View single post by HankC
 Posted: Wed Jan 4th, 2006 03:46 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Posts: 517

  back to top

Campaigns study falls more into a military history class than general history. The actual FFFs are of little interest, or indeed importance, to general history. ROTC taught the military areas in depth and the classes were open to general students. Even then the Civil War got about 3 weeks of the period 1760-1890. Of course this was 30 years ago. Modern mileage may vary.

The study of history, and particularly Civil War history with it's voluminous primary sources, is almost laboratory-like. Relatively little *new* data is uncovered in any given new year, but more and more information is derived from the old.

The conclusions generated from this huge body of often-contradictory evidence provide a lab-like environment for current thinking and technique. Most buffs have fairly broad knowledge of the period with various areas and levels of depth.

Given such broad and relatively unchanging evidence, how do we generate such a wide variety of opinions on the same subject? Are our opinions mutable or cast in concrete? Our conclusions tell us less and less about our ancestors and more and more about ourselves and current society‚Ķ



 Close Window