Investigations of a Dog

This is the 14th Military History Carnival, with a special theme of Contested Boundaries. Today is also the day that Bloggers Unite encourages bloggers to write about human rights (hat tip: Mark Stoneman). I might post something on that theme later today if I have time (and I probably won’t have time), but this carnival edition gives plenty of attention to human rights issues.

(more…)

While trawling (not trolling) for more posts that I can include in the next MHC, I found something interesting via Muhlberger’s Early History:

The Soldier in Later Medieval England is a major research project directed by Anne Curry (who was my personal tutor when I was an undergraduate at Reading). They now have a pilot database online (with free access) with details of thousands of soldiers who fought in the Hundred Years War. This should be really useful for anyone interested in medieval military history, not least because the financial records that the data comes from give much more accurate figures for army sizes than the estimates in chronicles.

The 14th Military History Carnival will be here next week on Thursday 15th May. We still need more submissions: you can submit your own posts or someone else’s, relating to the Contested Boundaries theme or anything else within MHC’s usual remit. Please e-mail submissions to fallon.young@4-lom.com or use the the submission form.

More details of the Contested Boundaries theme:

This can cover disputed territories and borders, which are a big part of many wars. It can also cover cultural boundaries. How does war complicate, question or shift the boundaries between races, genders, classes, and sexual orientations, between able and disabled, or between human and animal? Above all, how is the boundary between war and peace constructed and contested? Just use your imagination.

You can submit your own posts or posts written by someone else. If you feel inspired to write something on this theme, then go for it. Considering the number of submissions we normally get it’s unlikely that your post will be rejected unless it’s outside the scope of the carnival or fails to meet basic standards of factual accuracy. Submissions don’t have to be limited to the theme. As usual, anything about armed forces and conflicts in any part of the world is eligible. Only wars that happened after 1 January 2001 are excluded. See the Military History Carnival page for more details of the carnival’s aims and scope.

Last week I read:

1. Michael Braddick, God’s Fury, England’s Fire (Allen Lane, February 2008).
2. Ian Gentles, The English Revolution and the Wars in the Three Kingdoms, 1638-1652 (Longman, March 2007).

Both are very good books. And the Dauphin’s horse “is a most absolute and excellent horse”. That is, they’re as good as books which attempt to synthesize the state of the field at the time of writing can be. But can we do better than that? There are at least two problems with this genre which might be solved by using the web instead of print.

First, it’s impossible to keep a printed book up to date. As both authors acknowledge, there will always be something more to be said. It’s inevitable that other people will be saying some of it while the book is going through the process of typesetting, proofreading, printing and distribution. Just one example: Gentles and Braddick both take a traditionally hostile view of the Earl of Manchester. In April 2007 Malcolm Wanklyn published an article which reassessed Manchester’s generalship and concluded that the traditional view is largely based on lies that Cromwell told after the events. I’m convinced by Wanklyn’s arguments, but even if other people aren’t, it’s obvious that this new interpretation needs to be discussed. It wasn’t possible for Gentles or Braddick to discuss it because the article came out too late. If books were published on the web instead of print this wouldn’t be a problem. There would be no physical limit on updating them like there is with printed books.

Second, history books, especially ones intended to be accessible to non-experts, generally need a coherent linear narrative. But this conflicts with the need to explain things to non-experts. This is a general problem with all history books. A more specific problem that Braddick and Gentles have to deal with is explaining complex interrelated events in three kingdoms. Both authors are good at dealing with these challenges, but there’s no reason why these things even need to be challenging. Hypertext can free us from the constraints of linear narrative to a certain extent. A web page which contains a basic outline of some events can also contain links to other pages giving background details of people, places, and related events. Just look at the internal links in Wikipedia, and the way that blogs often link to Wikipedia.

This isn’t just fantasy or wild speculation about the future. It’s happening now. Bill Turkel and Alan MacEachern have published The Programming Historian on the web instead of in print, and are making full use of the opportunities that web publishing offers. Let’s hope more people try it soon.

Yesterday Bill Turkel announced that The Programming Historian is now available. This is a book, but not as we know it. It’s published in the form of a website and is completely free to access. As the name suggests, it’s an introduction to computer programming aimed specifically at historians. The tutorials will get you doing useful things as soon as possible, even if you have no previous experience of programming. If you do know programming it’s also worth a look. I found lots of useful tips in it.

By enabling more historians to make better use of digital technology the book is helping to change the way that we do history. And it’s also helping to change the way that we present our research, because it’s a concrete example of the advantages of open access publishing on the web. This means a whole lot more than not having to pay to read it. Although the book has been published, it’s still a work in progress. New chapters will be added in future, and existing ones can be improved in response to feedback from readers. Any typos, factual errors or unclear sentences can all be corrected very easily. Comments from reviewers are displayed on accompanying discussion pages so you can see how the text developed and what people thought of it. The book can keep growing to meet the needs of digital historians: there doesn’t ever have to be a point when it’s finally finished like there is with a printed book.

Go and read it. Now.

Via Archaeozoology, an interesting but difficult to spell blog about about the archaeology of non-human animals, I discovered another interesting archaeology blog. Middle Savagery is written by Colleen Morgan, a PhD student at UC Berkeley. She’s doing lots of innovative things with Flickr, YouTube, Facebook and Second Life (don’t let the Goreans get you!).

I think maybe historians and archaeologists don’t talk to each other enough despite supposedly having a common interest in the past. My BA was originally going to be archaeology but I was bored with it after two terms and switched to history - I don’t think I would’ve done very well if I’d stuck with it. That bad experience has affected me for far longer than it should have done, and it’s about time I got over it. I was similarly disgusted with history after finishing my PhD but it only took me 5 years to get over that. (Disgust is a vice.) Studying the non-human is one obvious place where historians and archaeologists need to get together.

The web could well offer a way of breaking down barriers between disciplines. Since getting involved in blogging I’ve come into contact with lots of different ideas which I wouldn’t ever have thought about if I’d just been doing history in the traditional way. Reading blogs has given me easy access to literary theory, philosophy, cognitive psychology, evolutionary biology, linguistics, various feminist perspectives and much more. Writing my blog allows me to try out ideas that are outside my specialist area without investing too much in them. And trying to think differently benefits my “proper” work.