Where does the truth in history lie?

Post Reply New Topic

Does the truth in history lie with the people who wrote it contemporaneously, or is the truth in history confined only to the pens of modern authorship?

By "truth" I mean the intuitive sense of the word.

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

The truth in history doesn't lie, it has been raised well to be a good and honest abstract concept.

In any case, to answer your question, there is no way to say "truth in history" as something that people actually have. It really doesn't lie anywhere, as no matter who is doing the writing there is still some uncertainty about what actually happened.

Therefore the truth in history always lies.

True History is all the events that up to a certain instant of time. Conventional History is the accepted record of some of those events plus things that probably did not happen. It is a Convention, not a Fact.

ruveyn

History consists of constantly re-interpreting historical events in new contexts. If you look at history long enough, it starts looking like us... Those who do not study the past are condemned to study it in summer school...

"history is written by the victor" Some famous dead dude

Not so. The History of the Jewish Wars by Josephus who was a Jew who came to live in Rome. The Romans thoroughly beat up on the Jews and wrecked Jerusalem and destroyed the second temple. Jews were losers, but a Jew wrote a history of the war. Josephus is how we come to know about Massada. Josephus' version is generally accepted over the Roman version.

ruveyn

Neither - I would seek the "truth" of history primary in the files of the bureaucracy and of the courts. Those reports were not made to show a niece picture for generations to come, but to record issues as they were. The accounts of a monastery regarding the consumption of the monks, the taxes from the peasants, etc. show more about the real live than any niece stories from court.

I would say it is more point of view:

Examples: You could write a history of England between 1485 and 1603 as the history of the Tudor monarchs, their court, their marriages, the high nobility and the wars etc. - you could also write a history of this period about the drastically changing living conditions of the peasants. A history of the monarchs would be no lie, but it would be not the full truth, it would not answer the question, why Henry VII and Henry VIII could act in the way they acted and other monarchs prior the Tudors failed in doing so (nota bene exception: Edward IV). The same is to say for German history: Traditionally the Germany history of the 18th century has been interpreted as the history of the raise of Prussia, but there was also the history of the small princes and Free Cities, which is recently more highlighted, because that those small states were often more successful in providing peace, tolerance and god living condition for their subjects by cooperation and god government than powerful Prussia - and why this was for those small princes important to have contented subjects.

You seem to be in agreement with Chomsky on (if not on historical interpretation than at least in theoretical) methodology.

If only it were so easy, i'd use a time travelling machine to verify any historical claims -.- (without disturbing them, wouldn't want a butterfly effect)

Well, Josephus was a good buddy of Nero...

to coin a phrase...if you lined up all the Historians from end to end, you'd never reach a conclusion...

The truth in history lies mostly dead and buried. Short of a time machine we have to make do with partial tales, not all of which are factually grounded.

ruveyn

That is such an awesome quote. I will definitely have to remember that one.

The truth of history is sometimes condensed, so who really knows what the real truth is?

The line just is not clear.