Do YOU consider yourself an Historian?

[Andrew H.]

JasonC wrote:

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.

Grog grog!

WRT historian, I tend to think that a historian is someone who does historical research and then produces some sort of scholarly work - a book, an article, a documentary, etc. based on the historical research. You don't need a degree for that, although it might give you useful skills. Similarly, just because you have a degree doesn't make you an historian - you have to actually do the work and produce the material.

You can also distinguish between amateur historians, who aren't really paid for their work, and professionals, who are.

[Stavka_lite]

Interesting topic, I have a BA in history (University of Arizona '97)and I do consider my self a historian. Not that I have a piece of paper that say I am but because I look at historical events, pick them apart piece by piece and figure out why they happened and what other events were caused by any particular event, ad nauseum. Being able to name dates, units and specific equipment is just part of the fun and any enthusiast(sp) can do that. I think a better question is " is history your hobby or your vocation?" Either way it is a lot of fun!

[A.E.B]

Hi all

I'm late to yet another thread.

Do I consider my self a historian? No. I have actually conducted historical research (I constructed a price table for Europe and the Mediterranean basin covering 1066 to 1454 including the metal weight of the various coins at various dates) but I still don't consider myself to be an historian.

Why, because to me HISTORIAN is a professional label.

Basically, to be able to call yourself a doctor, or a scientist, or an accountant, or an engineer, or a pilot, etc, etc, etc requires qualifications that are obtained by education. What the budding professional undergoing education is in fact being instructed in is method and methodology.

I have studied to be both a scientist (never completed) and then an accountant. The reason why I was expected to study for at least three years at university to become either is because that is the timeframe required to teach you how to be a scientist or an accountant.

As a scientist you were expected firstly and for mostly to practice scientific method. This covers the correct methods for performing data collection, experimentation and analysis, collation and interpretation of results, publication and peer review.

As an accountant I am expected to understand GAP and the conceptual framework, implement correct methods of measurement, practice conservatism, obey a set of professional standards and ethical rules, and to submit my self to ongoing training and (god forbid) discipline by my professional body.

Anyone can call themself a scientist or an accountant, but it is the above that separates the professional from the amateur.

Of course, simply being a professional doesn’t automatically make you better than the amateur: there are many dud scientists and accountants out there. But the method taught to any professional if implemented greatly decreases the chances of error or fraud.

I believe that the same holds for professional historians. A professional historian is trained in the accepted methods of research, on keeping notes, on the correct methods of quotation, footnoting and attribution, and I am sure a large number of other things that an amateur like me is not aware of.

So I am an avid reader and regurgitator of history, but I have not been trained to be a historian.

Regards

A.E.B

[dieseltaylor]

Ahistoric --- An historic --- An historian

I think it is possibly a clarity issue here - I do not care either way about historian but I would be upset with the difference between ahistoric and A[n] historic being lost

Sagan "Heroic and wholly ahistoric paintings of Stalin and Lenin together directing the Bolshevik Revolution took their place, with Trotsky, the founder of the Red Army, nowhere in evidence."

[Probert]

I have an interest in history. When combined with my interest in modelling makes miniature wargaming much more enjoyable.

[Chelco]

Originally posted by A.E.B:

...Why, because to me HISTORIAN is a professional label.

Basically, to be able to call yourself a doctor, or a scientist, or an accountant, or an engineer, or a pilot, etc, etc, etc requires qualifications that are obtained by education. What the budding professional undergoing education is in fact being instructed in is method and methodology...

I applaud the clarity of your thoughts and I totally agree with you.

Even when it may hurt or infuriate some egos around here, the majority of people here are not historians. There is some people like M. Dorosh, who made excellent research on the subject of Canadian uniforms during WWII (he accessed original sources for this) and I personally consider him an historian just because of this.

You may read a lot, you may research a lot, you may know why some Tiger tanks had a 13 labelled in their upper hatch, but still you are not an historian. Not if you learned all your stuff in books from Barnes and Noble.

I consider myself an avid reader of history. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Crank_GS]

Umm... confession time here...

I am not an historian...

I also am not, nor have I ever been, in the US Army. I apologize for that signature. It is more in a spirit of the game/sim that we indulge that I put that in my signature years ago. It was not unlike the "persona" I assumed in an online fighter squadron back then.

I apologize especially to those who are, or have been, in the US military. It was never my intention to be taken seriously on that. It has been removed.

[willbell]

Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!

This is the thread for soul searching and facing reality.

And we thought the internet would be an anonymous place where we could invent a personality.

As for being an historian, technically it is not a profession, you don't have to be licensed to be one. But all the points about schooling, publishing, and original research are right on.

In my never to be humble opinion.