A good and well written introduction to what history means, how it's used, how it's done. You could always argue for X thing to be included but I think he covers most things you could expect to. Most chapters he focuses on a particular event from history and uses it to discuss a different aspect of how we understand history, how historical analysis is done, the struggle of approaching something like "the truth". Each of these events are interesting in themselves - an early 1300s murder to avoid someone exposing "heretics" to the inquisition, the story of a puritan preacher who went from England to America and back again and the family he left behind...

Often the book focuses more on asking questions than giving answers, but that's kind of the point - it's great for questioning the assumptions people might come into history with and pointing out how difficult it is to provide a definite understanding of the past. ( )

Very interesting - not an overview of history, but a discussion of History as a discipline and how it developed. Very interesting angles. ( )

This is just a new edition of History: A Very Short Introduction which I've already read and reviewed.

Excellent intro to how a historian thinks and how they determine what is history. Spoiler, there's a lot of different opinions.

( )

Excellent intro to how a historian thinks and how they determine what is history. Spoiler, there's a lot of different opinions. ( )

HISTORY, A Very Short Introduction, by John H. Arnold (pp 123). This an utterly fascinating explanation of history, how it’s written, who writes it, what it’s based on, and so much more. HISTORY is fascinating in part because of the polarization of viewpoints in our daily lives, including current day journalism and books we read written by authors who explain what’s happening, invariably from one or another viewpoint. We often think of history as a recitation of mostly verifiable facts put into a logical (and correct) order, and only slightly if at all influenced by the historian. Arnold contends—accurately in my opinion—few of the facts we rely on, at least with respect to human behavior (as opposed to the existence of a physical artifact), is truly verifiable. All history is written for a purpose, by someone with a perspective, based on a finite number of historical occurrences, and with gaps in knowledge that require guessing by each author. Historical facts or events are necessarily seen amidst incomplete contexts. The author illustrates many of his assertions by using several historical personages (some widely know, others less so) and events in which they were involved. To illustrate part of the difficulty of writing history, let alone reading it and trying to decide what is true irrespective of the author’s beliefs, I give the following example. (The U.S. Civil War is not mentioned in this book.)

Think of a famous general (in part because we often read about history as it was influenced or even directed by near-mythical heroes) who has just won a major battle. An author may assert that generalship determined the outcome. However, what might another historian emphasize in explaining the outcome of that conflict? Possibly the foe’s abysmal generalship was determinative, and not the hero’s. Other factors that might have been important and deserve emphasis could be: weather, weaponry, defenses, logistics (who was well fed and had enough bullets), the morale of the soldiers, illness and disease of combatants, political forces (why the battle was being fought), terrain, exhaustion of key players, everything leading up to the battle, and so much more. Without some idea of other key elements, we have to accept the historians assertion that McClellan outgeneraled Lee. Of course, good historians take into account other factors, but did they emphasize or even know about the most influential?

Was the “win” unfair because it was influenced by captured battle plans? Did the fact that casualties were horrific on both sides make it effectively a loss for both? Did the fact it gave Lincoln the victory he needed to issue the emancipation make it a resounding victory? Did the fact that Lee, who was heavily outnumbered, retreated an continued fighting for two years make it a loss for the Union? Did the winning general’s subsequent removal because of poor performance affect one’s view of the outcome? There are lots of opinions out there, but which is the best conclusion?

And that’s history. ( )