Is the cliche true that only the victors in war write history?
>>483320
No, historians write history (Ranke).
>>483323
what makes a historian qualified?
>>483325
Doctorate and peer review
>>483325
What makes a scientist qualified? What makes an electrician qualified? What makes a doctor qualified? You should be studying this rudimentary shit before you come spouting questions and opinions on a board that centers around it.
>>483325
What are the criteria for a good historian? or why are historians the right people to write history? Please clarify.
>>483336
both i guess.
>>483336
Doctorate and peer reivew
ASKED AND ANSWERED
>>483340
The first question is a valid question. The second question is retarded. A historian is defined as a person who writes history.
As for the answer to the first question, experience with writing and knowledge of primary sources. Though there are some claims about history that seem to be mere conjecture. These include claims that disregard primary sources as an appeal to common sense.
>>483320
>Is the cliche true that only the victors in war write history?
Used to be the case, when oppression wasnt considered so morally wrong, even by the oppressors.
Nowadays you cant shut a group up without everybody else reacting, because we value freedom much more.
>>483320
No. Its silly that anyone can think that when one of the very first histories written was by an Athenian about the Pelopenessian War.
>>483481
>greece
>first histories written
laughing_easterners.gif
>>483459
>mere conjecture
how do you personally decipher conjecture from old text without sources?
>>483497
Fine, within the western historiographical canon. As if we were talking about anything else
>>483320
According to Ibn Khaldun, a smart dead guy, history is written by imbeciles.
Sort of. Losers of wars still get their say in their own history books, but will most likely be thrown out by everyone else
>>483320
Not true.
The commies have been trying to re-write history even after being BTFO time and time again. Like roaches.
>>483320
It's hard to write when you're dead.
>>483335
His question actually makes sense. Just think of ancient greek/roman historians creating false myths about their enemies and depicting them as the bad ones with no culture. Not all historians are coherent and impartial, and that makes them liars.
Not at all, history is written by intellectuals and sometimes, when intellectuals are on the "losing side" (it's rare, but it happens), the victorious side is the one that is demonized. The Cold War is another example in the making, as intellectuals propagate the view that the U.S. was the real "evil empire" and the Soviet Union dindu nuffin wrong.
Pic related.
>>483481
>Its silly that anyone can think that when one of the very first histories written was by an Athenian about the Pelopenessian War.
The very first histories were written in the 19th century by Ranke and his contemporaries.
>>483320
Nope
>>483323
Yes but historians are forced into fitting the propaganda narrative of the winning side or face social exclusion and persecution. Documentation of WW2 is evidence enough of this
>>483320
Maybe in ancient history where an event is lucky to get just one or two scholars to witness it and write it down, but in more contemporary history, so much more historical detail and accuracy is written down by so many different people, that it is hard to spin a bias onto it.
Yes.
That is why its called the rape of nanking and the battle (not rape) of berlin.
also because of gommunist privledge
>>487036
After 3 days the Soviet commandant of Berlin shot men in the street for rapine.
As you'd know, traditional law of war used when Geneva is not in effect is that cities taken in siege may be raped for 3 days.
No, see Israel getting BTFO several times
>>487088
Pretty sure Israel was the one doing the BTFO-ing.
>>487096
I think he means the 2nd temple mate.
>>483335
>Found the historian
>>483320
Depending on the war and the victories then yes
if you remove your enemy from the present then they can not call you on your lies about the past
but there are many victories where the enemy has still been standing at the end of the war to keep you from writing your version
>>483320
Its not always the victors that right history, the monks raided by Vikings sure as hell werent victors in those scenarios, but they and not the vikings wrote about them and their perceived goals, history and customs.
Sometimes the losers write history, and they're usually pretty salty and biased about the whole ordeal.
