Is this a sub for historiography or for citing historical sources in a bibliography?

Could anyone explain most important and the pioneers of post modernist studies in history . What post modernism is ? What modernism is and how is post modernism different from modernism ,And how do we know that the modern era has ended,and we are in post modern era ?for that what is modernism is import to understand . Please explain with important post modernist scholars and there prime argument or theory .

My thesis supervisor recommended that I read a particular piece by Aviezer Tucker and Alan Munslow on historiography. I forgot the name of the piece and am asking if anyone reading knows of a piece which could align with the details. I have emailed her but her email is closed during the holiday. I was told that Munslow wrote an introduction, and that one chapter speaks on realism versus anti-realism.

I’m working on a paper for my upper division civil war course and I’m stuck on how to properly cite this source. It is a digital file that my professor uploaded for us as part of a reading assignment but there is not much information beyond that.

Can anyone help me with this?

See title. I'm a History MA student writing an essay, but for some reason I am completely stuck on this seemingly easy point. Thanks!!!

Im a History MA student, and I write my thesis about the works of Csetri Elek, a transylvanian historian. He wrote works on 6 languages (english, french, german, hungarian, romanian and polish). If you are a speaker of one of these languages, i'd appreciate every information that you could provide for me. I'm looking for recensions, footnotes that mention his name or one of his works etc.

I

I don’t really know the name of what I’m looking for so please bear with me. I’m looking for books that deal with history as “meaning making” for countries or groups of people and as a result the importance of alternative history or imagining different/parallel histories. If you could mention a book or a paper or field of study I could look into that would be great. I’m using this as research for a fiction novel I’m writing. It would be great if it related to the de-colonialism or fascism in someway. Thanks for your help in advance.

You have to convince a room full of engineering undergrads that historical research can actually improve our understanding of the present day. What's an example of a book of academic history in which the workmanlike study of a new or neglected archive uncovered new facts that clearly overturned our dominant understanding of an event or state of affairs?

Though I'm not particularly invested in the notion of objectivity, these students are, so I'm not as interested (for these purposes) in examples where a theoretical or attitudinal reframing gives us a different "interpretation" of established events. Obviously the distinction between these two is murky in practice, but right now I want a clear example of the first.

​

​

Good evening,

I teach 8th grade US history in Texas (beginnings to 1877). I am looking for a good general history of the US to guide me a bit as I plan my lessons/units. I have considered “Penguin History of the United States” by Hugh Brogan, but I am not convinced. I would also like to avoid paying traditional textbook price. Any recommendations will be appreciated.

Thanks!

As the title says, I'm currently working on a research paper involving historiography and how different works challenge or support how people interpret historical events. My topic how such literature has affected the way we view women and marriage in the early 19th century.

Here is the question: I would really like to use one of Jane Austen's books, as they have very much been a factor in how modern women view that time period, however I'm not sure if referencing fiction is entirely appropriate when writing about historiography. The book was written during the era and is technically a primary source itself, so as long as I reference the book and it's reception as a whole rather than its plot/content I would think it would be permissible?

Prince Mario-Max the real Prince became target of unprecedented tabloid hate-campaign in fake news

Los Angeles (pts034/29.01.2024/20:15)

Prince Harry won the Living Legends of Aviation Award, had a chat with Dr. Prince Mario-Max, who congratulated him, and then both became the target of an unprecedented hate-campaign launched by a tabloid. Dr. Prince Mario-Max Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe is a German lawyer who works in Hollywood as Journalist and Producer and SAG-AFTRA host. His birth parents are Dr. Princess Antonia zu Schaumburg-Lippe and his father is Prince Waldemar zu Schaumburg-Lippe. His father Prince Waldemar had an aunt named Princess Helga-Lee that could not have children (miscarriages) and adopted Prince Mario-Max as successor. Therefore, Prince Mario-Max is a double REAL prince through his birth parents and Princess Helga-Lee – as GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS proof - despite the discriminatory fabrications spread by a hater.

The family is dealing with a obviously jealous bully named Alexander Schaumburg-Lippe, since decades. On occasion of the defamation campaign against Prince Harry and Dr. Prince Mario-Max, Mister Alexander Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe - an ordinary citizen of the republic of Germany - used the tabloids to proclaim himself as a fictitious "head of the family." He is absolutely not any head of Prince Waldemar's real royal ancestral family.

Outraged by such fraudulent propaganda, Prince Waldemar reputed this absurd claim from this personage of Non-Royal-Danish-Ancestry. Prince Waldemar maintained a lifelong police of distance and disassociation from such impudent claims of a lower German Schaumburg-Lippe line persona.

Mr. Alexander Schaumburg is obviously a megalomaniac that desperately targets Prince Mario-Max to grab his 5 minutes in the news. It's absurd that they present this person as commentator. A tabloid abuse to bully Prince Mario-Max's family with fake news stories. "There is no head of the family, or anything alike under German law for our family. A fabricated but widely spread false narrative", Dr. Princess Antonia zu Schaumburg-Lippe adds.

Government documents about the legacy and names of the REAL Prince Mario-Max, Dr. Prince Mario-Max Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe have been attached and Dr. Prince Mario-Max legal team is sending out cease and desist proceedings to anyone fabricating false, fake or fraudulent reputation attacks against real Dr. Prince Mario-Max. "The abusive campaign has to end and compensation is due", Dr. Princess Antonia adds.

Dr. Prince Mario-Max Schaumburg-Lippe was attacked for his private event attendance and simply doing his job working in entertainment as teleshopping host , TV- and Stage-actor. He is members of LA Press Club, OEJC Austrian Press Club, SAG-AFTRA, EQUITY and AGVA.

This is a psycho-historiographical question for historians or those who are very strong in the area of history. It was removed from /r/AskHistorians, so I am hoping this is a more appropriate place to ask the question.

I often mix up "5th century" with "500's" in my mind. Their 5-ness inevitably links them together. "5th century" and "400's" do not share 5-ness or 4-ness, so they are harder for me to link together. Basically, I have to do a translation process in my mind every time I encounter a date. So when I see "482" I internally add 1 to determine what century it is. This process is, relatively speaking, quite slow. It's like being given the problem 4 + 3 and counting 5, 6, 7 rather than just knowing that 4 + 3 = 7.

I do not tend to mix up specific dates. For example, I know that the Northern Qi dynasty started in 550 CE. I don't tend to get this mixed up with 450 CE. However, the large arcs of history I only know in terms of centuries, or perhaps early and late parts of a century. I often mix up centuries, or fail to relate them to the dates they contain. (It would be impossible for me to memorize exact dates of everything. Even if I could, incomplete historical records, geological dating, and other indirect dating methods give us only a large range of dates. So I assume that thinking in terms of whole centuries is unavoidable.)

Lastly, I should mention that I do not have dyslexia or dyscalculia, and I have achieved a Masters level of education. My first degree is in Computer Science, where we work with numbers in quite a different way. My second degree is in Psychology, where numbers were not particularly relevant.

So, for those who do not experience this dilemma, or who have learned to overcome it, what works for you? Do you have to perform a translation, or do you just see the connection? Any insight into your process or what it feels like phenomenologically is very much appreciated.

With the incredible pace of advance shown by the latest ChatGPT version, it got me thinking about how it could be about to revolution the study of history.

Soon, it is going to be possible to use AI to do all of the following, very quickly:

• Search for and collect every single historical primary source that is available online
• Make that database searchable by keyword, time, place, person, source, etc
• Search for and collect every single secondary source available online, and link them to primary sources.
• Translate all known languages into any other language
• Cross-reference any and all texts, in any and all languages, and even identifying findings absent in the entire literature.
• Upload new material by simply submitting photographs of the texts.

Phew.

Now, obviously accuracy is a major question. I'm sure many have seen how unreliable previous versions have been. Yet this seems to be improving rapidly with each new iteration.

Given that the status quo is hardly a gold standard of objectivity, it's not hard to imagine a system such as this quickly becoming more accurate than all but the most learned expert on the most niche and undocumented areas of history.

But as a tool? A tool that can simultaneously give you the phone number of the archive housing the text it's citing? That people can then verify for themselves?

I mean, this is gonna change everything, right?

At the time of caesars first consulship election, he saw that pompey and crassus was contending for hegemonic power over the republic and understanding that he also had a lot of power, he therefore could unbalance this competition by whatever side he pleased

And according to Plutarch, it was exactly what he did and it seems it was by the most Machiavellic means. Cato also said that it was not the competition between pompey and caesar that brought ruin to the republic in the end, but in fact it was their Machiavellic friendship its doom

Caesar made so much popular measures in his consulship that in fact he transformed it in a tribuneship, merging two powers for himself. But when an important senator and cato was ready to give him trouble, he brought pompey to the rostra and made him pledge that he would protect caesar with violence if needed

Pompey was so given to caesar that he even married his daughter, who was to be already married to another man. Its crazy to think, but to pacify this man, pompey gave his own daughter to him, when in fact she also was promised to sullas son. Maybe it was coincidental, but now caesar also decided to marry a noble woman

But pompey being tired of being treated as cat and shoe by all his allies, he rose as an ultimate tyrant and filled the capital with armed soldiers. All of his measures was by the use of force and now the capital lived in a constant fear of sudden death

Since his second triumph pompey captured 1000 fortress and 900 cities. He also founded 39 cities and captured 800 ships from the cilician pirates. Also he taxed 50 million in money from the conquered territory and looted 85 million and 20 thousand talents more and gave it to the roman state and its people, while to his soldiers he gave at least 15000 drachmae to each

When lucullus had returned from asia after being ill treated by pompey, he was received by the senate with the utmost honor and when later on pompey also had returned from asia, the senate started begging lucullus to defend the interest of the state from pompeys supposed machinations. Although lucullus had accustomed himself with a life of leisure and he had catos help, he nevertheless vigorously retracted pompeys banishment of his laws. Pompey, now humiliated, sought protection with tribunal power, therefore giving himself to young and inexperienced men, the most despicable being clodius

Clodius used to walk around the forum with pompey by his side making sure that all the interest of the common folk were being attended. Clodius also made pompey to exile cicero, the one who had helped Pompey a lot before. Cicero even tried to plea for his life but pompey shut his house door and fled from the back. So fearing for his life, cicero immediately left the city

Now, caesar being returned from his governorship he passed a law that brought him much popularity, then he got the consulship and started passing laws that would distribute land and found new cities so he could increase even further his popularity

Working on my MA in History. I have understood that primary sources are viewed as giving voice to the past from sources that had first-hand experience of that studied historical event. I am studying the cultural movement known as the Arab spring and one of my secondary sources (book) has real interview comments of protesters on the ground durning the marches. Can the comment be used as a primary source?

What is scissor and paste history/historiography?

Kinda funny to think that in 60 years time when the war in Ukraine is being taught in schools, it will be studied with the help of amazing first hand evidence, like tiktoks or Twitter profiles. Things which are to us today generally pretty mundane.

I find it very amusing that practically every historian is always finger-wagging you throughout the whole chronicle and whenever an emperor or king they don't like shows up, they go on the most massive tirades against them.

"He did this! Oh, he was so vile and contemptible and the people hated his cruel ways! He helped barbarians! "

Livy does it, Cassius Dio, Ammianus, Diodorus, Herodian, and Procopius go on whole tirades, and Suetonius and Tacitus certainly don't refrain from it either.

It's very interesting how these men wrote their histories because they read each others' works and so it's funny how these 'characters' just keep being reinforced.

For example, take this portion here form Theophanes

This Galerius Maximianus was such a fornicator that his subjects sought anxiously where they could hide their wives. He was so absorbed with the trickery of deceitful demons that he refrained from tasting anything without the support of divination.

• Theophanes the Confessor, Chronicle, Trans: Cyril Mango

Even the ones who are not Christian still have this way of writing which is just super aggressive.

How will sources described in the literature review section sound like compared to those described in the main body? For historiography essay?

I need to do a research project (3000 words) on historiography (how does Western and Chinese historiography differ on their interpretation of the significance and outcome of the trial of the Gang of four)

I need to write a literature review as part of that research project, but I'm confused as the things in the literature review surely will be be also found in the main body of the text?

How are sources discussed differently in the literature reicew part, compared to the main body? How long should a literature review part be and in how much detail should things be discussed and how should it sound? Any help would be much appreciated.

How do y’all go about finding primary sources for illiterate people? I’m researching Francisco Pizarro for one of my college classes and it took forever to find just one primary source. There’s gotta be a better approach than what I used.

What are some Marxist historiography methodologies? When doing research and it needs to be discussed?