Do YOU consider yourself an Historian?

[Crank_GS]

Good stuff here. I appreciate hearing from so many people. I especially liked hearing about the origin of "grognard" from JasonC. I suppose I would rather have a grog in front of me than a grognard beside me... but maybe not - the conversation would be good.

OK, so I thought Michael's point was well made - certainly from one who had a degree in history. And with all due respect to Mr. Tittles opinion on degrees and doctorates and such, I believe that attaining a degree is well worthy of respect: much work, time and study goes into getting one, and a degree is a formal acknowledgement of achievement. Upon further thought, and after reading the various positions on what makes an historian, I believe that I would be more aptly named a "history enthusiast". I am comfortable with that. I think I like the idea best that historians record. I do not do that... well, accurately I do not record history. I DO record rock and roll music. (here is my band's site www.loriwyatt.com My singer is way hot, and I am the bass player. Shameless plug )

I am not all about assigning labels to myself or others; that is not my intention with this thread. After all, I will do what I will do; you will do what you will do - all regardless of labels. I was just interested in hearing some other opinions. While we all enjoy the fun of playing the various CM games offered by BTS, I think that an extraordinary group has gravitated to these forums. I have learned an amazing amount of info - on an amazing number of topics. Aw heck, I like you guys.

On a side note... Michael, I have the ASL boards, the scenarios from Doomed Battalions, as well as all the rest of the scenarios in a box. Email me your address and all I will need to do then is drop them at UPS

[Holman]

There are many different levels of historian, to be sure. Their relevance depends on what you're trying to understand. For instance, someone who is well-studied in the design, organization, and employment of German Panzer divisions will help you to grasp the intricacies of Operation Barbarossa. But that person may have very little to teach you about political parties in Weimar, the economy of the 1930s, or the role of childhood education in the rise of Nazism (all of which may have ultimately more to "do" with Barbarossa than Guderian ever did).

[Sycander]

I am earning my Ph.D. in the history of science, so am not quite a historian, yet (most people I know don't use 'an'). The formal credential is necessary to enter the job market for professional historians. But, echoing previous comments, what I think makes you a historian is contributing an original work of history, usually based on extensive primary-source research, and participating in the international community of other historians (through conferences, publications, and personal communications). Perhaps a CMBB scenario would qualify, but alas, most of the historian community has not recognized historical simulations--however well researched--as important contributions to the study of the past. Regardless, the international community of CMBB players certainly appreciates them.

-- Sycander, Ph.D candidate,

University of Pennsylvania

[Mr. Tittles]

I liken it to the comparison of Scientist (useless), Engineer (pragmatic) and technician (Finds tricks that baffle Engineers and Scientists).

It is an honorable thing to get your ticket punched but just because someone has more degrees than you, don't be intimidated. I have encountered many people with 4 year and higher degree that are functionally useless (but have swollen heads none the less).

A good mix of intelligence, learning and eventually intuition based on experience kicks ass. Colleges nowadays are just diploma factories and in it for the money. They pass along everyone because thats business. Entry level people with degrees are actually dangerous to be around. unfortunately, its usually the bosses son.

I think people have a need to cower and make out others to be 'geniusez', experts, professionals, blah, blah,blah. Idol worship or whatever.

I am sure there are just as many talented, insightful historians as there are knuckleheaded quacks. There are 'professional' historians but also volunteer historians. If getting published and having your picture taken in front of a bookcase while wearing a jacket and smoking a pipe makes the grade then thats that.

[ January 23, 2004, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Scott B]

I tend to take a fairly loose view when defining a historian. For example, I work in foreign policy and most of what I do is based on current events, security studies, etc. I don't do much history in my job, but I still often find it helpful to call myself a historian among other policy types because it tells them a little about my approach to security studies. Since many of them have degrees in political science/international relations/etc., it is a useful distinction.

The major difference between what most people call a buff and a historian is scale. It is often the case that history buffs are interested in the fine minutia and historians are interested in the "big picture." I don't consider this a fair generalization; in my opinion, what makes a historian is critical thinking. If you do research, evaluate your sources and analyze what you think happened as a result of your work, then you're doing history. It is the analysis that is important. History isn't just about things that happened in the past; history is a method of finding out why things happen. People that can do that are historians. People that can't, aren't, although that doesn't stop some people from calling themselves that anyway. There are a ton of bad historians out there, and don't even get me started on the ones doing policy relevant stuff like diplomatic or military history.

Scott

[Sycander]

I wonder if we would be having this discussion if the question was 'do you consider yourself to be a soldier?' Considering that both 'soldier' and 'historian' are professional positions requiring a year or more of rather specific training, there could be very clear lines drawn around those categories. But I think most people would say that one has either is/has been a soldier, or one is/has not. Certainly it would be difficult to imagine someone who devoted many, many hours to playing CM and learning all he could about wars past, present and future, claiming that on the basis of that he was a soldier. I don't bring this up in an attempt to enforce professional boundaries--we can all be historians for all I care (and I could abandon my dissertation research and start applying for jobs). But the comparison says something about the relative uniqueness and status (on these boards, anyway) of the two professions.

[V]

Originally posted by Crank_GS:

Good stuff here. I appreciate hearing from so many people. I especially liked hearing about the origin of "grognard" from JasonC. I suppose I would rather have a grog in front of me than a grognard beside me... but maybe not - the conversation would be good.

OK, so I thought Michael's point was well made - certainly from one who had a degree in history. And with all due respect to Mr. Tittles opinion on degrees and doctorates and such, I believe that attaining a degree is well worthy of respect: much work, time and study goes into getting one, and a degree is a formal acknowledgement of achievement. Upon further thought, and after reading the various positions on what makes an historian, I believe that I would be more aptly named a "history enthusiast". I am comfortable with that. I think I like the idea best that historians record. I do not do that... well, accurately I do not record history. I DO record rock and roll music. (here is my band's site www.loriwyatt.com My singer is way hot, and I am the bass player. Shameless plug )

I am not all about assigning labels to myself or others; that is not my intention with this thread. After all, I will do what I will do; you will do what you will do - all regardless of labels. I was just interested in hearing some other opinions. While we all enjoy the fun of playing the various CM games offered by BTS, I think that an extraordinary group has gravitated to these forums. I have learned an amazing amount of info - on an amazing number of topics. Aw heck, I like you guys.

On a side note... Michael, I have the ASL boards, the scenarios from Doomed Battalions, as well as all the rest of the scenarios in a box. Email me your address and all I will need to do then is drop them at UPS

Captain Crank, your singer is hot!

I am currently working on my BA in history from Iowa State, and after that I will go to graduate school (somewhere) for a Masters and then eventually a Doctorate. I think that the term historian, according to dictionary, can be either a professional, a student or a writer of history. But I have also seen definitions which include people who just have a genuine love for history.

But, I think that considering that some people devote much of their lives to history and base their living on work in history, the title of historian should be reserved for them.

I mean, just because someone might have an interest in science, that alone cannot make them a scientist. Maybe the same thing should apply to the history field. I don't know, its a free country.

[V]

Originally posted by Sycander:

I wonder if we would be having this discussion if the question was 'do you consider yourself to be a soldier?' Considering that both 'soldier' and 'historian' are professional positions requiring a year or more of rather specific training, there could be very clear lines drawn around those categories. But I think most people would say that one has either is/has been a soldier, or one is/has not. Certainly it would be difficult to imagine someone who devoted many, many hours to playing CM and learning all he could about wars past, present and future, claiming that on the basis of that he was a soldier. I don't bring this up in an attempt to enforce professional boundaries--we can all be historians for all I care (and I could abandon my dissertation research and start applying for jobs). But the comparison says something about the relative uniqueness and status (on these boards, anyway) of the two professions.

Well, unless you are Kellen Winslow Jr.

[Holman]

I'm still in favor of limiting the title for the sake of clarity. I only consider someone a "historian" who researches and writes history to an acceptable standard of integrity. Given the high standards currently imposed by the academy upon itself, I see no reason not to let universities and their associated institutions define those standards. The fact that some historians do not think well of some other historians, and vice versa, does not undermine the structure of peer review. In fact it validates it. (On an analogous note, I can believe that some doctors are quacks while still respecting the judgement of medical schools in awarding M.D.'s.)

After all, it's not as if this denies anyone some reward that they would otherwise gain. You don't get rich practicing history, y'know. In any case, there is (or should be) no shame in being an amateur or an enthusiast as opposed to a professional historian.

One thing visible in the publishing world today is the blurring of the lines between journalists (who create records of current events), historians (who evaluate past events as well as the records of past events), and pundits (who spin events by masquerading as either of the above).

[Mr. Tittles]

I think if someone researches a historic event from all perspectives, interviews surviving participants and reads as many accounts, diaries, etc as possible and then puts forth a new idea that can be backed up by that data, then he/she is a Historian. If he/she gets this published, reviewed, then maybe he/she is an acknowledged historian then. If some pipe smoking fart-knockers in a University agree with it, then isnt that special.

But, If someone writes a book 'Socks of the SS' or something like that, well, he/she may just be a wierdo. It just isn't that historic.

I do think it would be a ground breaking idea to have a major investigative work accompanyed by a wargame/simulation that backs up the thesis of the book. I read a study about Armor in the ETO. A platoon level game that could demonstrate the battles in detail (both as a 'picture-show' and as a playable game) would be noteworthy.

[V]

Originally posted by Martyr:

I'm still in favor of limiting the title for the sake of clarity. I only consider someone a "historian" who researches and writes history to an acceptable standard of integrity. Given the high standards currently imposed by the academy upon itself, I see no reason not to let universities and their associated institutions define those standards. The fact that some historians do not think well of some other historians, and vice versa, does not undermine the structure of peer review. In fact it validates it. (On an analogous note, I can believe that some doctors are quacks while still respecting the judgement of medical schools in awarding M.D.'s.)

After all, it's not as if this denies anyone some reward that they would otherwise gain. You don't get rich practicing history, y'know. In any case, there is (or should be) no shame in being an amateur or an enthusiast as opposed to a professional historian.

One thing visible in the publishing world today is the blurring of the lines between journalists (who create records of current events), historians (who evaluate past events as well as the records of past events), and pundits (who spin events by masquerading as either of the above).

Well said...

[PiggDogg]

Guys,

I can verify JasonC's post regarding the origin of the term 'grog/grognard' as it applies to hardcore wargamers.

I started wargaming at modern board wargaming's inception in 1958-60 with Avalon Hill's publication of Tactic II and the original rectangular Gettysburg. Throughout the 60s, I collected and played all of the early AH classics as they came out: Afrika Corps, Stalingrad, Chancellorsville, and the pawn version Civil War. The AH games progressed to such classics like 1914 and Jutland.

Eventually, during 1969, someone introduced me to the first or second issue of S&T Magazine published by Simulations Publications (SPI). Having a job and being in my last year of college, I immediatley subscribed to S&T. S&T was a truly unbelievable revelation being so analytical and historical.

Indeed, I may actually may have those most early S&T issues in a box in my wargame closet. By the way, that closet is chock full of board wargames, mostly S&T magazine and SPI wargames going from the very first S&T magazine game through the early 90s.

Truthfully, I cannot remember exactly when 'grog' describing the hardcore board wargamers first appeared. My guess would have been in the very early 70s. :eek:

Maybe I can look up some of those old, frayed S&Ts and see when 'grog' first appeared. However, that sounds a whole bunch of work for such a small subject. So I probably be lazy and complete my CM pbem files.

Now if someone wants to offer me a free winning lottery ticket ...

Cheers, Richard :cool:

[Catch]

You mentioned a book on Kursk, have you checked out the websight www.vy75.dial.pipex.com. It contains a vey good "historian" type sight for research etc.

If you agree just twitch - TCM 3 Viggo M.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sycander:

what I think makes you a historian is contributing an original work of history, usually based on extensive primary-source research, and participating in the international community of other historians (through conferences, publications, and personal communications).

Disagree strongly. Many "professional" historians communicate not a hair with anyone. Doesn't make them not a historian. Best case scenario, to be sure, but not a pre-requisite.

Neither is primary-source research, necessarily, though again, that is a best case scenario (depending on the subject).

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Scott B:

The major difference between what most people call a buff and a historian is scale. It is often the case that history buffs are interested in the fine minutia and historians are interested in the "big picture." I don't consider this a fair generalization; in my opinion, what makes a historian is critical thinking.

It's also not accurate. Take a look at Roger Freeman or Mark Bando. Freeman wrote extensively on the 8th Air Force, and while his books dealt in broad strokes with the 8th Air Force as a whole, they were also laced with small vignettes, descriptions of individual deeds, aircraft, airfields, etc. Bando has a similar approach to the 101st Airborne Division in WW II (though he has written on other subjects). He discusses divisional level history in the same breath as stitch counts on rigger-modified M42 para jackets.

Admittedly, your perception may be a widely held one - the guy who writes about the Wilderness campaign is a "historian" while the guy who writes six volumes on Civil War underwear is "only a buff", but both are contributing to the same cause.

If you do research, evaluate your sources and analyze what you think happened as a result of your work, then you're doing history. It is the analysis that is important. History isn't just about things that happened in the past; history is a method of finding out why things happen.

Sometimes. Sometimes it is a method of finding out what happened.

This is where your minutiae guys come in. We all know that the 16th Infantry Regiment of the Big Red One landed at Omaha Beach on 6 June 1944. The "historians" have recorded that.

The detail guys will tell you which LCIs landed, who the beachmaster was, how far it was to the shingle, etc. etc. The detail guys usually have it tougher than the grand strategy guys, because the little stuff is usually not recorded. What did the 2nd Battalion CO of the 16th Regiment say to his company commanders before the landings? It may well never have been recorded. The company commanders may well have been all killed. Sure, we know what Montgomery and Eisenhower said to the troops beforehand. That's an easy one.

People that can do that are historians. People that can't, aren't, although that doesn't stop some people from calling themselves that anyway. There are a ton of bad historians out there, and don't even get me started on the ones doing policy relevant stuff like diplomatic or military history.

This does go back to your comment of analysis - and I agree. There are many, many who do poor research or analysis or both out there. But for every bad historian, there 2000 guys off the street who will read him anyway. Some will even defend him violently, for the wrong reasons, should he be brought under scrutiny.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by 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.

In a way then doing historical scenarios is writing it down and preserving it. :cool:

Still think I'm a practicing historian... A Wargaming One!!!

Panther Commander

[cool breeze]

I am a high school senior. I was thinking about majoring in history and was wondering if you recommend it. I don't need a lot of money but is it hard to make a living?

Thanks

[Dr. Jones And The Addiction]

I would call myself a "history buff". I was a history major until dropping out of school to play music fulltime. Heyho Crank, hows that for a coincidince! And another dude who holds down the bottom end to. Although I sat behind the kit and used the kick. But that was a long time ago. Late 70's through 1985. I used to take Squad Leader on the road when I had a guitar player in the band that also played. But the history thing started when I was a kid. My Dad was in the 3rd Raider Battalion,and the the 4th Marine Regiment after the Raiders were disbanded. I studied everything that was PTO until I was a teenager just because I wanted to know everything about the places he had been. It just took off from there. Add a passion for history to a passion for games and there you go. You got a wargaming fool. Anyway, the band sounds good. It's nice to hear from another musician who is into military history and gaming.

[Andreas]

To answer the initial question: 'No'.

[Holman]

I am a high school senior. I was thinking about majoring in history and was wondering if you recommend it. I don't need a lot of money but is it hard to make a living?

Cool Breeze,

A big question! First off, I guess it should be said that being a history major does not lock one into being a historian. Many history majors go on to fields like law, policy, and a jillion other things (business, accounting, folk singing, etc.). What a history major *will* teach you (or should) is a sophisticated, sceptical way of looking at events and causality.

But if you're asking about being a professional historian, that's a tough call. The question isn't really "how much do you love history?" so much as "how much do you love the kind of work that historians do?" That's a question that you won't be able to answer until you've taken some good history classes and (more importantly) met some good history professors.

Most historians are university professors, and it's a special kind of life. Imagine months of reading, teaching classes, reading, attending meetings, teaching classes, doing committee work, researching, reading, writing, attending more meetings, and more reading. If that appeals to you--and it only appeals to a small segment of the population--you may want to pursue the work. It will mean going to graduate school for a Ph.D. after college, which is its own particular kind of h*ll.

But, again, the thing to do is go to college and cultivate those history classes. Talk to your professors, and also talk to history grad students (who may very well be your teachers for the first couple of years). Ask them what to read.

As for the difficulty of making a living, that depends on the university job market. It used to be better than it is now, and it will almost certainly be tough to get the particular job you want. But if you find that you love the stuff, it will be the only thing that you really want to do.

Good luck!

[cool breeze]

Thanks for the good answer. I was mostly planning on taking something afterwards but wanted to know what position I would be in if I didn’t do more school. Are there any jobs out there for BA historians not PhD historians?

[Mr. Tittles]

I think a more important question is 'Do other people condider you a historian?'. JasonC, whatever you think of him, got others to think of him that way.

I have defended myself in court (as in winning). But I would not want to consider myself a lawyer (or want to have others besmirch me with that label).

I have written poetry that has moved women to tears (but would never want anyone to say I am a poet).

I can fix practically anything and improve most anything electro-mechanical-cpu-controlled. I can do a lot of things really. But I would want others to bestow lofty titles/etc on me.

In a BS world where hip-hop geniuses name themselves and create totally self-hyped personas, its nice to see others think highly of others for a change.

[willbell]

Here's my two bits.

First, I think Michael Dorosh probably hit the target closest with his last posts.

My initial tendency with this thread was to go with historians being only those who do research on original source material. But then how do you explain the research done on Rome?

I consider myself either a poor student of history, or a history buff. Probably the funniest letter to the editor I ever read was written to a very well respected history publication admonishing that, as a "history buff", the letter writer could assure the editor that a certain author was inaccurate in his facts, which he knew because he had read a book about the subject.

That had me rolling on the floor sucking my thumb.

William

[Crank_GS]

Wow. I missed a lot of these latest posts!

Good, thought-provoking words, guys. Thanks! I guess I would have to say that I have not done enough work or study to merit the label "Historian", although I would certainly settle for history buff!

Right back atcha, Mr. Jones! How did the music career go when you did it? Must have been the fun years, eh?

[willbell]

Crank_GS

As a Captain in the Army, don't sell yourself too short in that you are a piece of living history. You have an insight that all the dusty archivers couldn't acquire no matter how much intellectual wattage they threw at it.

William