"WHY HISTORY" Topic

I was too eager in eliminating the posts.

The original post was
This is obviously for those of you who are into history.

The questions is

1. Why are you so fascinated even besotted with reading and studying history?

2. Why is this so powerful you go out and spend so much money and time on books and models and painting to recreate and add to the study?

For me it is simple.

A. You can't make this stuff up. History is far more unusual, bizarre, and strange than anything fiction can concoct.

B. I wish to reify the passions.

Agree with A 100%, as a matter of fact that is what I tell my family & friends when they ask why I read so much history.

jdg

For me History is part of an overall thirst for knowledge. Socrates said: there is only one good, knowledge; and only one evil, ignorance. There exists a vague hope in me that history can serve as a tool to teach humankind the way forward to a better future.

Reading certain history is more interesting to me then the study of other disciplines.

History is the story of us all.

My favorite Viv says that I study when I read history I store it all away for future reference. So when a member of her family says something really stupid about history, I can say ….

"Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It."

History is my "baseball', I guess. (I have a friend who can tell you anything you could ask regarding baseball. Why?)
I have always thought, why read fiction when what actually happened is at least as good and unbelievable? Regarding military history, I grew more fascinated as I went through the centuries and read how generals maneuvered armies to beat there opponents and as the armies grew in size and yet were still able to be maneuvered to victory (or not for the other side).
When I got into miniatures gaming I understood better the weapons mix idea and how tactics and weaponry were inter-related.
In all honesty, I wanted to learn to be a general. Never been tested other than the miniatures table.

I have loved military history which is only one aspect of it since I was in high school.
The idealistic reason would be studying to honor those who fought on any side in any war.
I research history is straight forward and facts are there in military aspects.
In game design historical is harder and restrictive. The facts are there for every gamer to fact check. Fantasy gives more leeway since how can you be bad mouthed when the facts are flexible.

If half of the stuff that happened in history was in a novel, I would throw it against the wall in disgust, and use it as kindling to start a charcoal fire for burgers.
It's unbelievable.

Just one example. The Battle of Midway. Naaaah. The Yanks were too lucky.

Ah, Midway's nothing. Go to H. G. Wells' publisher in 1895. Tell him you have a near future novel in which all of Europe fights for four years, terrible new weapons are invented, London is bombarded from the air, millions die, and the winners are Poland, Lithuania and Finland.

As he's throwing you out of his office, tell him about the sequel in which an Austrian gefreiter commands the German Empire and a seminary school dropout turned bank robber is the new Tsar. The two of them fight for the mastery of Europe.

I knew people involved in both of those, and they still seem a little unreal to me.

Not as outright weird as the story in which a Corsican lieutenant of artillery rules France as Emperor and makes all his brothers kings, though.

"A. You can't make this stuff up. History is far more unusual, bizarre, and strange than anything fiction can concoct."

History is simply more compelling than fiction or fantasy. I've often wondered why Hollywood tends to "improve" a historical event when the real story is usually far more interesting than the fictional version. I suppose it's because if one followed the actual sequence of events it would be too confusing or unbelievable.

How about "I just really enjoy it."

Military history. Not that other stuff it's boring. Politics and war go together. Religion and war go together. Civilization's treasures take a hit in every war, that's the downside. But the military reasons for decisions are the really interesting stuff.

I could give all kinds of justifications, but the real reason is that already cited by nevinsrip above.

Thomas Hardy, IMHO, summed it up neatly in 'The Dynasts' when the Spirit Sinister says, 'War makes rattling good history, while peace is but poor reading. So I back Buonaparte because of the pleasure he will bring posterity.'

I enjoy reading history, in fact I rarely read non fiction any more. Like nevinstrip above I just enjoy it.

> A. You can't make this stuff up. History is far more unusual, bizarre, and strange than anything fiction can concoct.

I don't know about that. My History teacher in 7th grade berated us for liking Star Wars (late seventies) when HIS generation was interested in history – as told by the westerns on TV in the fifties…

Hmmm. "Hollywood" sometimes screws up spectacularly. Shall I discuss certain uniforms, organizations and tactics I've seen on wargame tables?

But also remember they have about two hours, and they can't count on the audience to bring any historical knowledge with them--not to mention historical events sometimes happening out of dramatic sequence. With the best will in the world, they have to simplify and sometimes rearrange events, merge characters and generally turn War and Peace into a short story. Enjoy what they get right, and let it go.

Dear rvandusen

It is because the real story, the real history, in many cases is not apprehendable to moderns. There motivations and causes of historical events have no resonance in the modern mind. Thus for example, in "Patriot" moderns cannot conceive of persons going to war for principles or philosophies or ideologies, and so it is only when his own family is touched that the protagonist gets involved.

But you are correct, the real questions, the real story is far and away superior to whatever Hollywood can make up.

This is covered for me in my second point 'Reify the Passions."

"There's much more drama in what is, and what was, than anything the human imagination can dream of." – Ken Burns

History doesn't have to be plausible.

1. Why are you so fascinated even besotted with reading and studying history?

I am interested in and enjoy reading and watching history (I even have a BA in history), but don't feel quite fascinated, and certainly not besotted.

Answer number 1 is the reason that I remain interested: you just cannot make this stuff up.

2. Why is this so powerful you go out and spend so much money and time on books and models and painting to recreate and add to the study?

I don't spend much on books (or other media), models, or painting. I do check books and DVDs out of the library and return them when I've read them.

Y'all said it all 'cept I think H'wood could do a bit better than they do.

History is, after all, the biggest and longest-running shared world anthology.

There is the " Killing w/out killing aspect ".