Another thoughtful article, Colin. A few things come to mind: "And then there is the writing. Here the trouble deepens. Somewhere along the way, we confused seriousness with dullness. The sonorous paragraph became the currency of legitimacy. We prized the passive voice as a sign of impartiality. We forgot that the root of "history" is story. That narrative is not decoration but delivery. Academic history is awash with such poor narrative." I agree that history is story, and as a sometimes writer of historical fiction there is a responsibility to uncover the truth and at the same time dramatize it. It is and should always be a razor's edge for both fiction and non-fiction writers alike.
I was struck by the image of Cromwell in Carlyle's painting, forever portrayed in armor and it is true for me to this day. My formative history classes in the British schools have left me with a lasting impression of his warmongering, not his desire to turn Britain into a republic and frankly for some pretty good reasons, when you look at the behavior of the Royals at that time.
The razor's edge, then, is also a guiding principle to steer the historian away from history as propaganda, even yesterday's news. "Dullness" has in my opinion led us to news as opinion, which is another word for propaganda and how will history tell that story? Metrics in publishing as you rightly point out is another problem. My final thought is, to your point, that history has and will continue to shape our future so how we tell it, is important. We need to understand our history, like our personal histories, as a blend of facts, perspective, feeling and honesty, but make it readable and digestible. Curiously, the most important aspects in astrology are the North Nodes, which move backwards in the natal chart. In other words, we are always unwinding our own histories.
Your perspective from historical fiction is invaluable here. That 'razor's edge' you describe, balancing fidelity to the 'truth' (as best we can uncover it) with the need to make it compelling and human, is precisely the tightrope walk. It's heartening to hear that echo from the fiction side, emphasizing a shared responsibility.
Your pick up of Cromwell perfectly illustrates my point about how historical portrayals (like Carlyle's, or perhaps even formative school lessons) can fix a particular 'verdict' in memory, sometimes obscuring other facets, like his republican aims versus the actions of the monarchy he opposed. That shaping of collective memory is exactly what's at stake.
Oooh I had not thought, as sharply of that 'dullness' in historical/news writing as paving the way for 'news as opinion' and propaganda. That's an insightful and frankly alarming link that takes the argument into very current territory. You are so right, a failure in narrative clarity and engagement can create a vacuum easily filled by manipulation.
And thank you for the North Nodes analogy, what a fascinating way to visualize the idea that we are constantly processing, revisiting, and shaped by our pasts, personal and collective. It really captures that sense of the past not being truly 'past'.
Yes.. we definitely need a blend of 'facts, perspective, feeling, and honesty,' while being 'readable and digestible'. That's the goal, isn't it?
One of the concerns I have as a writer of historical fiction, particularly in film, TV and theatre, is the dramatization of figures like Napoleon, which Ridley Scott released recently, much of which was historically inaccurate. As the reading of books declines and we get our 'facts' from soundbites and memes we will lose our history completely. Since the early 2000's I've heard of many high school teachers, teaching classes by screening one film after another and another in every class, throughout an entire semester, and we are not talking about historical documentaries, but Hollywood films as entertainment. It is just a more adult form of babysitting and collecting a paycheck.
I did not watch the Ridley Scott, even though I have read a lot of Napoleon biographies… but that’s just my approach. You are absolutely right about Hollywood.
The big point is absolutely right. It is the height of laziness and disgrace when teachers use such videos. I have 2 videos I show over a semester, each 3 to 5 minutes long and I tell the students to watch them over and over again (I actually apologize for playing the video because it is something I share your opinion on). Those 2 videos are Jordan Peterson advocating writing and why write - because it helps you clarify your thoughts) and the other is a short video by Anthropic (ClaudeAi) scientists talking of AI and how they are “growing a brain” playing God!
I'm not even sure screening Hollywood films in class "is the height of laziness." It is something else altogether and words are failing me to decide what is it. However, I think there are probably many high school students who might have cause to file a class action lawsuits against their school districts for failing to educate them according to the curriculums laid down by the Federal government. Of course, now the Trump administration has gutted the Department of Education I suspect things will get infinitely worse and intentionally so. A dumbed down populace is much easier to manipulate.
Great article, and so true. A strange kind of 'scientific objectivity' has taken hold of the field of history, making it at times anaemic.
Love Simon Schama. I don't know if it's generally known in the US, but he is also a great, riveting and - also lacking in the field these days - entertaining documentary maker for the BBC.
Two of my personal favorites: Robert Caro (especially but not limited to 'Robert Moses and the Fall of New York') and Simon Sebag Montefiore (especially but not limited to 'The Court of the The Red Tsar').
I did not know Tuchman (there's only so many hours in a day) but will certainly put her on my list! Thnx!
Thank you Michiel. You are absolutely right Caro is remarkably good. I had a long email conversation recently about his work on Robert Moses, and also watched interviews with him. My colleague in the email thread was a beneficiary of Moses work. I rate Caro very highly.
Great point on Simon Sebag Montefiore, it has been a decade or so since I picked up The Court of the Red Tsar. Have you read any of Kotkin on Stalin, so deeply researched and highly readable - this is a conversation with Kotkin and Tyler Cowen - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCWvAZ0eknY&t=1s
You are right, there are only so many hours in the day :-)
Ah, yeah, I recognize Kotkin now. I've seen a lecture of his (online) on the current situation in Russia, and the Russia\Ukraine war. I remember promising myself to read his work on Stalin even then...
He is often on Hoover discussion groups online and Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson. Very meticulous in his writing (although in his interviews he sometimes throws in some puns which fall flat or unnecessary).
No, I haven't read Kotkin, to my shame, because I have great interest in Stalin, both as a sort of baseline in how dictatorships are born and maintained, and as a source of understanding of the Russian psyche, which in these troubled times is a helpful tool.
I did read Oleg Chlevnjoek biography, who has a completely different take on Stalin than Sebag Montefiore, especially as a person.
I'll put Kotkin on my list, and am going to follow your link right now ;)
Thank you, I share your interest - I will read Oleg Chlevnjoek. Which one would you start with? Stalin: New Biography of a Dictator from 2015 looks fascinating.
Yeah, New Biography of a Dictator, that's the one I've read. If I remember correctly, it was reading his book I finally got an understanding of Bolshevism - which is alien to us Westerners I think, and mostly remains a sort of intellectual exercise - as a practical organizational practice, and why it was so attractive to Russians...
Yeah, one last remark after rereading my own comment...
'attractive to Russians' is the wrong wording. I think it's better to say 'why Russians have fallen victim to the particular ideology of Bolsjevism', almost in the same way Americans could only have fallen victim to a billionaire.
For the sake of brevity, I won't go into details, suffice it to say that when I was young, I had no interest in history. This changed when, one day, I came across a series about the Civil War in the NYT. It was captivating. Now I get it, the imperative that is historical knowledge.
We exist, both individually and collectively, on a continuous trajectory of time. Today's history is yesterday's current events and today's current events are tomorrow's history.
Even what we call "current events" is already history. As the journalist records what might have just occurred moments ago - it is already in the past. Thus a journalist recording "current events" is really recording history in the true sense - not merely that it will become history in the future. It already is.
It will, however, become the fodder of future historians to study so as to attempt making sense of what will be their past.
I now realize that the memories of my entire existence, going as far back as age two, are in fact, a living history of the times in which I lived.
It's fascinating how a specific encounter with a well-told narrative, like that NYT Civil War series, can completely change one's perspective on history. That really speaks to the power of engaging storytelling I touched upon.
"... a continuous trajectory of time" Brilliant! that continuity of time, and how current events instantly become history, are spot on. It directly shows that idea that the past isn't really past, it's constantly being created, moment by moment. The journalist as an 'immediate historian' is a very sharp observation.
And your final realization, that your own memories constitute a 'living history', is right. It captures that sense of history not just being in books, but something we carry and embody, making each of us, in a way, a witness to our times.
When I was young, they first really began teaching history in junior high/middle school, grades 7 - 8. It was sheer dull drudgery. They insisted we memorize by rote names, dates and events, over and over ad infinitum ad nauseam - without meaning, and no connection to the present.
Now I realize not only the meaning of those past events in their time, but the connection to the here and now. We need a better public school system - although President TrumPox is aiming to kill off education altogether. I look forward to the day he's gone. Until then, I'll be attending the Hands Off protest on Saturday, and join in with the living history of my times.
While growing up, history was my favorite subject, even though Grade 10 was the last time I formally studied it. If you are born in one of the Asian countries, you pick majors based on your ability to get a job rather than what you like (at least when I was in school/college). However, I eventually found computer science to be equally enjoyable in a different way.
However, history is also the subject I struggled with the most. I will list the reasons for the struggle in 5 questions and answers (I am not a historian, so my answers may be partially or entirely wrong). However, before I jump into it, I enjoyed your post:
1. Can we trust the history written or passed on to us?
History, as it is often presented, comes with inherent biases. Much of it is written from the victors' perspective, shaped by the historian's cultural, political, and personal influences. For example, in the case of wars, history is frequently skewed to highlight one side in a favorable light while downplaying or justifying even the most egregious actions. This selective narrative often serves the agenda of the time.
Moreover, many historical accounts are written decades or even centuries after the events they describe, influenced not only by the biases of that era but also by the evolving cultural and political climate. As Kathleen McGowan aptly put it:
"History is not what happened but what is written down."
So, can we trust history? My answer is that most history cannot be fully trusted, at least not without skepticism and cross-examination. But this raises another critical question: how do we determine what parts of history to trust? That is not an easy question to answer. However, this leads us directly to the next point.
2. What can we learn from history?
If history is often unreliable, what value does it hold for us? The answer lies not in what history can teach us to do but rather in what it can teach us to avoid. The context of historical events—shaped by unique cultural, political, and social factors—often makes direct lessons in "what to do" difficult to apply to the present.
As B. H. Liddell Hart wrote in his brilliant book Why Don't We Learn from History?:
"History can show us what to avoid, even if it does not teach us what to do, by showing the most common mistakes that mankind is apt to make and to repeat."
This is, perhaps, the greatest utility of studying history: identifying patterns of human error, avoiding known pitfalls, and recognizing the tendencies that lead to repeated failures. Instead of looking for instructions on how to act, we should focus on understanding past missteps to guide our decisions in the present and future.
3. Does anyone win a war? Are most wars worth fighting?
The phrase "winning a war" often ignores the incalculable losses endured by both sides. Even when one side claims victory, the cost of that triumph—lives lost, families destroyed, opportunities squandered—often outweighs the rewards. Beyond the immediate destruction, wars halt progress, extinguishing potential inventions and discoveries that could have transformed humanity.
While some wars may be justifiable—such as those fought to defend freedom, democracy, or against tyranny—most result in losses far exceeding material or territorial gains. The question becomes: at what cost is a war worth fighting?
Both sides invariably lose something in every war, even if one is declared victorious. The human and societal costs are rarely acknowledged in full, and history often romanticizes victories while glossing over the devastation. A quote to sum it up comes again from B. H. Liddell Hart:
"Two commonly fatal delusions: the idea of victory and the idea that war cannot be limited."
4. Should we trust recent interpretations of historical events or texts closer to their time?
Given history's inherent biases, reading older historical texts—those written closer to the time of the events they describe is often valuable. While these accounts are not immune to bias, they offer a more immediate perspective of the era, culture, and circumstances.
While modern interpretations benefit from hindsight and broader context, they are often filtered through the cultural and political lens of the present day.
Ultimately, neither older nor newer accounts are completely trustworthy on their own. However, we can create a fuller picture of historical events by examining various sources. A quote from — Frederick Jackson Turne that summarized the above well is: "Each age writes the history of the past anew with reference to the conditions uppermost in its own time."
5. Why do most people romanticize the past and see it as a "golden era"?
Many people consider a particular era or period a "golden age," even though objective analysis shows that the quality of life has improved dramatically for most of humanity. Today, the poor and middle class often enjoy conveniences and technologies that the wealthiest individuals of 100 years ago could only dream of.
So, why does the past feel better than the present? I think there are several reasons:
a) Selective Memory: Over time, we tend to forget the hardships of the past and remember only the highlights. This cognitive bias, known as rosy retrospection, creates an illusion that life was better in the "good old days."
b( The Struggles of the Present: Living in the present means facing immediate challenges, uncertainties, and responsibilities, which often feel more intense than the resolved struggles of the past.
c) Romanticization of History: Stories about the past—whether told through books, movies, or cultural traditions—often focus on the positives while downplaying the negatives, creating an idealized version of history.
d) Idealized Narratives: The past is often framed as more straightforward or virtuous, ignoring the prevalent systemic injustices, inequality, and suffering.
As Peter Benchley perfectly summed it up:
"The past always seems better when you look back on it than it did at the time. And the present never looks as good as it will in the future."
Given all of this, my philosophy is simple:
a) Live in the present. Appreciate today's opportunities and challenges without being overly nostalgic for the past or excessively anxious about the future.
b) Learn from the past. Focus on understanding what to avoid by studying history's mistakes, but do not live in the past.
c) Prepare for the future. Prepare for the worst-case scenario while hoping for the best.
I will end with two quotes.
The first one by Roy T. Bennett: "The past is a place of reference, not a place of residence; the past is a place of learning, not a place of living."
and
The second one by Martin Luther King, Jr.: "We are not makers of history. We are made by history."
It's interesting how paths diverge, yet core interests remain! Your struggles with history highlight absolutely critical questions. Here are my initial thoughts to your numbered points:
On Trust: You've pinpointed the essential challenge of subjectivity. The goal might shift from seeking absolute 'trust' to cultivating critical discernment, evaluating perspectives, acknowledging context, and triangulating sources, recognizing that 'fairness' might be a more achievable aim than pure objectivity.
On Learning: Liddell Hart's distinction is potent. Viewing history as a rich source of cautionary examples, showing recurring patterns of human error to avoid, is arguably one of its most practical and profound applications, helping us understand the terrain rather than follow a map... Hart had his issues with the 'truth'.
On War: Your point about the immense cost, often obscured by narratives of 'victory', is very important. I think we need historical accounts that grapple honestly with the devastating human price of conflict for all involved, challenging those easy delusions Liddell Hart warned against and other costs too - the cost to Britain was certainly significant, they only finished paying America in recent years - and I think it also cost Poland, the Baltics, Ukraine, east Germany, etc. a huge amount in lives and other factors.
On Sources: Turner's insight is key here. Neither contemporary accounts nor later interpretations offer pristine truth. The real understanding often emerges from placing them in dialogue, appreciating the immediacy (and biases) of the former alongside the perspective (and different biases) of the latter. Synthesizing diverse sources is vital.
On Romanticization: Excellent breakdown of why the "golden age" myth persists. It underscores how our perception of the past is often a present-day construction, shaped by psychological filters and narrative choices, reinforcing the need for critical historical awareness over nostalgic yearning.
Your concluding philosophy and the insightful quotes from Bennett and King, Jr. align strongly with the idea of the past being an active force we must engage with wisely, not simply reside in or ignore. Thanks again for such a stimulating and thought provoking commentary, which helps me a lot!
Does Solzhenitzyn appear in your list of bold historians? Should we be suspicious of novelists who may take historical license for the sake of the story?
Thank you David, ooh that is a god one. Solzhenitzyn may have taken some historical license, but then he is a fabulous biographer of the times. My approach is always, if I find someone's style and the period/place particularly interesting then to dive deeper into that. See also Gavin's comment above about historical fiction.
Another thoughtful article, Colin. A few things come to mind: "And then there is the writing. Here the trouble deepens. Somewhere along the way, we confused seriousness with dullness. The sonorous paragraph became the currency of legitimacy. We prized the passive voice as a sign of impartiality. We forgot that the root of "history" is story. That narrative is not decoration but delivery. Academic history is awash with such poor narrative." I agree that history is story, and as a sometimes writer of historical fiction there is a responsibility to uncover the truth and at the same time dramatize it. It is and should always be a razor's edge for both fiction and non-fiction writers alike.
I was struck by the image of Cromwell in Carlyle's painting, forever portrayed in armor and it is true for me to this day. My formative history classes in the British schools have left me with a lasting impression of his warmongering, not his desire to turn Britain into a republic and frankly for some pretty good reasons, when you look at the behavior of the Royals at that time.
The razor's edge, then, is also a guiding principle to steer the historian away from history as propaganda, even yesterday's news. "Dullness" has in my opinion led us to news as opinion, which is another word for propaganda and how will history tell that story? Metrics in publishing as you rightly point out is another problem. My final thought is, to your point, that history has and will continue to shape our future so how we tell it, is important. We need to understand our history, like our personal histories, as a blend of facts, perspective, feeling and honesty, but make it readable and digestible. Curiously, the most important aspects in astrology are the North Nodes, which move backwards in the natal chart. In other words, we are always unwinding our own histories.
Your perspective from historical fiction is invaluable here. That 'razor's edge' you describe, balancing fidelity to the 'truth' (as best we can uncover it) with the need to make it compelling and human, is precisely the tightrope walk. It's heartening to hear that echo from the fiction side, emphasizing a shared responsibility.
Your pick up of Cromwell perfectly illustrates my point about how historical portrayals (like Carlyle's, or perhaps even formative school lessons) can fix a particular 'verdict' in memory, sometimes obscuring other facets, like his republican aims versus the actions of the monarchy he opposed. That shaping of collective memory is exactly what's at stake.
Oooh I had not thought, as sharply of that 'dullness' in historical/news writing as paving the way for 'news as opinion' and propaganda. That's an insightful and frankly alarming link that takes the argument into very current territory. You are so right, a failure in narrative clarity and engagement can create a vacuum easily filled by manipulation.
And thank you for the North Nodes analogy, what a fascinating way to visualize the idea that we are constantly processing, revisiting, and shaped by our pasts, personal and collective. It really captures that sense of the past not being truly 'past'.
Yes.. we definitely need a blend of 'facts, perspective, feeling, and honesty,' while being 'readable and digestible'. That's the goal, isn't it?
One of the concerns I have as a writer of historical fiction, particularly in film, TV and theatre, is the dramatization of figures like Napoleon, which Ridley Scott released recently, much of which was historically inaccurate. As the reading of books declines and we get our 'facts' from soundbites and memes we will lose our history completely. Since the early 2000's I've heard of many high school teachers, teaching classes by screening one film after another and another in every class, throughout an entire semester, and we are not talking about historical documentaries, but Hollywood films as entertainment. It is just a more adult form of babysitting and collecting a paycheck.
I did not watch the Ridley Scott, even though I have read a lot of Napoleon biographies… but that’s just my approach. You are absolutely right about Hollywood.
The big point is absolutely right. It is the height of laziness and disgrace when teachers use such videos. I have 2 videos I show over a semester, each 3 to 5 minutes long and I tell the students to watch them over and over again (I actually apologize for playing the video because it is something I share your opinion on). Those 2 videos are Jordan Peterson advocating writing and why write - because it helps you clarify your thoughts) and the other is a short video by Anthropic (ClaudeAi) scientists talking of AI and how they are “growing a brain” playing God!
I'm not even sure screening Hollywood films in class "is the height of laziness." It is something else altogether and words are failing me to decide what is it. However, I think there are probably many high school students who might have cause to file a class action lawsuits against their school districts for failing to educate them according to the curriculums laid down by the Federal government. Of course, now the Trump administration has gutted the Department of Education I suspect things will get infinitely worse and intentionally so. A dumbed down populace is much easier to manipulate.
This is the crux of the Administration's goal - "A dumbed down populace is much easier to manipulate."
Great article, and so true. A strange kind of 'scientific objectivity' has taken hold of the field of history, making it at times anaemic.
Love Simon Schama. I don't know if it's generally known in the US, but he is also a great, riveting and - also lacking in the field these days - entertaining documentary maker for the BBC.
Two of my personal favorites: Robert Caro (especially but not limited to 'Robert Moses and the Fall of New York') and Simon Sebag Montefiore (especially but not limited to 'The Court of the The Red Tsar').
I did not know Tuchman (there's only so many hours in a day) but will certainly put her on my list! Thnx!
Thank you Michiel. You are absolutely right Caro is remarkably good. I had a long email conversation recently about his work on Robert Moses, and also watched interviews with him. My colleague in the email thread was a beneficiary of Moses work. I rate Caro very highly.
Great point on Simon Sebag Montefiore, it has been a decade or so since I picked up The Court of the Red Tsar. Have you read any of Kotkin on Stalin, so deeply researched and highly readable - this is a conversation with Kotkin and Tyler Cowen - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCWvAZ0eknY&t=1s
You are right, there are only so many hours in the day :-)
Ah, yeah, I recognize Kotkin now. I've seen a lecture of his (online) on the current situation in Russia, and the Russia\Ukraine war. I remember promising myself to read his work on Stalin even then...
He is often on Hoover discussion groups online and Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson. Very meticulous in his writing (although in his interviews he sometimes throws in some puns which fall flat or unnecessary).
No, I haven't read Kotkin, to my shame, because I have great interest in Stalin, both as a sort of baseline in how dictatorships are born and maintained, and as a source of understanding of the Russian psyche, which in these troubled times is a helpful tool.
I did read Oleg Chlevnjoek biography, who has a completely different take on Stalin than Sebag Montefiore, especially as a person.
I'll put Kotkin on my list, and am going to follow your link right now ;)
Thank you, I share your interest - I will read Oleg Chlevnjoek. Which one would you start with? Stalin: New Biography of a Dictator from 2015 looks fascinating.
Yeah, New Biography of a Dictator, that's the one I've read. If I remember correctly, it was reading his book I finally got an understanding of Bolshevism - which is alien to us Westerners I think, and mostly remains a sort of intellectual exercise - as a practical organizational practice, and why it was so attractive to Russians...
I will order it. It sounds insightful, you are right that is alien to us. Will let you know how I get on - delivery 14th / 19th April.
Yeah, one last remark after rereading my own comment...
'attractive to Russians' is the wrong wording. I think it's better to say 'why Russians have fallen victim to the particular ideology of Bolsjevism', almost in the same way Americans could only have fallen victim to a billionaire.
Anyway, fascinating stuff...
For the sake of brevity, I won't go into details, suffice it to say that when I was young, I had no interest in history. This changed when, one day, I came across a series about the Civil War in the NYT. It was captivating. Now I get it, the imperative that is historical knowledge.
We exist, both individually and collectively, on a continuous trajectory of time. Today's history is yesterday's current events and today's current events are tomorrow's history.
Even what we call "current events" is already history. As the journalist records what might have just occurred moments ago - it is already in the past. Thus a journalist recording "current events" is really recording history in the true sense - not merely that it will become history in the future. It already is.
It will, however, become the fodder of future historians to study so as to attempt making sense of what will be their past.
I now realize that the memories of my entire existence, going as far back as age two, are in fact, a living history of the times in which I lived.
It's fascinating how a specific encounter with a well-told narrative, like that NYT Civil War series, can completely change one's perspective on history. That really speaks to the power of engaging storytelling I touched upon.
"... a continuous trajectory of time" Brilliant! that continuity of time, and how current events instantly become history, are spot on. It directly shows that idea that the past isn't really past, it's constantly being created, moment by moment. The journalist as an 'immediate historian' is a very sharp observation.
And your final realization, that your own memories constitute a 'living history', is right. It captures that sense of history not just being in books, but something we carry and embody, making each of us, in a way, a witness to our times.
When I was young, they first really began teaching history in junior high/middle school, grades 7 - 8. It was sheer dull drudgery. They insisted we memorize by rote names, dates and events, over and over ad infinitum ad nauseam - without meaning, and no connection to the present.
Now I realize not only the meaning of those past events in their time, but the connection to the here and now. We need a better public school system - although President TrumPox is aiming to kill off education altogether. I look forward to the day he's gone. Until then, I'll be attending the Hands Off protest on Saturday, and join in with the living history of my times.
While growing up, history was my favorite subject, even though Grade 10 was the last time I formally studied it. If you are born in one of the Asian countries, you pick majors based on your ability to get a job rather than what you like (at least when I was in school/college). However, I eventually found computer science to be equally enjoyable in a different way.
However, history is also the subject I struggled with the most. I will list the reasons for the struggle in 5 questions and answers (I am not a historian, so my answers may be partially or entirely wrong). However, before I jump into it, I enjoyed your post:
1. Can we trust the history written or passed on to us?
History, as it is often presented, comes with inherent biases. Much of it is written from the victors' perspective, shaped by the historian's cultural, political, and personal influences. For example, in the case of wars, history is frequently skewed to highlight one side in a favorable light while downplaying or justifying even the most egregious actions. This selective narrative often serves the agenda of the time.
Moreover, many historical accounts are written decades or even centuries after the events they describe, influenced not only by the biases of that era but also by the evolving cultural and political climate. As Kathleen McGowan aptly put it:
"History is not what happened but what is written down."
So, can we trust history? My answer is that most history cannot be fully trusted, at least not without skepticism and cross-examination. But this raises another critical question: how do we determine what parts of history to trust? That is not an easy question to answer. However, this leads us directly to the next point.
2. What can we learn from history?
If history is often unreliable, what value does it hold for us? The answer lies not in what history can teach us to do but rather in what it can teach us to avoid. The context of historical events—shaped by unique cultural, political, and social factors—often makes direct lessons in "what to do" difficult to apply to the present.
As B. H. Liddell Hart wrote in his brilliant book Why Don't We Learn from History?:
"History can show us what to avoid, even if it does not teach us what to do, by showing the most common mistakes that mankind is apt to make and to repeat."
This is, perhaps, the greatest utility of studying history: identifying patterns of human error, avoiding known pitfalls, and recognizing the tendencies that lead to repeated failures. Instead of looking for instructions on how to act, we should focus on understanding past missteps to guide our decisions in the present and future.
3. Does anyone win a war? Are most wars worth fighting?
The phrase "winning a war" often ignores the incalculable losses endured by both sides. Even when one side claims victory, the cost of that triumph—lives lost, families destroyed, opportunities squandered—often outweighs the rewards. Beyond the immediate destruction, wars halt progress, extinguishing potential inventions and discoveries that could have transformed humanity.
While some wars may be justifiable—such as those fought to defend freedom, democracy, or against tyranny—most result in losses far exceeding material or territorial gains. The question becomes: at what cost is a war worth fighting?
Both sides invariably lose something in every war, even if one is declared victorious. The human and societal costs are rarely acknowledged in full, and history often romanticizes victories while glossing over the devastation. A quote to sum it up comes again from B. H. Liddell Hart:
"Two commonly fatal delusions: the idea of victory and the idea that war cannot be limited."
4. Should we trust recent interpretations of historical events or texts closer to their time?
Given history's inherent biases, reading older historical texts—those written closer to the time of the events they describe is often valuable. While these accounts are not immune to bias, they offer a more immediate perspective of the era, culture, and circumstances.
While modern interpretations benefit from hindsight and broader context, they are often filtered through the cultural and political lens of the present day.
Ultimately, neither older nor newer accounts are completely trustworthy on their own. However, we can create a fuller picture of historical events by examining various sources. A quote from — Frederick Jackson Turne that summarized the above well is: "Each age writes the history of the past anew with reference to the conditions uppermost in its own time."
5. Why do most people romanticize the past and see it as a "golden era"?
Many people consider a particular era or period a "golden age," even though objective analysis shows that the quality of life has improved dramatically for most of humanity. Today, the poor and middle class often enjoy conveniences and technologies that the wealthiest individuals of 100 years ago could only dream of.
So, why does the past feel better than the present? I think there are several reasons:
a) Selective Memory: Over time, we tend to forget the hardships of the past and remember only the highlights. This cognitive bias, known as rosy retrospection, creates an illusion that life was better in the "good old days."
b( The Struggles of the Present: Living in the present means facing immediate challenges, uncertainties, and responsibilities, which often feel more intense than the resolved struggles of the past.
c) Romanticization of History: Stories about the past—whether told through books, movies, or cultural traditions—often focus on the positives while downplaying the negatives, creating an idealized version of history.
d) Idealized Narratives: The past is often framed as more straightforward or virtuous, ignoring the prevalent systemic injustices, inequality, and suffering.
As Peter Benchley perfectly summed it up:
"The past always seems better when you look back on it than it did at the time. And the present never looks as good as it will in the future."
Given all of this, my philosophy is simple:
a) Live in the present. Appreciate today's opportunities and challenges without being overly nostalgic for the past or excessively anxious about the future.
b) Learn from the past. Focus on understanding what to avoid by studying history's mistakes, but do not live in the past.
c) Prepare for the future. Prepare for the worst-case scenario while hoping for the best.
I will end with two quotes.
The first one by Roy T. Bennett: "The past is a place of reference, not a place of residence; the past is a place of learning, not a place of living."
and
The second one by Martin Luther King, Jr.: "We are not makers of history. We are made by history."
It's interesting how paths diverge, yet core interests remain! Your struggles with history highlight absolutely critical questions. Here are my initial thoughts to your numbered points:
On Trust: You've pinpointed the essential challenge of subjectivity. The goal might shift from seeking absolute 'trust' to cultivating critical discernment, evaluating perspectives, acknowledging context, and triangulating sources, recognizing that 'fairness' might be a more achievable aim than pure objectivity.
On Learning: Liddell Hart's distinction is potent. Viewing history as a rich source of cautionary examples, showing recurring patterns of human error to avoid, is arguably one of its most practical and profound applications, helping us understand the terrain rather than follow a map... Hart had his issues with the 'truth'.
On War: Your point about the immense cost, often obscured by narratives of 'victory', is very important. I think we need historical accounts that grapple honestly with the devastating human price of conflict for all involved, challenging those easy delusions Liddell Hart warned against and other costs too - the cost to Britain was certainly significant, they only finished paying America in recent years - and I think it also cost Poland, the Baltics, Ukraine, east Germany, etc. a huge amount in lives and other factors.
On Sources: Turner's insight is key here. Neither contemporary accounts nor later interpretations offer pristine truth. The real understanding often emerges from placing them in dialogue, appreciating the immediacy (and biases) of the former alongside the perspective (and different biases) of the latter. Synthesizing diverse sources is vital.
On Romanticization: Excellent breakdown of why the "golden age" myth persists. It underscores how our perception of the past is often a present-day construction, shaped by psychological filters and narrative choices, reinforcing the need for critical historical awareness over nostalgic yearning.
Your concluding philosophy and the insightful quotes from Bennett and King, Jr. align strongly with the idea of the past being an active force we must engage with wisely, not simply reside in or ignore. Thanks again for such a stimulating and thought provoking commentary, which helps me a lot!
That is an excellent truism -- "Each age writes the history of the past anew with reference to the conditions uppermost in its own time."
Does Solzhenitzyn appear in your list of bold historians? Should we be suspicious of novelists who may take historical license for the sake of the story?
Thank you David, ooh that is a god one. Solzhenitzyn may have taken some historical license, but then he is a fabulous biographer of the times. My approach is always, if I find someone's style and the period/place particularly interesting then to dive deeper into that. See also Gavin's comment above about historical fiction.