The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

history is written by the victors?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Kallisto
I see. Do you talk about the middle ages, don't you? okay, I get it. My mistake!


I meant medieval not medical by the way :facepalm:
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
I meant medieval not medical by the way :facepalm:


No problem, I understood you and you are right. It is called the dark ages indeed, just because the progress/development in society stands still for 1000 years.

But to come back to the topic. I believe by now that history can be written by witness of a period time only who keep the events in generation's mind.
Lot of misconception of the so called Dark ages here.
Reply 63
Avatar for 4 3
4 3
1
Original post by Kallisto
No problem, I understood you and you are right. It is called the dark ages indeed, just because the progress/development in society stands still for 1000 years.

But to come back to the topic. I believe by now that history can be written by witness of a period time only who keep the events in generation's mind.


It did not stand still for 1000 years
Reply 64
Avatar for faxensis
faxensis
it is.

History as a discipline exists to sift the facts from the distortions.
Reply 65
Avatar for faxensis
faxensis
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
The Dark ages is a period of time in Europe between when the Roman Empire collapsed and medical society erupted. Not much was written down so it is called the Dark Ages.


*******s..quit commenting please.

There was no such thing as a dark ages.
Original post by 4 3
It did not stand still for 1000 years


From 500 to 1500 where the period of middle ages is defined, regarded by historians, it stands still for 1000 years indeed, as the progress of the mankind was pretty slow in this time span.
Original post by Kallisto
From 500 to 1500 where the period of middle ages is defined, regarded by historians, it stands still for 1000 years indeed, as the progress of the mankind was pretty slow in this time span.


Why would anyone compare the accomplishments of an age where people held entirely different attitudes and beliefs to periods such as the renaissance or our own?

In terms of science and medicine, people had a very complex understanding about the universe that they lived in and, to them, it worked. We know astrology and the balancing of the humours doesn't do anything to help someone who's ill, but in their eyes it did and didn't need to be questioned. It was just accepted.
Original post by Kallisto
From 500 to 1500 where the period of middle ages is defined, regarded by historians, it stands still for 1000 years indeed, as the progress of the mankind was pretty slow in this time span.


Because there was no difference at all between Celtic England, Anglo Saxon England and Plantagenet England.
Original post by Kallisto
From 500 to 1500 where the period of middle ages is defined, regarded by historians, it stands still for 1000 years indeed, as the progress of the mankind was pretty slow in this time span.


I'm afraid this isn't true, there are huge differences and indeed, different ruling dynasties...
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
I'm afraid this isn't true, there are huge differences and indeed, different ruling dynasties...


Yeah, I am aware of it. Its just a classification making by many historians, not by myself! I am sceptical like you in terms of that.

Original post by KingStannis
x


Original post by Angry Spartan
x


erm...okay. I give just an explanation to a member who could not believe that.
There is a 6 hour documentary entitled - 'Adolf Hitler: The greatest story never told'. Make of it what you will, but I think it's worth a watch when considering 'History is written by the victors'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnu5uW9No8g
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 72
Avatar for kenjison
kenjison
History always lie
That's a pretty archaic saying. I assume it was true in the Classical Era where say, after two sides go to war, the losing side is utterly destroyed and thus nothing from their perspective remains. Nowadays however there are so many historians debating left and right that you have a plethora of views to chose from.
Original post by Onde
If the victors are those who attempt to succeed by controlling the histories written about them, then the cliche is of course a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There was a historian (Philip Grierson) who said "the spade cannot lie, but it owes this merit in part to the fact it cannot speak" :tongue: ...but archaeology is far better than history as a subject at getting a more rounded view of the past.


Well, to be honest on its own archaeology would just be digging old stuff up without having any means to explain why they were there and what it tells us about what was going on.
Speaking as a history postgrad student, it's not really true in the context of modern academic history. It's true in the sense of (mostly - they still do exist today to an extent!) old-style, 'official' histories where governments (well, usually governments) sponsor people (sometimes deliberately directly, sometimes much more implicitly) to write narratives in a way that favours them.

For a long time now (at least since the 1950s in the West), serious historians have viewed this kind of thing as very bad history. or even not worthy of the title of being considered 'history' at all.

Of course, this bad history is unfortunately often still propagated by politicians and governments.
Original post by the north
to what extent is this true?


a lot more true in the past as it is now. With different, unregulated avenues of information in our modern era, history will likely be more unbiased.
Yes, completely true. The western world was defeated by Marxism, and now Marxist narratives dominate society. Including Marxist narrative of history which demonises western world.
Original post by capitalismstinks
Yes, completely true. The western world was defeated by Marxism


Someone evidently hasn't read up on the Cold War too well.

and now Marxist narratives dominate society. Including Marxist narrative of history which demonises western world.


Actually, orthodox Marxist histories tend to be pretty pro-West, in a way, and see it as the most advanced and progressive part of the world. Plus Marxist historiography tends to emphasise internal social issues rather than power politics (except as a consequence of the former).

Anti-Western historiography generally came from anticolonialism.
Marxism as a meta narrative of history (in fact all meta narratives of history) are surely dead?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you