- This topic has 3 voices and 2 replies.
-
Posts
-
Just want to make sure my attitude and methodology is correct here. At school, I can take any history class in whatever order I want, but I chose to go in chronological order as much as I can (which is why I'm starting with Ancient Greece). Is this correct or should I not be all that concerned? I just think it's basic common sense. In order to know the next period of history, one has to know the previous. One can know all the facts about a particular war or particular period, but I think it is imperative to know what happened in the last 50, 100, or 500 years to fully understand what led up to that particular war or period.Also, in a similar vein, seeing how I'm interested in Irish history, would it be beneficial to have a good solid background on British history? AND to learn and understand British history, is it critical to get a good solid background in European history? The only area where I see this may not be relevant would be when you are learning the ancient histories of a people. For example, I think one can study the ancient Celts without having the knowledge of other groups that have had no or very little contact with them until later on. Just thinking of this, some ancient Greek historians mentioned the Celtic people, but only very little. In that way, would it not be necessary to have to learn about or know Ancient Greece in order to understand the Celts?Basically, what I'm mostly concerned with right now in my studies is going in chronological order, and I'm just wondering if this is the correct attitude.Keep in mind, this is undergrad level. I'm sure it's different when you get to graduate level.
I would say you are going about it with the correct approach, and it is my preferred way of studying history as well. From older to newer, from macro-history to micro-history, if so desired. I wouldn't set this in stone, but rather use it as a general guideline. Basically what you want to do is learn about the major foundations of history that are established early on so that when you come across them in later classes you know what's going on and don't have to re-learn things piecemeal. Would you have to study Greek history in order to study Irish history? I don't think it would be hurt, but I don't think it would be nearly as crucial as studying British history (which in turn presupposes knowledge of Roman history). Greek history simply won't have as much direct influence on older Irish history, and in the end you're going to have to face practicalities of your education which will force you to pick and choose. Remember, you can always pick fill in the gaps of your knowledge with personal study later on if need be.
