Since there was enough interest to have a new History Forum, I thought some people might be interested in asking a professional historian questions about being a historian and/or history. I’m not really sure what people might want to know, but I’d be happy to answer any questions. Ask away.

Dale

Why are certain rulers given the title "Great"? Alexander, Frederick, Peter, and Catherine certainly did not do anything remarkable to improve the lot of the people they ruled. Is it given purley on the basis of expansion of national territiory?

Edit: What particular fields of history are you well versed in over others i.e. American, World, Western Civ, Social, Political?

How do you know what texts to trust when you do research?

How do you know that records kept from back in the day are reliable?

I fell like people in power hundreds of years ago could get away with just about anything and record/omit what they wanted.

I'm not really sure how they get the title "Great." Somewhere along the line they got that title and it stuck. Frederick is the only one on your list that I know about on any real level. I'm not sure when he got the great title, but he is known for bringing Prussia into the realm of one of the great powers of Europe. So much so that Austria went from being the traditional enemy of France for hundreds of years to being the ally of France (b/c Austria was so concerned about growing Prussian dominance). This was formalized in what is known at the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756 when Austria and France became formal allies. For some persepctive, this would have been the equivalent of the US and USSR signing a formal alliance in the 1960s--it was unthinkable to most contemporaries. This deep hatred between the French and Austrians is one of the reasons Marie Antoinette was so hated by the French (she was Austrian and her marriage to the future Louis XVI was meant to solidify the alliance). All a result of Frederick and his policies. Frederick was also considered enlightened in that he had relationships with most of the Enlightenment philosophes.

To your larger point, titles like "great" are kind of silly, but they do tend to stick.

My primary research field is 18th-century France--Old Regime, Enlightenment, and French Revolution.

When doing research, a historian doesn't really "trust" any source. Every source, no matter how seemingly mundame, has an agenda. Every source is a text. A historian is always trying to piece together the larger context. In other words, it's not even particularly interesting to most historians whether or not a source is reliable, but rather how the source is positioning itself against other sources and their claims.

An example I like to give is a presidential debate. Obama and McCain had their own set of claims in 2008. If you listened to only Obama's responses to the debate questions, it would be completely skewed (or to McCain's). You can only understand the one by understanding that it is positioned against another specific source (the other candidate's claims in this case). By examining how the two positioned themselves, you can then start to understand each as a text. That's basically how historians analyze sources/texts. That tells you more about the source and the period/context it came from than the actual "facts" or whether or not it is reliable.

So, to better understand the larger context of the Peloponnesian War what relevant texts beside Thucydides should a professional history pursue? Or to put it another way - how would a historian interpret The Melian Dialogue, as related by Thucydides?


-Zeno

damn fine analogy.

what do you actually DO on a daily basis?

last couple projects you've worked on?

most/least favorite era?

do you wear a fedora?

I have no idea. I know very little about anceint Greece. I had to look up what the Melian Dialogue was. But I would think that one would want to think about Thucydides and what his agenda would be. You could then start to consider it from that perspective. You'd also want to look at any other writing from the time or shortly there after about the Peloponnesian War. You'd also want to look at things like art, sculpture, archeaology, architeture, etc. Can't really say anymore than that.

I would say this though, you would never look at one text in isolation and pretend that it reveals an objective reality. That's never the case. Whether it be Thucydides or Nixon's memoirs, every source is a text with an agenda of its own.

During the semester, I spend most of time preparing classes, grading, and doing committee work (university bureaucracy). During the summers, Christmas break, and spring break, I do research and write. Basically I read over all kinds of primary sources from eighteenth-century France along with all kinds of books and articles written by current historians. I then write up my research in the form of books or articles to have them published.

I'm currently working on a project about the development of modern financial institutions at the end of the Old Regime in France (1770s and ‘80s) through the French Revolution. I’m analyzing the ways in which the development of modern financial institutions intersected with the rise of modern political culture. So for example, one of the things I consider is the way in which publicly traded debt securities led to a more democratic political ideology which challenged absolutist political ideology leading into the French Revolution.

Eighteenth-century France is obviously my favorite topic. I LOVE teaching the French Revolution and Napoleon class. Not sure I really have a least favorite. I guess it would have to be 19th-century Europe generally.

I do not wear a fedora. I don’t do the elbow patches or anything like that. I do know people who dress like that and it drives me nuts. I’m not pompous or a jackass. I’m the most down to earth guy you’ll ever meet. Most summers I spend the night grilling a steak, drinking beer (Bud Light), and watching a baseball game.

Can you recommend some good books on the Napoleonic wars. Preferably between popular historical accounts (like War to end Wars by Harvey) and advanced textbooks.

I'm not too much into military history. Two books I assign, and students always enjoy, are:

David Bell, The First Total War

http://www.amazon.com/First-Total-Wa...3&sr=8-1-spell

and

Jakob Walter, The Diary of a Napoleonic Foot Soldier

http://www.amazon.com/Diary-Napoleon...9448807&sr=1-1

The latter book is short but an interesting account of a German soldier who marched into Russia with Napoleon. It gives you a great sense of the horror the French-led army faced. The vast majority of Napoleon's soldiers were forced conscripts from conquered Europe, btw.

Any historical movies (fiction/nonfiction) you've seen that you remember being very accurate or inaccurate? Do you find yourself being overly critical of these types of film?

Why didn't decimal time catch on?

Too big a change for people, who don´t see the point. The ten day week didn´t catch on either. My two cents.

I don’t really watch a lot of movies. And if I were to see a historical movie, it would likely be on a topic that I don’t know much about anyway, so I wouldn’t be able to comment on or notice the accuracy. If I do see a historical movie, I tend to take it as a fun movie and not worry too much about it.

The one movie that I do remember annoying me was the Marie Antoinette movie with Kristin Dunst. First, I just found it boring as a film, not interesting. But it also really annoyed me that it basically just portrays everything as fine one day and then the royal family being dragged back to Paris during the Revolution as if it were a sudden and spontaneous event without warning. That really annoyed me for some reason. I guess b/c it just left an entirely false perception of the Revolution to viewers. But whatever.

Basically, this. However, I would argue that most French sympathetic to the Revolution did see the point to it.

The decimal calendar is normally just referred to as the revolutionary calendar by French historians. It includes the ten-day week as well as 12 months with 3 ten-day weeks (with 5 extra days thrown in). They also entirely renamed the days and months, each one got a new Romanesque sounding name (to connote Roman republicanism). But even more important than that was that the new calendar represented an entirely new historical framework. The revolutionaries declared the new calendar as starting with Year I. The first day of this new chronology was the first day of the month of Vendémaire, Year I. The first day of this new calendar started on September 22, 1792 (old time). That was the day that the monarchy was abolished by the revolutionaries. Now keep in mind that previously the passing of time had been dictated by the birth of Christ (1,792 years since his birth). Now all time was told from the birth of the French Republic. The French Republic was now the defining historical moment by which all time would be told. It had a powerful symbolism, which people at the time did appreciate.

Having said all that, most people did keep using the traditional calendar. You really only see the revolutionary calendar used on official revolutionary documents. Even then, it is often side by side with the traditional calendar. It’s a major pain in the ass when you’re doing archival research, b/c you constantly have to try to reconvert it back to traditional time so it makes sense. Also, historians are constantly getting confused themselves by it. I find errors of conversion from revolutionary time to traditional time constantly in books and articles written by professional historians.

I do think it’s fun though, and love discussing it with students.

What do you think about counterfactual history?

Is your research more based on social history or the political history of the Old Regime and all other areas you study?

I don't know how's the study of history in college there. I'm from Brazil, and just graduated in history, but here we have two separate courses. Historian (researcher) or history teacher (that's what I did). Obviously these are not the specific names, I just put in a way you can understand.

Now I started a "post graduate" course in Culture and Religion in Ancient and Medieval History.

Where are you from, and how's the graduation system there? You did any kind of specialization?

Counterfactual history is not something historians really use. It’s pretty pointless. No one can know what would have happened had something else happened. Historians aren’t concerned with those kinds of questions. We analyze past cultures and events as they did happen (at least as best as we can understand). In a bygone era historians may have contemplated counterfactuals, but I don’t know any historian today that would ever consider them. They’re just not useful.

Is the siege of Paris too late for you? My great-great-great-uncle (I think - although this maybe a generation out either way) hot air ballooned out, under fire, to go on a diplomatic effort to end the war.

I actually try not to get bogged down in such categories. I think they unnecessarily limit one’s perspective. A big part of my work is to actually show how all these categories are inextricably intertwined. During the 1990s, cultural history was the key buzz word. Cultural history often looked down on things like social and economic history in favor of intellectual, political, and cultural history. A big part of my research is trying to show how political and economic history are thoroughly linked. So if you were to ask me what type of history I do, I would actually give that answer.

Congratulations on graduating! In the U.S. we don’t have such distinctions. Although about half of the history majors at my university are also education students, meaning they want to teach history in high schools. The other half will go on to other careers. The course work is the same in history, but the education students take a bunch of education classes as well.

I’m from the U.S. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by the graduation system. To be a history major, most universities require students to take 30 hours in history—about 10 classes in total. Few universities have a specialization for undergraduates. If you do a Ph.D. you will specialize. I do 18th-century France.

Good luck in your post graduate work.

By the siege of Paris, do you mean the Franco-Prussian War? I don’t really know much about it, but I’d be curious to hear more about your uncle’s story. Sounds cool. Most Americans don’t realize that WWII wasn’t the first time Germans occupied Paris.

Just to add on to this, how difficult is it to get a job nowadays as a history major? My little bro has passion to become a history teacher, but he is seriously reconsidering with the lack or jobs available. Is there any truth to the difficulty of getting a teaching position and what are other viable job options with a history degree.


I understand if you can't answer this question but he has gotten several opinions on the matter and I figure another one wouldnt hurt.

Why did you pick history?

Thanks for your answer! Your work seems to be very interesting, is there any way I can read any of it?