The Nature of History

I was lucky at school too, because we did Social and Economic History O and A level. and I found ordinary lives most fascinating, including how the vote was won, medicine, education, industrial development, the railways -everything!

I went up to uni to do History and as thrown into George the Third constitutional History.
Miserable, some kind tutor spotted it and switched me to Part Two English where I sat reading novels and plays and poems, many historical of course, and couldn't believe I was getting a grant to do this!

biglouis I too remember history teaching at school covering far more than kings, battles and politics. Social history and industrial history formed part of the curriculum.

Did nobody else learn about the three field system, with the village in the centre with the church,manor house and outlying woodland and common land? I can remember being taught about the Renaissance - the extent it incorporated the learning of great muslim scholars, I could remember the name of the three we were told were the most ourstanding, I have forgotten the first two but the third was Averroes, who was a great physician.

Then there was the Industrial revolution, we studied that as well, and social conditions.

Now I was at a bog standard convent grammar school in the provinces in the 1950s and using textbooks that were widely used in many schools, so if I had this experience, so must so many other children of my era.

However, I was an avid student of history, it was by far and away my favourite subject. This meant I concentrated in class, remembered what i was taught and read avidly round the subject, thus enforcing everything I was taught in school.

The only reason I did not do a history degree was because everyone assumed I wanted to be a teacher, and I so didn't want to be a teacher. My dear younger sister. did study history and made a career outside teaching, but that was 5 years later.

growstuff

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.

I used to think much the same thing growstuff but the Crowley works was not "small stuff". He chose the place because it was ideally situated for working iron. The Factory employed at one point over 1000 men. They paid into a welfare fund for when they were sick or unable to work, there was a school and a rule book set out how they were to behave. It was the biggest site in Britain and probably in Europe www.rolyveitch.20m.com/CrowleyCrew.html
The workers were known for their radical views and their united actions .
The site fell into disuse in Victorian times and wasn't really excavated until the 1990s

I have always been interested in the economic drivers and in particular the drivers of change, which in turn progresses the cultural changes.

For me the history and basis bases of any society is the how the economy works. This governs relationships in society and how well each individual lives and survives.

Whitewavemark2

I have always been interested in the economic drivers and in particular the drivers of change, which in turn progresses the cultural changes.

For me the history and basis bases of any society is the how the economy works. This governs relationships in society and how well each individual lives and survives.

I agree.

Before I did my degree as a mature student I did 2 year evening class which covered the first year of the degree course. We studied History, Sociology, Social welfare and Politics. The way they all integrated was very interesting.

I have never studied anything that did not involve its history and development, often necessary to understand where it is now, whether a technical or humanities subject.

I didn't claim it was "small stuff" Glorianny. What influence did the works have in a historical context? Did it influence others? Presumably it had an effect on the transport links in the area and the economy generally. How long-lasting was the effect?

Yes, I think everybody learnt about the three field system Monica. Did you know that turnips were a big influence in its replacement? The humble turnip is quite fascinating!

I think my history teacher was fairly left wing as she concentrated on social history and the lives of the workers. We did a lot about the Poor Laws, The Chartists, The Peterloo Massacre, all seen from the point of view of the workers (I'm sure my parents would have been horrified if they'd realised) We seem to have covered a fair bit about the monarchy, I can still work back to at least Edward IV without leaving anyone out. I'm a lot hazier when it comes to Prime Ministers.

growstuff

Yes, I think everybody learnt about the three field system Monica. Did you know that turnips were a big influence in its replacement? The humble turnip is quite fascinating!

At the risk of turning this into a discussion of land use and enclosures I'd suggest that the replacement of open fields caused by those turnips is a bit of a generalisation. In the area where I live the 'open fields' were long gone by the time of the local Enclosure Awards. Evidence from the 17th century onwards (and probably earlier but I haven't seen any) shows the land already parceled into 'farms' by way of 'closes' and by the late 18th century all that was left unenclosed was moorland with commoners rights attached. That was mopped up in the space of a couple of decades from the 1760s on.

I'm sure that turnips played their part somewhere, though. The Durham Ox was rather a well known beast...

growstuff, precisely. To say that history, as taught in schools, was all battles and monarchs, is wrong. It covered a far wider range of topics than the OP realised or mentioned.

All the tipics mentioned by Deedaa were on the A level syllabus, and, yes, we too had a socialist teacher, one of the nuns in the order that ran the school. Our other History teacher, also a nun, but from a different order discussed with us the importance of mistresses in the behaviour of their lovers, with special reference to a much earlier Duke of York whose mistress had a good businesses in selling commissions to people who bribed her to get her lover to grant them, and that was just the start.

growstuff

I didn't claim it was "small stuff" Glorianny. What influence did the works have in a historical context? Did it influence others? Presumably it had an effect on the transport links in the area and the economy generally. How long-lasting was the effect?

It was the place in the NE where the Chartist movement had its biggest base. But after the 1830s the site fell into disuse as iron and steel production moved. The company changed hands a good few times and eventually only small organisations were left. The site is now largely rural with some very nice walks and where the Red kite is found.
They do credit Crowley with the technology and production ways he developed being the basis of steel production.
It is said to be the first example of working class employees, as distinct from serfs.

I think I learned as much from my parents about social and economic history....about empires, and slavery, about civil rights movements, about apartheid and our part in that, and workers struggles...

Part of who they were. so doing social and economic history at school was built on this. but not sure if teacher was a leftie, but the syllabus of O level social and Economic History in the mid 1960's was pretty radical now I look back. But before then we'd done he changes of ownership and use of the land and the different ways the UK was made by the different invaders and religious forces.

Had a wonderful teacher. I can picture him now enacting the battle of Agincourt. He grabbed the long window opener to become a soldier in the trenches repelling the French forces and we were entranced.

This is all much more interesting than kings/queens, the lives of famous people and battles.

M0nica

*growstuff*, precisely. To say that history, as taught in schools, was all battles and monarchs, is wrong. It covered a far wider range of topics than the OP realised or mentioned.

All the tipics mentioned by Deedaa were on the A level syllabus, and, yes, we too had a socialist teacher, one of the nuns in the order that ran the school. Our other History teacher, also a nun, but from a different order discussed with us the importance of mistresses in the behaviour of their lovers, with special reference to a much earlier Duke of York whose mistress had a good businesses in selling commissions to people who bribed her to get her lover to grant them, and that was just the start.

I don't think anybody has claimed that MOnica. However, there are plenty of people who think that's what history is all about. Some use history as a way of reinforcing some kind of patriotism. There's an article in the Telegraph (today?) by Lord Frost who tries to do exactly that.

MaizieD

growstuff

Yes, I think everybody learnt about the three field system Monica. Did you know that turnips were a big influence in its replacement? The humble turnip is quite fascinating!

At the risk of turning this into a discussion of land use and enclosures I'd suggest that the replacement of open fields caused by those turnips is a bit of a generalisation. In the area where I live the 'open fields' were long gone by the time of the local Enclosure Awards. Evidence from the 17th century onwards (and probably earlier but I haven't seen any) shows the land already parceled into 'farms' by way of 'closes' and by the late 18th century all that was left unenclosed was moorland with commoners rights attached. That was mopped up in the space of a couple of decades from the 1760s on.

I'm sure that turnips played their part somewhere, though. The Durham Ox was rather a well known beast...

Turnips were part of the Norfolk four year system. My point is that turnips were more important in the development of farming over the years than any king or queen.

BTW the four year system, which involved livestock all year round, was used an excuse/reason for enclosure because it was claimed livestock would graze on the turnips if the fields were open.

Deedaa

I think my history teacher was fairly left wing as she concentrated on social history and the lives of the workers. We did a lot about the Poor Laws, The Chartists, The Peterloo Massacre, all seen from the point of view of the workers (I'm sure my parents would have been horrified if they'd realised) We seem to have covered a fair bit about the monarchy, I can still work back to at least Edward IV without leaving anyone out. I'm a lot hazier when it comes to Prime Ministers.

We learnt about all those things too, Deedaa, including endless Acts which we had to know by heart for exams, Acts which affected ordinary people, especially the poorest.

The thing about monarchs is that we can put all these events into timescales which does make it all easier to learn.
And, of course, monarchs had more power centuries ago, they declared wars, led their troops into battle but were far less knowledgeable about how the ordinary people, the peasants, were affected by their decisions.

I thought everyone of my age learnt all this in school history lessons.

Glorianny

growstuff

I didn't claim it was "small stuff" Glorianny. What influence did the works have in a historical context? Did it influence others? Presumably it had an effect on the transport links in the area and the economy generally. How long-lasting was the effect?

It was the place in the NE where the Chartist movement had its biggest base. But after the 1830s the site fell into disuse as iron and steel production moved. The company changed hands a good few times and eventually only small organisations were left. The site is now largely rural with some very nice walks and where the Red kite is found.
They do credit Crowley with the technology and production ways he developed being the basis of steel production.
It is said to be the first example of working class employees, as distinct from serfs.

Glorianny a huge mosaic mural depicting a march of Chartists was demolished by a Welsh Council in an act of what can only be called vandalism not many years ago.

Wyllow3

I think I learned as much from my parents about social and economic history....about empires, and slavery, about civil rights movements, about apartheid and our part in that, and workers struggles...

Part of who they were. so doing social and economic history at school was built on this. but not sure if teacher was a leftie, but the syllabus of O level social and Economic History in the mid 1960's was pretty radical now I look back. But before then we'd done he changes of ownership and use of the land and the different ways the UK was made by the different invaders and religious forces.

Had a wonderful teacher. I can picture him now enacting the battle of Agincourt. He grabbed the long window opener to become a soldier in the trenches repelling the French forces and we were entranced.

Agincourt is an example of a battle which achieved nothing because the English lost the 100 Years War and any claim to French lands. It cost an eye-watering amount of money, caused the death of many of the army from malnutrition and Henry V executed hundreds of French prisoners, contrary to chivalric code.

People have heard of it because it was an English victory and it was well-documented at the time. It's famous for the use of the longbow. Nevertheless, from an historic point of view, it really isn't that significant.

All true, but its bits like the window pole one recalls...

..however, to get more serious, as an English student I'm more familiar with the (biased) story as told by Shakespeare in Henry Fifth in the St Crispins Day speech

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Crispin%27s_Day_Speech#:~:text=On%20the%20eve%20of%20the,theirs%20if%20they%20are%20victorious.

"But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."

When I was at (state) school doing O level History the lower streams did political history (kings and queens, etc.,) and the A stream did social and economic history.

Despite growstuff's eloquence I still don't think that you can count Ks and Qs out of historical significance. As much as anything they contributed to the 'culture' of their time. And changed or consolidated the socio-political direction the country moved in.

growstuff

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.

Don't be too dismissive of other people's perspectives. We all have, do, and will bring to an historical discussion our own personal heteroglossia, life world experience, beliefs and culture. Each one is valid in its own way and each one contributes to the great soup we call life. You do not specifically have the right to tell people what is and what isn't. You have your own perspective be it from the angle of a Phd or an amateur historian. What you write is very interesting but please keep your narrative to facts and don't demolish other people's contributions.

MaizieD

Despite growstuff's eloquence I still don't think that you can count Ks and Qs out of historical significance. As much as anything they contributed to the 'culture' of their time. And changed or consolidated the socio-political direction the country moved in.

I think that the church also played a huge part in the cultural system, but most of all was the way (pre-industrial) people were tied to the land, particularly the labouring class.

In fact I think I would go so far as to say that pre- Tudor, the church was pre-eminent.

LRavenscroft And I have a right to my perspective! Moreover, I have a right to express it.

I think it's interesting to investigate why I have that right, whereas people in other countries and at other times don't/didn't have that right.