Do YOU consider yourself an Historian?

[Crank_GS]

Was thinking about this as I perused my recently acquired book on Kursk (Restayn's "Operation Citadelle")...

I do consider myself an hisorian. My interest and fascination was with me long before computer simulations were around - at least available to civilians. Although my interest lies more with the pilot in the cockpit and the soldier in the foxhole because I like to hear their stories, rather than with the generals and their grand strategies, my interest still extends to those "grand strategies".

There are many who merely like the "good game" of a well-crafted simulation - more common with combat flight simulations, I would suspect. And there are those who just like to build nice-looking models. Both of those hobbies are ones I practise, but my initial and over-riding drive is in the history of it all.

Above all, I guess is that I still spend more time reading history and watching the History Channel than simming or modelling.

Now I know there are many on this forum that are indeed historians, and I certainly expect to hear from some of them. For the rest, what is that makes you think of yourself as "an historian"? I know the article I use is correct, but it still sounds funny to me.

[flamingknives]

Only when I actually go and look at source documents, rather than reading mass media books, really.

Why should it be "an historian"? Perhaps if you drop the 'h'?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Why should it be "an historian"? Perhaps if you drop the 'h'?

It's an historical form.

[Sergei]

I sort of consider myself an historian, as it is my field of study. Still, I've never actually studied WW2 history through primary sources or anything nor do I intend to in any foreseeable future. There's always stuff to learn.

[Crank_GS]

OK, I can see a clear distinction between reading commonly available books versus source material.

Unfortunately, my access to veterans - the true source material - and archival documents is nil. In the absence of that, there are a fair number of historical author's in whose work I trust. It is also arguable that these authors possess a much greater ability to present this information in a much more digestable fashion.

[MikeyD]

I'm more a specialist enthusiast.

I'm a life-long modeler and tank grog, I know the difference between Anzio and Antwerp and I know which sides fought whom in WWII. I'm well enough informed to be horrified by what some more igorant sorts consider to be history. But I cannot tell you Patton's shoe size or distinguish one set of Italian officer shoulder-boards from another.

By the way, fully half of every 'authoritative' reference book on WWII mentions Patton's pearl handled pistols. THEY WEREN'T PEARL! THEY WERE IVORY!!! To (mis)quote Patton himself, only a New Orleans whorehouse pimp would think to carry pearl handled pistols!!!

[Mr. Tittles]

I am a technical investigator. A ballistic Dick, if you will.

[Crank_GS]

Good point, MikeyD. And I like Patton's very funny quote! You also touch on an important point: In my case, I do not consider myself an historian because I know the difference between a Fw 190D-11 and a Fw 190D-13; that would make me an enthusiast, I guess. To me, those details are meaningless without the greater context. In that example, the absolute hopelessness of the war situation for the Luftwaffe at that point (1945) as a counterpoint to the fliers taking off every day, facing insuperable odds and often never coming home again. But, again, they would take off on that next sortie. That is courage...

Mr. Tittles, do you not consider yourself an historian then?

Also, does one area of focus make one less of an historian? To wit: does my overwhelming fascination with WWII, to the near-exclusion of other areas of history, make me *less* of an historian.

[Sergei]

I would limit the term 'historian' to those who actually research history for their work and are qualified to do so, whether after writing a thesis on Egyptology or some non-academic way like gathering lots of knowledge about the history of your home village. But I'm not going to start shooting people who use other criteria.

Study of history itself is very segmented, just like all fields of research, and no historian could know even basics of all the different areas (history of sports, gender, technology, economy, diplomacy, war, ecology, sciences, religion, university, philosophy, music, sex, trade unions, the list is endless), so that's not a prerequisite for being an historian. Of course a True Lover of History is interested in all or at least a wide scale of those areas!

[CombinedArms]

I don't know if I'm being Mr. Picky here, but to me, an historian is someone who creates history. If one merely consumes history, by, say, reading published accounts, one is a history buff or history enthusiast, but not a historian. Similarly, some who merely reads poetry is a poetry fan but not a poet. Another way to think of it is that someone who creates art is an artist. Someone who creates art history (i.e. writes the history of art), is an art historian. And someone who writes the history of military events is a military historian.

By that measure, most of us are history buffs but, perhaps, relatively few of us are historians. I can see an argument here, however. One could argue that someone who creates a historically reseached and accurate scenario or mod is functioning as an historian. And when JasonC delivers some (not all) of his disquistions, he may be functioning an historian. Also, the designers of CM itself might be considered historians. I would stand by the view that a historian is someone who "creates history." But exactly where to draw the line when we define "creating history" is an interesting question.

[Mr. Tittles]

I would hate to be confined to something as limited as a being a Historian.

I can do technical investigation into previous periods, present periods or future periods (new products).

I think theres a big hangup on titles like 'Historian' or 'Scientist', etc. Some guys with PHDs gave another guy a PHD. Big friggin whoop.

People like to call other people Grogs in wargaming. I do not think there are many technically qualified 'Grogs'. There are plenty of guys that will quote what unit fought another unit and who was in command and how many tanks/planes/pistols each had.

Personally, I am drawn to technical matters. I like the weapons technology best. Investigating these matters, applying science/engineering/experience/etc. is interesting.

[Holman]

I consider myself a(n) history student, not a historian. My education is in English, all the way to ABD. But my field of study has been 16th and 17th century religious literature, and this immersed me in a good deal of historical scholarship.

My wife, on the other hand, *is* a historian. She has the dissertation and doctorate to prove it. She definitely does do research, although unfortunately it does not involve tanks.

As for things WW2, I am definitely an enthusiast, and I try to read the most intelligent books and articles I can. My WW2 library consists of about fifty books, hand-picked, none of them by Stephen Ambrose. I've probably read half again as many more.

I think theres a big hangup on titles like 'Historian' or 'Scientist', etc. Some guys with PHDs gave another guy a PHD. Big friggin whoop.

I'll agree about the hangup. But there are matters of evidence, method, argument, and the "history of history" that one just cannot master on one's own. It really does take a serious education to make a serious historian.

[V]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

I do not think there are many technically qualified 'Grogs'.

:confused:

from dictionary.com:

grog ( P ) Pronunciation Key (grg)

n.

An alcoholic liquor, especially rum diluted with water.

grog

\Grog\, n. [so named from ``Old Grog'' a nickname given to Admiral Vernon, in allusion to his wearing a grogram cloak in foul weather. He is said to have been the first to dilute the rum of the sailors (about 1745).] A mixture of spirit and water not sweetened; hence, any intoxicating liquor.

Grog blossom, a redness on the nose or face of persons who drink ardent spirits to excess. [Collog.]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

grog

n : rum cut with water

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

[V]

Originally posted by Martyr:

I'll agree about the hangup. But there are matters of evidence, method, argument, and the "history of history" that one just cannot master on one's own. It really does take a serious education to make a serious historian.

Good post.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

I don't know if I'm being Mr. Picky here, but to me, an historian is someone who creates history. If one merely consumes history, by, say, reading published accounts, one is a history buff or history enthusiast, but not a historian. Similarly, some who merely reads poetry is a poetry fan but not a poet. Another way to think of it is that someone who creates art is an artist. Someone who creates art history (i.e. writes the history of art), is an art historian. And someone who writes the history of military events is a military historian.

By that measure, most of us are history buffs but, perhaps, relatively few of us are historians. I can see an argument here, however. One could argue that someone who creates a historically reseached and accurate scenario or mod is functioning as an historian. And when JasonC delivers some (not all) of his disquistions, he may be functioning an historian. Also, the designers of CM itself might be considered historians. I would stand by the view that a historian is someone who "creates history." But exactly where to draw the line when we define "creating history" is an interesting question.

I thought people and events happening in the present created history. People in the future (future historians), would research and chronicle and postulate and such about those people and events in the past.

Historians do not create history.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by V:

from dictionary.com:

grog ( P ) Pronunciation Key (grg)

n.

An alcoholic liquor, especially rum diluted with water.

grog

\Grog\, n. [so named from ``Old Grog'' a nickname given to Admiral Vernon, in allusion to his wearing a grogram cloak in foul weather. He is said to have been the first to dilute the rum of the sailors (about 1745).] A mixture of spirit and water not sweetened; hence, any intoxicating liquor.

I'm not sure that this recipe was the only one followed. Another that I have heard of was one part rum (up to 150 proof :eek: ) to three or four parts water. To this was added lemon juice (often previously concentrated) and sugar. In other words, the Royal Navy was very much into serving and consuming cocktails!

Michael

[Mad Russian]

I consider myself to be a praciticing historian. I research my scenarios and then apply what I find. Sometimes with more success than others.

I think the goal of a historian is to learn more about past events, and the cause and effect. I think that, we as a whole, are doing just that.

Panther Commander

[Michael Dorosh]

With a BA in History as well as two published titles under my belt, I'd like to think that term applies to me.

Not sure that I'm all into labels either, for reasons Mr. Tittles has pointed out. One can draw a distinction between Professional Historians and Amateur Historians, however.

I think the litmus test for Historians is whether or not they DOCUMENT. Anyone can quote from a book. That's research. Writing stuff down for others is what makes you a historian. JasonC's posts qualify for that. So do websites. If you are preserving it, archiving it, rewording it or in any way documenting it - **and** other people are reading it - you an historian.

If people are paying you to do it, or paying to read what you have preserved, you are a professional.

[JasonC]

Intoxicating liquor is not what "grog" means applied to wargamers. It is short for "grognard", which means "grumbler", and was Napoleon's affectionate term for the members (and especially the NCOs) of his Old Guard. By it he meant they were always complaining about something, a tweak at their (legendary) fortitude in adverse conditions.

Also that they knew enough about what was going on to know what wasn't as it should be, and therefore what to complain about. And above all that they were brave enough and trusted him enough to say it. When things were going badly, recent recruits deserted, regulars moped and undermined morale to each other but were afraid of their officers, but "grognards" told marshals and emperors to their face that, and exactly how, they were screwing everything up, and what must be done about it instantly.

Which is a minor point of history, it would seem. There are many "grogs" on this board. Most computer games don't have anything remotely like them. I hope BTS appreciates them - I know I do. Cheers.

[Sergei]

I thought people and events happening in the present created history. People in the future (future historians), would research and chronicle and postulate and such about those people and events in the past.

Historians do not create history.

Historians do not create the past itself, but they do create histories by writing records about it (and in Swedish 'historia' means both history and story or tale). 'History' can also be used as a synonym for events of the past, but usually only when they are put together and analyzed. This always requires someone's interpretation.

For a better presentation of the topic, find E. H. Carr's "What Is History?"

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Intoxicating liquor is not what "grog" means applied to wargamers. It is short for "grognard", which means "grumbler", and was Napoleon's affectionate term for the members (and especially the NCOs) of his Old Guard. By it he meant they were always complaining about something, a tweak at their (legendary) fortitude in adverse conditions.

Also that they knew enough about what was going on to know what wasn't as it should be, and therefore what to complain about. And above all that they were brave enough and trusted him enough to say it. When things were going badly, recent recruits deserted, regulars moped and undermined morale to each other but were afraid of their officers, but "grognards" told marshals and emperors to their face that, and exactly how, they were screwing everything up, and what must be done about it instantly.

Which is a minor point of history, it would seem. There are many "grogs" on this board. Most computer games don't have anything remotely like them. I hope BTS appreciates them - I know I do. Cheers.

If thats the case, thenI would certainly like to think of myself as a Technically Proficient Grognard Dick.

[Stealth]

For a better presentation of the topic, find E. H. Carr's "What Is History?" [/QB]

I was just going to refer to this book myself. This discussion raises the question "What is History?"

[V]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by V:

from dictionary.com:

grog ( P ) Pronunciation Key (grg)

n.

An alcoholic liquor, especially rum diluted with water.

grog

\Grog\, n. [so named from ``Old Grog'' a nickname given to Admiral Vernon, in allusion to his wearing a grogram cloak in foul weather. He is said to have been the first to dilute the rum of the sailors (about 1745).] A mixture of spirit and water not sweetened; hence, any intoxicating liquor.

I'm not sure that this recipe was the only one followed. Another that I have heard of was one part rum (up to 150 proof :eek: ) to three or four parts water. To this was added lemon juice (often previously concentrated) and sugar. In other words, the Royal Navy was very much into serving and consuming cocktails!

Michael </font>

[V]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Intoxicating liquor is not what "grog" means applied to wargamers. It is short for "grognard", which means "grumbler", and was Napoleon's affectionate term for the members (and especially the NCOs) of his Old Guard. By it he meant they were always complaining about something, a tweak at their (legendary) fortitude in adverse conditions.

I knew that. But the definition of "grognard" refused to come up on dictionary.com. So I tried grog and got what I got.

[JasonC]

Now here is real history trivia. How and when did Napoleon's old term for his OG turn into a term for wargamers? Apparently it originated inside the old board wargame company "SPI" in the 1970s, as a way of referring to their targeted customer audience (as opposed to more casual, "beer and pretzels" gamers). Strategy and Tactics magazine, SPIs regular monthly, used the term in public and it caught on with the readership. So say web sources anyway, at least one of which claims he was there, remembers the before and after, and saw the process as it occurred.