The Nature of History

There is no one definition of history, other than it happened in the past and everything you mention, and hundreds of things you did not mention are all history.

The only thing that varies is what you are writing a history of - and that can be kings, queens, battles, politics, your local area, your family history, the landscape, religion, postage stamps, embroidery, philosophy, music, tin cans, non-dairy spreads and anything else you can feasibly think of.

To me, every single second is a historical moment because it's over almost before we can think about it.

Understanding history puts the present into context and helps explain who we are and why we are where we are as individuals and as societies. Every one of has had a unique experience of random moments of history.

I agree with you LadyHonoriaDedlock. I don't have much time for the kings, queens and battles view of history.

I don't even know what time the coronation is and I have no plans to watch it. It won't make any difference to my life and I doubt very much if it will make much difference to society and the country as a whole.

Two events which stand out for me as having far more historic significance because they changed important aspects of the way the country is run (and affected my own life) were the 1979 general election and the 2016 referendum.

I think history is about what makes ‘us’ what ‘we’ are. By that I don’t mean me in particular (or you, or anyone else as an individual), but ‘us’ as a society. We can look back at events that may have happened for disparate reasons but have worked together to shape our attitudes and daily lives, and get a better understanding of how our society works. Wars, kings and queens, politicians are part of that, but so are poets, artists, inventions and events such as plagues and pandemics and their control.

It’s all far too wide-ranging for one post. Three-year degrees are broken down into small chunks of history (whether political, ideological, religious, social, economic or cultural) and even then they scratch the surface.

I think it’s fascinating to consider how we are shaped by all of the above, and however much we tell ourselves that we think for ourselves, have our own opinions and beliefs, they are based so much on where we fit into the part of the society that we were born into.

Does the coronation matter to all of that? To me personally, no, not really, but the public reaction to it does. The ‘public outpouring of grief’ (see, even the press cliches become part of our collective understanding of events ) when Diana died shaped the way the monarchy now do things. Had they stayed aloof, we might now have a republic. To many people it matters a lot, as being part of a country with a monarchy is part of their identity. Put together, I think this is an important day.

I hated history at school as it was all about killing basically.

I wanted to know what people ate, when toilets came in, how they made their money, what they wore, what they thought, how they treated illnesses, what music they played and on what instruments. OK, tell me which king/queen was in power and how that impinged on people's lives; tell me about political movements - but I wanted to know how people lived.

Yes, I find social history much more interesting than the external bits, even though I see the two things as interconnected.

History is past and present with everything in life without history we would not learn. It’s here and now and everything that happens is history in the making the building blocks of knowledge.

Kings, Queens and battles were used to define periods of time, and battles were immensely important as well, altering the balance of power, and the lives of the people who had the misfortune to live in that area. Kings and Queens were the leaders of their country and their personality and family dynasties shaped the times, far more than they do now. Technically government is in the hands of the people, far more than in the past.
Learning about monarchies doesn't preclude social history but chronology (increasingly replaced by thematic teaching) is so important because it is difficult to understand events without some knowledge of what preceded them.

I disagree with you eazybee. The real drivers of historical innovation are ideas and technology, which happen independently of those in power, whether it be kings/queens or some other form of government.

growstuff

I disagree with you eazybee. The real drivers of historical innovation are ideas and technology, which happen independently of those in power, whether it be kings/queens or some other form of government.

We're not just looking at 'innovation' (by which I assume you mean technological and scientific innovation) when we look at history, though. We're looking at, among other things, influence on local and global events.

I was thinking about the 'Kings and Queens' point and at first I though that Ks and Qs became less significant as the concept of parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional monarchy became more developed. But actually, even though this started with the English Civil war in the mid 17th C English monarchs were able to freely choose their Prime Minister right up to the reign of Victoria. This would have an influence on domestic and global events. It was only in Victoria's reign that the party system grew far stronger and the independence of the monarch to choose their PM was restricted.

I do love social history, too...

I'm not sure what you mean by not looking at innovation. Maybe I should have used the word "progression", change or something else. History doesn't stand still. All societies evolve over time. They are more influenced by ideas (including religion) and technology (eg bronze, iron, innovations in agriculture and digitisation) than kings/queens or individual battles.

Some wars, such as WW1, are catalysts for change. Five former empires disappeared, which ultimately affected the lives of people after 1918. The English Civil War affected people because so many were killed and religious intolerance affected people. The Norman invasion resulted in devastation for the lands of many, particularly in the east of England. The Napoleonic wars influenced trade, much as the Ukrainian war is affecting us now.

In time, all these great events became history and people lived their lives in the present.

Nevertheless, most people throughout time just get on with their lives. They are influenced by religion, whatever education they've had, their family, the circumstances into which they've born or ideas they've read/heard about. It's irrelevant who's on the throne or who has won some isolated battle.

I'm currently interested in the 18th century, including the agrarian revolution, the transition from home to factory working and the history of iron in the Weald. They changed ordinary people's lives and society far more than whoever was the reigning monarch or how much power parliament had.

It’s the study of change over time. History can be split down into aspects such as political, social, military, cultural, medical, etc. but things don’t happen in isolation.

I agree with you Blossoming. We are all part of history, every single one of us.

I sometimes ask myself what influences who I am, what I think and how I behave. I (and just about everybody else) am conditioned by all sorts of influences, but the reigning monarch isn't one of them. I don't think that the government has a decisive influence on who I am either. If I were a female in Afghanistan or a Muslim in India, I'd think differently.

I think history is anything in the past which you become interested in, and once you do whole worlds open up to you. Some people approach it from a purely personal angle researching their family history. Some find a certain time or subject interesting. What's amazing are the facts you discover and the things you never knew. It can lead to you unearthing things no one else has documented. History is the biggest mystery story you'll ever read, it has more twists and turns than any Agatha Christie or any other who-dunnit.

I'm not sure what you mean by not looking at innovation.

I didn't exactly say that, growstuff. I said 'not just looking at innovation'.

It's the diversity of influences on the development of individual nations and on global issues that is interesting.

They changed ordinary people's lives and society far more than whoever was the reigning monarch or how much power parliament had.

I have to point out that the 'agrarian revolution' was partly enabled by Parliament as enclosure of common land could only be effected by an act of parliament. And the removal of rights of common had a profound effect on people's lives.

Yes, that's what I was getting at upthread. It all works together to make 'ordinary people' what they/we are. A peasant farmer might have very different values from that of a 19th century mill worker or miner, but they would be (to a great extent at least) determined by the life chances brought about by the politics and innovations that led to the Industrial Revolution. things like wars and colonialism feed into that too, of course.

MaizieD

^I'm not sure what you mean by not looking at innovation.^

I didn't exactly say that, growstuff. I said 'not just looking at innovation'.

It's the diversity of influences on the development of individual nations and on global issues that is interesting.

They changed ordinary people's lives and society far more than whoever was the reigning monarch or how much power parliament had.

I have to point out that the 'agrarian revolution' was partly enabled by Parliament as enclosure of common land could only be effected by an act of parliament. And the removal of rights of common had a profound effect on people's lives.

It was also influenced by the import of farming practices from Europe and turnips!

Why and how do you think the enclosures came about? Parliament didn't just decide one day that they would be a good idea - nor were they just about greedy landowners.

Doodledog

Yes, that's what I was getting at upthread. It all works together to make 'ordinary people' what they/we are. A peasant farmer might have very different values from that of a 19th century mill worker or miner, but they would be (to a great extent at least) determined by the life chances brought about by the politics and innovations that led to the Industrial Revolution. things like wars and colonialism feed into that too, of course.

It works the other way round too. Changes in industrial practices and technology led to what is now known as the industrial revolution, including social and political change.

Oh totally. That's why it is all so fascinating.

Home textile workers had been developing machinery long before the official start of the industrial revolution and the move to factories. Iron smelting had been evolving for thousands of years and eventually it became more efficient to produce in in factories. National politics had a minimal influence - it was the changes which influenced politics.

When we did history at school we learned what kinds of houses people lived in over the ages and also the history of medicine. I think that taught me more about the relevence of history than battles, kings and queens.

Yes we also learned about the history of technology, the development of the factory system and the industrial revolution.

There's a great site in County Durham- Land of Oak and Iron. The first place iron smelting took place on an industrial scale. It started in 1691 and its founder Ambrose Crowley set up welfare provision for his workers and families. He's credited with creating the first group of working class workers www.landofoakandironlocalhistoryportal.org.uk/index.asp?pageid=668618

But Glorianny iron had been smelted for hundreds of years before that. The fuel used was important, which was why small-scale smelting, which used wood/charcoal, was replaced by coal. Transport links were important too. Originally waterways and canals were used, but these were gradually replaced by better roads.

There had been workers long before 1691 and they were part of a rigid class system. French and Belgian engineers immigrated to Kent and Sussex in the 16th century and brought new techniques with them. At the time, Britain was a net importer of iron. It wasn't until the 19th century when new techniques were introduced to satisfy demand from the railways that the industrial revolution really took off.

The 19th century was a time of political turmoil in Europe and many of the ideas were exported to Britain. The growth of towns and cities meant that ideas were more easily shared. Non-conformist religious ideas also influenced politics ... and so it goes on.

PS. I think I'll go back to turnips! Another "European" idea, which led to the demise of the three crop rotation system and keeping livestock over winter rather than slaughtering them.