons of a king were probably spoiled and therefore were not good or trusted rulers. I wouldn't trust a young person who had been babied his whole time
-kevin
yes I do think the ancients studied history, The reason I say so is because I belive civilization won't progress if one has knowledge about successes and failures of past. It's like if I don't have knowledge of past inventions and discoveries then I would have to start from scratch but if I do have knowledge then I would attain the objective easier.
The history also proves this, see the harappan, etc civilization and see now,....it all got better with time. So I think that ancients studied history because it is essential for one's survival in futere and we are surviving is enough of proof for this!
The history also proves this, see the harappan, etc civilization and see now,....it all got better with time. So I think that ancients studied history because it is essential for one's survival in futere and we are surviving is enough of proof for this!
By this argument, few people at all have ever studied history, because history tends to repeat itself over and over again into modern times.
Example: Napoleon's France invades Russia, loses miserably. A little over a century later, Hitler's Germany invades Russia and faces the same problems - lack of food/resources, loss of mobility, unbearable cold.
Example: In the 1960's and 70's, the US military fails to defeat insurgents in Vietnam. In the 1980's, Russia invades Afghanistan in an equally pointless, bloody, and unpopular move.
Certainly the ancients studied history. Although the written study of history began with the Greeks and Herodotus, other cultures probably made use of oral traditions to keep their history alive (think Homer's epic poems). Egyptians kept records of dynastic rule through hieroglyphics on pyramids and tombs.
Although "history" would not necessarily be the same as we see it today (i.e. they probably didn't care much about social history, ethno-centric histories, etc), they certainly would have been interested in political histories. The educated populations were also the ruling populations, so they would have studied history in order to leran how to rule.
People often think that their situation is new or unique, though, so they ignore the lessons of history. This continues to happen today, and it may not be obvious that the "wrong" move was taken until much later.
- Walkere
Example: Napoleon's France invades Russia, loses miserably. A little over a century later, Hitler's Germany invades Russia and faces the same problems - lack of food/resources, loss of mobility, unbearable cold.
Example: In the 1960's and 70's, the US military fails to defeat insurgents in Vietnam. In the 1980's, Russia invades Afghanistan in an equally pointless, bloody, and unpopular move.
Certainly the ancients studied history. Although the written study of history began with the Greeks and Herodotus, other cultures probably made use of oral traditions to keep their history alive (think Homer's epic poems). Egyptians kept records of dynastic rule through hieroglyphics on pyramids and tombs.
Although "history" would not necessarily be the same as we see it today (i.e. they probably didn't care much about social history, ethno-centric histories, etc), they certainly would have been interested in political histories. The educated populations were also the ruling populations, so they would have studied history in order to leran how to rule.
People often think that their situation is new or unique, though, so they ignore the lessons of history. This continues to happen today, and it may not be obvious that the "wrong" move was taken until much later.
- Walkere
Yeah, I agree. A lot of the more "modern" leaders and the people around them didn't read their history books, and so royally screwed up more than once or twice. Heh, look at our current situation in America...
But these ancients that you're talking about, what side of the world are you referring to, and are you talking about the royalty/nobles, or the commoners? Because obviously, the commoners are going to be illiterate/working every moment of their lives for food, so they're not going to know or even give a poo about what happened before their time, or in another country, even. I suppose the nobles/royalty that did read and weren't attending parties/spending all of their time enjoying luxuries would know something of the past, but it's not up to them to speak out. After all, their life is fine the way it is. If the royal line did mess up in the past, I'm sure they're not going to dwell on it because they have the POWER OF THE SUN.
But these ancients that you're talking about, what side of the world are you referring to, and are you talking about the royalty/nobles, or the commoners? Because obviously, the commoners are going to be illiterate/working every moment of their lives for food, so they're not going to know or even give a poo about what happened before their time, or in another country, even. I suppose the nobles/royalty that did read and weren't attending parties/spending all of their time enjoying luxuries would know something of the past, but it's not up to them to speak out. After all, their life is fine the way it is. If the royal line did mess up in the past, I'm sure they're not going to dwell on it because they have the POWER OF THE SUN.
Yes they had historians but the real question is did they learn from their past? The answer is the same as did our countries learn from their past? The simple answer is no.
I think they did study history but I don't think everyone did. And probably scholars who did study it were punished by the emperor/king when they suggest something better but was against the emperor/king's ideas.
History is written by the winers, so it is very biased. It is not an objective science.
Who decides about strong king or crappy king? It is decided by end result of their actions. But the result of their rule is not just the product of their own actions. there are may other factors involved. There were many kings who were not so great but luck favored them and ended up considered great. e.g. Alexander the great.
Remember ... History belongs to the winner.
Remember ... History belongs to the winner.
| dwinton wrote: |
| I was looking at a world history book this morning and noticed the same thing happened again and again: A strong king, emperor or whatever comes up leads the empire to awesomeness and is suceedeed by a crappier king where the empire falls. There are other recurring themes that I thought could be avoided. So I wondered if any of the ancients studied history and new they were making the same mistake. I know that the rigorous historical process was invented by the greeks (herododus I think but I am not sure) but I don't know how deep that analysis was. |
I think that for the most part when a strong ruler took over in the past, they erased all history of previous emperors in order for them to create a vision in which they were the only emperor that ever existed. In china especially, they burned an extremely large quantity of texts regarding the past.
However, I think that with the onset of philosophical discussions with Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle leading the way, that area of the world at the time began to remember the past mistakes and learn from them.
Don't forget that some rulers thought they were divine and unable to fail, as in the case of the pharaohs.
However, I think that with the onset of philosophical discussions with Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle leading the way, that area of the world at the time began to remember the past mistakes and learn from them.
Don't forget that some rulers thought they were divine and unable to fail, as in the case of the pharaohs.
Don't forget a few things as well:
1) Hitler went after Russia specifically because he knew his history; he wanted to show people that he was Emperor of Europe, and the last one (Napoleon) had succeeded in all ways but one (taking Russia), and Hitler wanted to show that he was better than Napoleon. So sometimes knowing the history isn't as important as you think it is....
2) Don't assume that illiterate=ignorant. They still had an oral history, and could always get it from the local clergy. So history was still there...just not written down. That's why bards were so important.
3) "History was written by the winners" isn't as true as you would think. Sometimes it was written by the losers, especially when they were better at writing than the winners, or when the winners brought the losers into their society. Also, because we've gotten better at looking for different perspectives as well as being more skeptical, it's not as true as it once was....
FR
1) Hitler went after Russia specifically because he knew his history; he wanted to show people that he was Emperor of Europe, and the last one (Napoleon) had succeeded in all ways but one (taking Russia), and Hitler wanted to show that he was better than Napoleon. So sometimes knowing the history isn't as important as you think it is....
2) Don't assume that illiterate=ignorant. They still had an oral history, and could always get it from the local clergy. So history was still there...just not written down. That's why bards were so important.
3) "History was written by the winners" isn't as true as you would think. Sometimes it was written by the losers, especially when they were better at writing than the winners, or when the winners brought the losers into their society. Also, because we've gotten better at looking for different perspectives as well as being more skeptical, it's not as true as it once was....
FR
Well, 'learning from history', 'not repeating the past' etc., would seem to me only to be rhetorical peculiarities... With a, somehow farfetched, analogy in everyday relationships with the opposite sex, my personal experience is that what it comes down to, is the factors of the moment - not some objective concern on how the more or less similar situation was treated in the past... Check out the post on 'main causes of war' elsewhere in this forum - those causes, I guess, wont ever change as long as we can call ourselves human...
With this said, sure they studied history in the past... But a number of factors have changed, making it a different thing these days... After the invention of the printing press, the following newspaper industry, and other developing tendencies around that time, such as the awareness of 'time' as a thing in itself and the rise of nation-states, the need for history came to a new level. Its ability to bring people together, the possibility to create extended records of historical events in numerous copies, and through these records making people aroud the world aware that other people were living parallel lives...
With this said, sure they studied history in the past... But a number of factors have changed, making it a different thing these days... After the invention of the printing press, the following newspaper industry, and other developing tendencies around that time, such as the awareness of 'time' as a thing in itself and the rise of nation-states, the need for history came to a new level. Its ability to bring people together, the possibility to create extended records of historical events in numerous copies, and through these records making people aroud the world aware that other people were living parallel lives...
| Quote: |
| A strong king, emperor or whatever comes up leads the empire to awesomeness and is suceedeed by a crappier king where the empire falls. There are other recurring themes that I thought could be avoided. |
Are you sure that history repeats itself as it takes quite a strong and/or savvy king to conquer an empire. And it was not always by a crappier king. We have had extremely great leaders, great despots, many styles of leaders. Also war has taken on different faces over centuries, at the same time repelling but also enormously interesting and revealing of mankind.
I think some of the history is the same, but the facts are completely different. And there lies the real interest in history for me. The different stories. Some of the leaders have inspired me. Such as Canadian Prime Minister McKenzie King (1874-1950) who managed to contribute brilliantly during his lengthy 21-reign of Prime Minister in Canada. An amazing man with plenty of integrity. He created history in the making of Canada. His biography covers the most crucial chapters in Canada's history:
| Quote: |
| http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=33101 |
Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt (1858-1919) also inspired me with his gung-ho approach as well as showed loads of integrity in all his actions. Most of all he was a man who could make decisions, AND see them through.
Others leaders repelled me. Such as Hitler and Stalin. They represent great forces of darkness to me. They also have stories attached to them, but for me in the form of lessons definitely not to be repeated. Genocide. Think they represent the crappy kings of history. The worst ones.
| dwinton wrote: |
| I was looking at a world history book this morning and noticed the same thing happened again and again: A strong king, emperor or whatever comes up leads the empire to awesomeness and is suceedeed by a crappier king where the empire falls. There are other recurring themes that I thought could be avoided. So I wondered if any of the ancients studied history and new they were making the same mistake. I know that the rigorous historical process was invented by the greeks (herododus I think but I am not sure) but I don't know how deep that analysis was. |
I think what you need to understand is the result is the same but not necessarily the way it happened. Yes of course people in the past studied history, this is all part of human evolution. Just because we have no physical proof of its exsistance does not mean people before didnt study history - as stated before in the past we have had many reason for mass destruction of documents. Remember most of the world has been at war for the last 3000 years give or take, as to the best of our knowledge. So again even if certain civilizations had built up history only a small part of it will be passed on due to man made and natural disasters.
But what you have in your initial statement can be said for not only governments and such but almost anything, even football you see the same things. Teams rise and fall but the way it happens can be very different and for many reasons. Big teams become small, and small teams big.
 |