- This topic has 2 voices and 15 replies.
-
Posts
-
Well, my field is art and architectural history, so it's very object-based and focused on individual works of man. I imagine that if you study battle tactics, it's important to be able to describe and analyze certain sequences of events.That said, I can understand that you could easily do research on enhancements to weaponry within a particular century that would be very object-based. Likewise, I could do a report on the sequence of events that led to an architect's construction of a building. Ok, now I realize that maybe our fields aren't that different after all. Forget I said all this. 🙂Actually, I could foresee our areas of study overlapping in certain areas, such as the historical construction of fortifications, or military regalia or even weaponry. My field is actually pretty broad...there's a lot I could get away with.
Perhaps you are correct that there is not much difference between our fields but I would guess those differences are significant. I could see where your field could be much more into analysis and object-centric than narrative. I have to admit though that art history has never appealed to me, but that might be because I have never delved that deeply into it. My focus has always been battle and the ways that men fight.Actually the development of fortifications is pretty interesting, particularly the development of the Trace Italienne system for defense against gunpowder weapons. Weapons are important but even more important are the men that wield them. The topic of my theses is going to be heavy on weaponry but the point that I am going after will emphasize men being the decisive factor vice any technological edge. That is what makes me say that narrative is the soul of history; for my kind of history at least, I think it is true.
