There’s the old tale of a country that was lost because a war was lost
The war was lost because the battle was lost
The battle was lost because a general didn’t receive orders
The general didn’t receive orders because the message was delayed
The message was delayed because the messenger stopped en route
The messenger stopped en route because his horse’s shoe came off
The shoe came off because of a sharp rock in the road.
How far back do we go in search of causes of historical events?
Comments
10 comments:
basically in history we go as far as the significance of the cause in this particualr problem.Moreover the relevance matters most.
Tricky though - isn't it, Melaku? Of course you are right, but how do we measure the significance and the relevance? How do we decide what is significant and/or relevant?
Here's a slightly different question, but still on historical causation.
One famous battle in Europe took place in 1415 in northern France between the French and the English - the battle of Agincourt. Although hugely outnumbered, the English won the day. The question is: how should we explain this? What sort of cause is more convincing? Well, first of all, here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry:
"Arguably, the deciding factor for the outcome was the terrain. The narrow field of battle, recently ploughed land hemmed in by dense woodland, favoured the English. An analysis by Battlefield Detectives has looked at the crowd dynamics of the battlefield. The 900 English men-at-arms are described as shoulder to shoulder and four deep, which implies a tight line about 225 men long (perhaps split in two by a central group of archers). The remainder of the field would have been filled with the longbowmen behind their palings. The French first line contained between four and eight thousand men-at-arms, outnumbering the English men-at-arms at least four to one, but they had no way to outflank the English line. The French, divided into the three battles, one behind the other at their initial starting position, could not bring all their forces to bear: the initial engagement was between the English army and the first battle line of the French. When the second French battle line started their advance, the soldiers were pushed closer together and their effectiveness was reduced. Casualties in the front line from longbow fire would also have increased the congestion, as following men would have to walk around the fallen. The Battlefield Detectives state that when the density reached four men per square metre, soldiers would not even be able to take full steps forward, lowering the speed of the advance by 70%. Accounts of the battle describe the French engaging the English men-at-arms before being rushed from the sides by the longbowmen as the melée developed. The English account in the Gesta Henrici says: "For when some of them, killed when battle was first joined, fall at the front, so great was the undisciplined violence and pressure of the mass of men behind them that the living fell on top of the dead, and others falling on top of the living were killed as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt
And now here is a famous speech from Shakepeare's play Henry V, in which the English king rallies his troops before the battle:
What's he that wishes so? My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin: If we are mark'd to die, we are enow To do our country loss; and if to live, The fewer men, the greater share of honour. God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more. By Jove, I am not covetous for gold, Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost; It yearns me not if men my garments wear; Such outward things dwell not in my desires: But if it be a sin to covet honour, I am the most offending soul alive. No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England: God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour As one man more, methinks, would share from meFor the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more! Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host, That he which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him depart; his passport shall be made And crowns for convoy put into his purse: We would not die in that man's company That fears his fellowship to die with us. This day is called the feast of Crispian: He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named, And rouse him at the name of Crispian. He that shall live this day, and see old age, Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours, And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian: 'Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars. And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember with advantages What feats he did that day: then shall our names. Familiar in his mouth as household words Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter, Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester, Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd. This story shall the good man teach his son; And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by, From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remember'd; We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition: And gentlemen in England now a-bed Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
http://www.themediadrome.com/content/poetry/shakespeare_agincourt.htm
If we make the bold assumption that a speech of this sort was actually made at the time, which kind of explanation for the result of the battle seems more credible to you - the way the physical terrain was used or the mental state of the participants and motivational abilities of a leader? And now broaden the question - should we look more to physical or psychological factors in seeking to explain in history?
This is a difficult one...choosing between physical and psychological factors...however, in my opinion, physical factors may APPEAR more credible because they are tangible and could be worked with (physically)...empirical data can be directly drawn from physical factor and processed for first hand information...on the other hand, it is true that over time, these physical factors may have changed from the time the historical event occurred(weathering etc.) and so may make our conclusions inaccurate...
the psychological factors too come with their own pros and cons...a mon avis, the psychological factors involved in the historical events may have been misinterpreted over time and through various generations and hence may lose their accuracy and so they may not be the most reliable path to take in an attempt to explain a historical event(i hope that made sense)...however,i think the psychological factor has a significant influence in history because besides the physical factors that APPARENTLY aided the English, i believe the speech moved them, their emotions came into play and the soldiers gave their all, resulting in the battle being won...also, one thing JHK's entry did not include was if the French also had a speech of such magnitude and emotion told to them...if they did have a similar speech, then the role that the psychological factor played in the battle on the part of the English is sort of equivalent to the role it played for the French, and therefore makes it more sensible (i think) for us to view the role the physical terrain played as more influential in result of the battle of Agincourt...i hope i made sense :D...ya!
all in all i think both physical and psychological factors play an extremely important role in seeking to explain history and that it is very difficult to put one over the other...:D
*i may revise my comment later*
i think that we should go as far as the event still pertains to the matter at hand. after a long line of events in a chain the link between the event and the main topic is lost. just like the loss in effect of nuclear charge in a nucleus of an atom on the valence electrons of a huge atom with many shells........
however i was just thinking, does it mean we do not consider those valence electrons as a part of the atom just because they are far away from the nucleus???? not exactly. hmm... this is certainly more tricky than i thought.
How about this for re-interpretation of the past?
Last year there was a conference held by French historians at the scene of the Battle of Agincourt. At this conference the French academics said that, “the extent of the feat of arms was massively exaggerated, with claims that the English were hugely outnumbered, a lie.” They also accused of the British of war crimes. (did the idea exist then? I don’t know) They said the British, “burnt prisoners to death and setting 40 bloodthirsty royal bodyguards on to a single Gallic nobleman who had surrendered.” One distinguished French historian (Christophe Gilliot) said, 'There were numerous heroic acts by the French on the field of battle, but they were met with barbarism by the English.' No British historian was invited for this conference.
One can identify numerous knowledge issues here.
http://medievalnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/more-on-battle-of-agincourt.html
Nice follow-up, Mr. Kidane! Nearly 600 years is a long time in history, I suppose.
"It is impossible to write ancient history because we lack source materials, and impossible to write modern history because we have far too many." (Charles Peguy)
But maybe that quotation opens up other knowledge issues...
We can go as far has the incidence happened but but is it that easy and do historians do that? Certainly not.Take for Example the first tale, one can blame the stone for the failure to deliver the message however there is reason why the stone was there and therefore will still have to go far back to investigate why the stone was there.Could it be the problem of the road constructors?
Based on this the chain of events will keep on drawing us back.
Post a Comment