I have in recent years come to the conclusion that every time an historian writes or speaks on history the first words should be something like “as best we can tell now from the available sources this is what we think happened...”
The mother of Robert Graves, Amalie Sophie von Ranke, was a niece of Leopold von Ranke. Thus, he would have been the grand-nephew of the great historian.
I recommend reading some of Alexander George's writings on constructing case studies and historical comparisons between cases. He was a giant in poli sci and winner of a MacArthur award. His goal was to take historical cases, which are always unique when considering all variables, and distill them to variables of interest so that one could make a comparison and construct and test some hypotheses (for example cases in deterrence, coercive diplomacy, appeasement, coalition building, etc.). Look at the similarities and differences that could explain the similar or different outcomes. As an example, coalition building for ODS, Iraqi Freedom, and the intervention in Libya.
One of my favourite quotations (and I'm a big fan of quotations in general) is from B.H. Liddell Hart's _Sherman: Soldier, Realist, American_ in his comments on his experiences trying to verify references in earlier works:
"The absence of footnote references from the pages of this book may aggrieve some readers but will, I hope, please a larger number, who do not care for the untidy and irritating modern fashion of treating any historical study as a card-index rather than a book to be read. Footnote references are an inevitable distraction to the reader’s eye and mind. The justification for omitting them is not, however, merely one of narrative smoothness and page cleanlinness. Such references are only of value to a small proportion of readers — as a means to personal research or composition. By direction the student’s attention to an isolated quotation or piece of evidence, such footnote references are apt to give this a false value; and can also be the means of conveying a false impression. They may enable the student to find out whether the author’s use of a quotation is textually correct, but they do not enable him to find out whether it gives a correct impression. For the true worth of any quotation can only be told by comparison with the whole of the evidence on the subject. Further, the practice of littering the pages with references is not even a proof that the author has consulted the sources. It is easy to copy a quotation — complete with footnote references! — from some previous writer, and a study of books on the Civil War, especially, suggests that this labour-saving device is not uncommon."
I have in recent years come to the conclusion that every time an historian writes or speaks on history the first words should be something like “as best we can tell now from the available sources this is what we think happened...”
Thanks for this.
Was Leopold von Ranke Robert Graves’s grandfather or something?
(Just an aside.)
The mother of Robert Graves, Amalie Sophie von Ranke, was a niece of Leopold von Ranke. Thus, he would have been the grand-nephew of the great historian.
Thank you.
"Wie es eigentlich gewesen ist"?
I recommend reading some of Alexander George's writings on constructing case studies and historical comparisons between cases. He was a giant in poli sci and winner of a MacArthur award. His goal was to take historical cases, which are always unique when considering all variables, and distill them to variables of interest so that one could make a comparison and construct and test some hypotheses (for example cases in deterrence, coercive diplomacy, appeasement, coalition building, etc.). Look at the similarities and differences that could explain the similar or different outcomes. As an example, coalition building for ODS, Iraqi Freedom, and the intervention in Libya.
https://toc.library.ethz.ch/objects/pdf_ead50/3/E28_4817348_TB-I_002342712.pdf
https://archive.org/details/casestudiestheor0000geor
One of my favourite quotations (and I'm a big fan of quotations in general) is from B.H. Liddell Hart's _Sherman: Soldier, Realist, American_ in his comments on his experiences trying to verify references in earlier works:
"The absence of footnote references from the pages of this book may aggrieve some readers but will, I hope, please a larger number, who do not care for the untidy and irritating modern fashion of treating any historical study as a card-index rather than a book to be read. Footnote references are an inevitable distraction to the reader’s eye and mind. The justification for omitting them is not, however, merely one of narrative smoothness and page cleanlinness. Such references are only of value to a small proportion of readers — as a means to personal research or composition. By direction the student’s attention to an isolated quotation or piece of evidence, such footnote references are apt to give this a false value; and can also be the means of conveying a false impression. They may enable the student to find out whether the author’s use of a quotation is textually correct, but they do not enable him to find out whether it gives a correct impression. For the true worth of any quotation can only be told by comparison with the whole of the evidence on the subject. Further, the practice of littering the pages with references is not even a proof that the author has consulted the sources. It is easy to copy a quotation — complete with footnote references! — from some previous writer, and a study of books on the Civil War, especially, suggests that this labour-saving device is not uncommon."
Thanks for responding to Anton's essay and good suggestions. I somehow missed it when it came out but have now also written a response: https://danallosso.substack.com/p/history-does-not-have-a-replication