Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

History Debate. watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I've decided to start a group of threads where people can debate things that happened in History.

    First topic for debate: Was the October Revolution a coup d'etat or a popular uprising?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What a boring topic to debate, you sure this isn't just a school essay you have to do?

    Oh and btw it was a coup d'etat in the style of the overthrow (not many people participated, secretive/deceptive tactics, a revolutionary elite overthrowing the gov) but it was not possible without popular support from below - i.e the support of the MRC, Petrograd Garisson etc. Also you have to distinguish between long/short term causes - popular discontent managed to weaken the Provisional Government throughout 1917 and without this the Bolsheviks would not have been able to overthrow the Gov.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by footballhead)
    What a boring topic to debate, you sure this isn't just a school essay you have to do?

    Oh and btw it was a coup d'etat in the style of the overthrow (not many people participated, secretive/deceptive tactics, a revolutionary elite overthrowing the gov) but it was not possible without popular support from below - i.e the support of the MRC, Petrograd Garisson etc. Also you have to distinguish between long/short term causes - popular discontent managed to weaken the Provisional Government throughout 1917 and without this the Bolsheviks would not have been able to overthrow the Gov.
    lol. No I've done my essays and their not on the revolution. I got the idea to discuss this from someone else on here who posted on the history forum. What would you rather debate?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    History is a science, no more and no less.
    J. B. Bury

    Do you agree?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Actually thats a bit naff. Happy is a country with no history? Do you agree?

    Would there be so much trouble in Ireland/Middle East if there was no history? national amensia?
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    I don't know mcuh about this toipic. ANyone care to give baisc deatails?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Which topic?
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by cubanarmy)
    Which topic?
    The October Revolution.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roger Kirk)
    The October Revolution.
    Well basically, in October 1917 the provisional government in St Petersburg was overthrown and replaced by the Bolsheviks led by Lenin. There is alot of debate between historians if it was a popular uprising, if it was a popular uprising led by Lenin, or if it wa a coup d'etat, wher it was just the bolsheviks removing the provisional government.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Surely this should go in D&D and not General Discussion. But in answer to the OPs debate topic, I think it was a popular uprising.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by brimstone)
    Surely this should go in D&D and not General Discussion. But in answer to the OPs debate topic, I think it was a popular uprising.
    What makes you say that?
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by cubanarmy)
    Well basically, in October 1917 the provisional government in St Petersburg was overthrown and replaced by the Bolsheviks led by Lenin. There is alot of debate between historians if it was a popular uprising, if it was a popular uprising led by Lenin, or if it wa a coup d'etat, wher it was just the bolsheviks removing the provisional government.
    Thank you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think it was all ochestrated by Lenin. He caused the riots on the streets of Petrograd, and went through the back door to take power. However, I think the revolution was good, but was corrupted by Stalin.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by footballhead)
    History is a science, no more and no less.
    J. B. Bury

    Do you agree?
    History is not a science, but then science is not one either in the common understanding of the term science to be wholly objective inductive reasoning based falsifiable experimentation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    History is not a science, but then science is not one either in the common understanding of the term science to be wholly objective inductive reasoning based falsifiable experimentation.
    In that case, why is there the category of social sciences? Surely things are not as black and white as science/non-science. Historical methodology must incorporate some form of scientific process and as much objectivity as is possible.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mellow-yellow)
    In that case, why is there the category of social sciences? Surely things are not as black and white as science/non-science. Historical methodology must incorporate some form of scientific process and as much objectivity as is possible.
    That is the problem, people associate science with objectivity, when it is not truly objective, and associating your discipline with it does not really give it added weight. Anyway 'art', 'humanity', 'science', or 'social science' are just labels the question is whether they convey anything meaningful about what you seek to apply them to. Humanity is I think the best choice to categorise history, as it is the study of human behaviour and actions in the past. The Germans were particularly keen on creating a scientific history - Geschichtswissenschaft – but what they really meant was objective history with its own uniform methodology. To abandon the inappropriate term ‘science’ does not mean that historians should not create a methodology and strive for objectivity, but history is a valuable and serious enough study to have an independent value over and above it's claims to be scientific.

    Of course all knowledge exists on a spectrum. The Greeks did not use to divide knowledge in the way that we do, everything was a subordinate variant of philosophy (love of wisdom). Science was for a long time called 'natural philosophy'. Now science is seen as true knowledge and so Freud claimed psychology was a science at a time in which any discipline worth its salt was seeking to assert this status. Economics is often called a social science, but it’s more like modern astrology. Human behaviour cannot be examined in a truly scientific way, and evolutionary biology and anthropology are the less 'scientific' sciences. We don’t need to make such spurious assertions, history is a distinctive study that can stand on its own feet, and it does not need the claim to be a science. That claim only weakens history by measuring it against an inappropriate source of comparison – what people actually perceive to be science, i.e. physics and chemistry.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.