The Nature of History

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.

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 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?

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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'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.

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.

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...