The Student Room Group

Cambridge History Students and Applicants

This is a place for future, current and past History students at Cambridge to come and congregate and discuss all things historical (or anything else, in order to procrastinate that little bit more).

Congratulations to all those with offers! Feel free to ask the rest of us any questions about the course/work, and we'll do our best to answer. Or just talk among yourselves. :smile:

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
did you get set HAP over christmas 32?
Reply 2
had an HAP to do, but not timed, something from a practice paper of our choice. So i've done 'political history is necessarily the study of social elites. Discuss'. For T&S have had to do a presentation which was not the most fun thing in all honesty. I've had to read rather more this holiday as paper 13 is rather tricky for me.
Reply 3
I haven't even touched HAP work yet; well, we haven't yet been given any! Am sure I will enjoy the pleasures of it next term though. T&S going vvvvvvvvv slowly atm lol.
Reply 4
3232
Ah, I had a discussion group on that with a modern political historian who was arguing that political history includes things like the politics of the family (and was almost sociological in viewpoint). I didn't quite agree, and had a fairly interesting debate for an hour with someone who had clearly thought a lot more about what they were going to say than I did. That was a bit of a struggle to get through, but could potentially give me something to write for that question. I need to spend a bit of time working out which would be best to answer. I read through them all once and couldn't really find one I wanted to answer...

Have you had any HAP classes in your college yet?


I don't personally think politics of the family is political history. But political history has to look outside of the social elites because you have things like riots which involve the peasantry and lower classes. Also it's very difficult to qualify who are the social elites obviously definitions shift chronologically and geographically. also the expansion of the franchise pretty much puts an end to elite driven political history in the western world, and also you can look at political thought which expands it widely as well. It's a decent question.

Yeah we have HAP classes fortnightly in pembroke.
Reply 5
kay_oh_dee
Oooh...this is new...
Hi everyone, just thought I'd introduce myself. I've just got an offer for History this October, Queens' College. Really looking forward to it! Are you all mainly enjoying the Cambridge History experience so far, or is it living hell :p: ? Do you know any Queens' historians by any chance?

Yeah kay_oh_dee on the whole most do enjoy it. There's a lot of work but as it isn't as regimented as other subjects and so you can sort of work it to your schedule, so if you happen to want to do something one night you normally can. Unfortunately don't know any Queen's historians I'm afraid.
Reply 6
Avatar for --
--
OP
jjpp
I don't personally think politics of the family is political history. But political history has to look outside of the social elites because you have things like riots which involve the peasantry and lower classes. Also it's very difficult to qualify who are the social elites obviously definitions shift chronologically and geographically. also the expansion of the franchise pretty much puts an end to elite driven political history in the western world, and also you can look at political thought which expands it widely as well. It's a decent question.



Ah, I think I probably hold a similar view to you. I don't agree that it's necessarily the study of social elites alone - your example of riots, and things like that, and grass-roots politics are a big part of it. I just didn't hold the post-post-modern view of the Dr taking the class, which saw politics (and political history) in everything - and seriously everything, from the inter-family relationship of power, to the social mores of why a doctor has more respect.
Reply 7
3232
Ah, I think I probably hold a similar view to you. I don't agree that it's necessarily the study of social elites alone - your example of riots, and things like that, and grass-roots politics are a big part of it. I just didn't hold the post-post-modern view of the Dr taking the class, which saw politics (and political history) in everything - and seriously everything, from the inter-family relationship of power, to the social mores of why a doctor has more respect. I really could not get on board with his view and stuck to my guns a bit.
:p:


if you see politics in everything I think you are essentially widening politics to it's greater meaning of human interaction. So if that's the semantic view you take then you can see political history in the family etc. But I would view inter family relationship of power more in sociological terms like Keith Wrightson does etc not as politics. Post modernism is not my cup of tea if i'm honest.
Reply 8
kay_oh_dee
Oooh...this is new...
Hi everyone, just thought I'd introduce myself. I've just got an offer for History this October, Queens' College. Really looking forward to it! Are you all mainly enjoying the Cambridge History experience so far, or is it living hell :p: ? Do you know any Queens' historians by any chance?


I don't know any queens historians but I've been to the college, nice place, and you are halfway to sidgewick site I reckon only about 5 minutes away, lucky people. Cambridge history is brilliant, great course, enough flexibility to enable you to do what you want when you want and have some free time. Focus on your A levels and you'll love it when you get here.
Reply 9
Avatar for --
--
OP
Mine either. I always seem to root my views on HAP in the practicalities of the profession of being a historian. I think having these barriers are useful academic tools, as it subdivides a massive profession. If you debase 'politics' to its root meaning, of power or the use of power, it is at the root of every kind of history in some way - from economic history (money is power, after all :p:), social history, gender history to gay history, constitutional history etc etc.

'Politics' in that sense, is in everything. I think we probably need a different term for the other side of politics which we probably all actually mean when we say 'political history', which is the institutional structures of power (government, representation etc), the culture around it (voting, popular feeling), and the events it becomes involved in/creates.

We had another seminar on counter-factuals (the act of saying 'What if...', as in: 'What if the Versailles Treaty was more lenient?') and their use in history, and we kept straying off into pseudo-philosophical discussions about creating endless versions of history for 'fun' (and people arguing that if something had already happened one way, there was no point considering alternatives). Whereas I again seemed to be rooted in the practicalities of actually using counter-factuals in writing an essay - as an evaluative tool or as a literary device in a conclusion - ie 'If so and so hadn't blah blah blahed, blah blah blahed and blah blah blahed, then maybe blah blah blah would not have happened.'

What have your classes been on so far? Any interesting ones?
3232
Mine either. I always seem to root my views on HAP in the practicalities of the profession of being a historian. I think having these barriers are useful academic tools, as it subdivides a massive profession. If you debase 'politics' to its root meaning, of power or the use of power, it is at the root of every kind of history in some way - from economic history (money is power, after all :p:), social history, gender history to gay history, constitutional history etc etc.

'Politics' in that sense, is in everything. I think we probably need a different term for the other side of politics which we probably all actually mean when we say 'political history', which is the institutional structures of power (government, representation etc), the culture around it (voting, popular feeling), and the events it becomes involved in/creates.

We had another seminar on counter-factuals (the act of saying 'What if...', as in: 'What if the Versailles Treaty was more lenient?') and their use in history, and we kept straying off into pseudo-philosophical discussions about creating endless versions of history for 'fun' (and people arguing that if something had already happened one way, there was no point considering alternatives). Whereas I again seemed to be rooted in the practicalities of actually using counter-factuals in writing an essay - as an evaluative tool or as a literary device in a conclusion - ie 'If so and so hadn't blah blah blahed, blah blah blahed and blah blah blahed, then maybe blah blah blah would not have happened.'

What have your classes been on so far? Any interesting ones?


Politics can't just be about the workings of governmental institutions because this existence is artificial. What was "politics" before we had the concept of the state? It's the idea that the way groups organise themselves and the way authority and legitimacy is derived which forms what is intrinsic in politics.

One's first encounter with politics is usually through the family unit, where your parents derive authority through being physically larger than you, and legitemacy through being your parents and through supposedly being the most capable of governing your lives.

What makes politics fundamentally vital is the fact that it does transcend everything, and is indivisible with the study of almost anything else.
Reply 11
Can any of you historians at Cambridge drag some law undergrads onto the law thread so they can shed some light on the course? Btw, the Cambs History course looks amazing! I should have applied for History!!
Reply 12
3232
Mine either. I always seem to root my views on HAP in the practicalities of the profession of being a historian. I think having these barriers are useful academic tools, as it subdivides a massive profession. If you debase 'politics' to its root meaning, of power or the use of power, it is at the root of every kind of history in some way - from economic history (money is power, after all :p:), social history, gender history to gay history, constitutional history etc etc.

'Politics' in that sense, is in everything. I think we probably need a different term for the other side of politics which we probably all actually mean when we say 'political history', which is the institutional structures of power (government, representation etc), the culture around it (voting, popular feeling), and the events it becomes involved in/creates.

We had another seminar on counter-factuals (the act of saying 'What if...', as in: 'What if the Versailles Treaty was more lenient?') and their use in history, and we kept straying off into pseudo-philosophical discussions about creating endless versions of history for 'fun' (and people arguing that if something had already happened one way, there was no point considering alternatives). Whereas I again seemed to be rooted in the practicalities of actually using counter-factuals in writing an essay - as an evaluative tool or as a literary device in a conclusion - ie 'If so and so hadn't blah blah blahed, blah blah blahed and blah blah blahed, then maybe blah blah blah would not have happened.'

What have your classes been on so far? Any interesting ones?


have you read some of Niall Ferguson's work on counter factualism? Is fairly interesting. I'm a bit of a utilitarian on that one, I mean it's lovely to sit around and say what if Hitler had won the war, but it's pointless in my opinion. They are only useful in that they make you consider the relative importance of factors. But i'm not a huge fan of counterfactual history, i don't find it that interesting.

classes for HAP have been ; the whigs and marxism
Reply 13
Avatar for --
--
OP
The West Wing
Politics can't just be about the workings of governmental institutions because this existence is artificial. What was "politics" before we had the concept of the state? It's the idea that the way groups organise themselves and the way authority and legitimacy is derived which forms what is intrinsic in politics.

One's first encounter with politics is usually through the family unit, where your parents derive authority through being physically larger than you, and legitemacy through being your parents and through supposedly being the most capable of governing your lives.

What makes politics fundamentally vital is the fact that it does transcend everything, and is indivisible with the study of almost anything else.


I see power structures in the family as something covered by sociology, I don't see why we need to create a sub-set within the historical profession to chart the same thing.

And I suppose I see non-governmental/institutional 'politics' in the form you talk about as more social history, than political, or at least that's how I would practically define the two at that stage of development.

Yes 'politics' as a concept is in everything, but I don't see how realising that actually helps us write 'Political History' without just writing all-encompassing 'History'. If I just want to write about elections, grass-roots political movements, political views, mass protest, parliaments, governments, dictatorships, political leaders, political decisions and their impact, what kind of 'history' would we call this?
Reply 14
The West Wing
Politics can't just be about the workings of governmental institutions because this existence is artificial. What was "politics" before we had the concept of the state? It's the idea that the way groups organise themselves and the way authority and legitimacy is derived which forms what is intrinsic in politics.

One's first encounter with politics is usually through the family unit, where your parents derive authority through being physically larger than you, and legitemacy through being your parents and through supposedly being the most capable of governing your lives.

What makes politics fundamentally vital is the fact that it does transcend everything, and is indivisible with the study of almost anything else.


I don't believe that's quite what 3232 was saying (he'l correct me if i'm wrong) he was saying that there should be a division between institutional and governmental politics, power politics if you will, and the wider ideas of politics as human interaction which do penetrate most things. But that type of politics as in relations between families is very different than that of say relations between countries and paralells are quite difficult to draw between the two.

Congratulations on your offer from Clare btw, they do great ents and make a nice shortcut for me on my way to the UL!

edit; balls 3232 got there before me,
Reply 15
Avatar for --
--
OP
jjpp
have you read some of Niall Ferguson's work on counter factualism? Is fairly interesting. I'm a bit of a utilitarian on that one, I mean it's lovely to sit around and say what if Hitler had won the war, but it's pointless in my opinion. They are only useful in that they make you consider the relative importance of factors. But i'm not a huge fan of counterfactual history, i don't find it that interesting.



His book/article was the set reading for our discussion group, so no. :p: But I did get the gist of what he was saying during the group, and I didn't really agree with him - he had a very narrow criteria on the use of counterfactuals. He argued that they were only useful when there is evidence that contemporaries thought it was a possibility, and that you needed that evidence before you could pose a counter-factual. Which as someone studying medieval history last term, where evidence of any kind is scarce, is ludicrous.

But yeah, I'm with you on their limited use. Writing complete alternative histories is completely useless and is science-fiction, not history.
3232
I see power structures in the family as something covered by sociology, I don't see why we need to create a sub-set within the historical profession to chart the same thing.

And I suppose I see non-governmental/institutional 'politics' in the form you talk about as more social history, than political, or at least that's how I would practically define the two at that stage of development.

Yes 'politics' as a concept is in everything, but I don't see how realising that actually helps us write 'Political History' without just writing all-encompassing 'History'. If I just want to write about elections, grass-roots political movements, political views, mass protest, parliaments, governments, dictatorships, political leaders, political decisions and their impact, what kind of 'history' would we call this?


Hmm I definitely see your point, and I guess the formation of institutions and what we see as "modern" politics was one of the first signs of modern civilization. Would you say political history "begins" with the conception of the state?
Rudrax
Can any of you historians at Cambridge drag some law undergrads onto the law thread so they can shed some light on the course? Btw, the Cambs History course looks amazing! I should have applied for History!!


I totally and utterly agree! I was reading the history prospectus on the Cambridge website last night and thinking why I hadn't applied to do it in the first place. History has always been my favourite school subject, and the only reason I'm not applying for it is because of an extremely uninspiring military history module I'm doing at A2; which doesn't seem to be compulsory at university at all.

Why did you apply for law and not history?
Reply 18
political history doesn't begin with the conception of the state because then you couldn't describe relations between tribes etc as political history when it is because it's about power relations between them etc.
Reply 19
3232
His book/article was the set reading for our discussion group, so no. :p: But I did get the gist of what he was saying during the group, and I didn't really agree with him - he had a very narrow criteria on the use of counterfactuals. He argued that they were only useful when there is evidence that contemporaries thought it was a possibility, and that you needed that evidence before you could pose a counter-factual. Which as someone studying medieval history last term, where evidence of any kind is scarce, is ludicrous.

But yeah, I'm with you on their limited use. Writing complete alternative histories is completely useless and is science-fiction, not history.


I have to respect Niall Ferguson as he really is a genius, original etc. But I don't agree with a great deal of what he says, he's often controversial simply for the sake of it. His conterfactuals throw up one very interesting thing for me which is about historical determinism, there is a guy at my college who is really big on marxism and determinism and says counterfactuals are irrelevent because history is inevitable etc.

Quick Reply

Latest