History Project- do we need new conclusions? (1 Viewer)

[el gwapo]

i'm still confused as to how i should approach my major project, which is the contrasting approach to the battle of waterloo. do i need new conclusions, my own conclusions to the core topic? or do i just analyse the sources i use to in regards to historiography?

 

[timobr0]

you basically have to answer your own question......

 

[el gwapo]

i'm thinking somewhere along the lines of "-Analyze the historical subjectivity in the written history of the Battle of Waterloo"

I'm finding it hard to put that into a question, without looking too simple.

 

[Loza33]

Is this for Ext. history project?

Wow, we werent allowed to do something like 'analyze' we have to choose a topic and study not so much as what happened, but historains opinions on what happened and historains opinions on other historians opinions on what happened.. if that makes sense? Like im doing Fidel Castro: Dictator to Liberator? Originally my question was dictator or liberator? but my teacher said i had to study it involving ht ediferent opinions of historains on a continum of their opionos..
i dunno..
ooo gtg!

 

[xeuyrawp]

Wow, we werent allowed to do something like 'analyze'

You should analyse.

I think you mean describe, account for, etc.

 

[el gwapo]

did you necessarily need a historians view, because i have with me a book of eyewitness accounts. of course someone like wellington was not a historian in a sense that it was not his occupation but his view is as valid as a historians.

 

[xeuyrawp]

did you necessarily need a historians view,

Whilst I disagree with it, for the MW, you ideally need a subject which has different secondary interpretations.

Doing something based soley on primary sources would not only be damn hard, but doesn't really satisfy the syllabus.

 

[hitachi88]

Whilst I disagree with it, for the MW, you ideally need a subject which has different secondary interpretations.

Doing something based soley on primary sources would not only be damn hard, but doesn't really satisfy the syllabus.

Whilst I agree that a primary source analysis as MW core would be difficult; it would also offer a different spin to it;

Assuming that journalists (if it's modern source) are referred as contemporary historians; the same historiographical process can be applied. Of course, different classes/groupings of these primary sources would have to be identified and categorised, and then argued as a group; rather than as an individual. Arguing an entire essay based on primary sources as individuals would indeed limit the MW's perspective.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Yeah you need to have a variety of sources for whatever you do, not just historians but experts in the relevant field (in this case warfare/military) as well as things like eyewitness accounts etc.

Even if you don't end up including references to all of these secondary sources it's useful to have an understanding of them in order to gain a greater understanding of the topic you are researching.

In my MRP, for example, I included the work of a journalist as it provided the fundamental controversy for my topic. I also used a wide range of source material not just for analysis of historical opinions but as a means of understanding the topic so that I was better able to form my own judgement.