From time to time, I will republish a piece that made its debut in the early days of Extra Muros. This is one of these.
In “The Use and Abuse of Military History,” Michael Howard encourages students of the past to study in width as well depth. This pattern of study, he argues, will foster both a sense of grand developments and intimate knowledge of the interwoven elements of a given place in time and space.
In the age of the MP3 and the PDF, an autodidact who embraces Sir Michael’s “tee-shaped” approach to the study of history might use “soup-to-nuts” podcasts (such as The History of England) to foster wide engagement and a multitude of books, articles, maps, and archival documents to enable intimate embrace.
Some self-directed learners, however, follow a different path. Exploiting both the pleasures inherent in intense acquaintance and the tendency of publishers to revisit familiar topics, they focus their attention on a particular period, a specific country, or a given event.
The benefit of the latter approach is the building of a detailed model of a time and place that differs, in a wide variety of respects, from the here and now. At the very least, this picture reminds us of the existence of alternatives to current ways of doing things. Better yet, a representation of that sort can foster a deeper appreciation of the unsung assumptions of the circles in which he travels.
At the same time, an exclusive relationship with a small piece of the past - what might be called a “blob” - puts a limit on both the number and variety of the aforementioned alternatives. This, in turn, can lead to attempts to force the square pegs of today into the round holes of an idiosyncratic yesterday.
A historical monogamist can avoid this fate by building upon his enthusiasm for a specific corner of yore to explore nearby portions of the past. Thus, the student of politics, culture, or commerce of Victorian England will benefit from an extended visit to the Second Empire of France. Likewise, the aficionado of the War for Southern Independence (1861-1865) will glean much in the way of perspective by looking at contemporary struggles in the United Mexican States (1862-1867) and the German Confederation (1866).
In short, the self-directed learner who has built himself a history blob should consider providing it with a knob or two.
For a version of this post which includes the comments made upon it, please see:
.
Your approach makes a lot of sense. There are significant differences between the WWII resistance movements in Belgium and the Netherlands, to cite two examples.
Thanks very much - I really appreciate and enjoy your writings. Best wishes. LF