I have to write a term paper

[zoidberg]

i cant wait for college.




oh wait, yes i can.

 

[Divine Victim]

I think that postulating the implications of certain events in history that didn't happen helps you appreciate the impact of the events that actually did occur.

Back to my example about the Spanish conquering England. If the armada had a better leader and they actually landed in England and took London, then say good-bye to not just the British Empire, Protestantism, and not to mention the modern prevalence of the English language.

I just find it can get very vague, far too speculative and is very difficult to approach historiographically.

Take your Armada example - it would be equally easy to assemble the argument that a Spanish MARITIME force taking London could only have enjoyed brief and localized success, and would have been rather powerless against the English nation overall.

Even with a "better leader", they would have presumably taken severe damage from English channel fleets, not to mention London being quite a long-winded location to sail to and "capture". I don't know the details of how many troops the Spanish brought, but I can't conceive of them having the manpower to secure London on a long-term basis as well as guard their fleet from retaliatory attacks.

I'm just saying, this sort of thing can go on indefinitely and with a suitable amount of botched together evidence pretty much anything can be speculated... so I'd rather focus on discussing what actually happened.

 

[Pessimism]

Lighten up a bit; it's just hypotheticals

 

[Zephyrus]

Protestantism started in Germany

And England was the most powerful Protestant nation. If they went, then Protestantism would have been confined to a smaller, weaker enclave and eventually snuffed out by a world controlled by the Catholic power of France, Spain and the others.

 

[Zephyrus]

I just find it can get very vague, far too speculative and is very difficult to approach historiographically.

Take your Armada example - it would be equally easy to assemble the argument that a Spanish MARITIME force taking London could only have enjoyed brief and localized success, and would have been rather powerless against the English nation overall.

Even with a "better leader", they would have presumably taken severe damage from English channel fleets, not to mention London being quite a long-winded location to sail to and "capture". I don't know the details of how many troops the Spanish brought, but I can't conceive of them having the manpower to secure London on a long-term basis as well as guard their fleet from retaliatory attacks.

I'm just saying, this sort of thing can go on indefinitely and with a suitable amount of botched together evidence pretty much anything can be speculated... so I'd rather focus on discussing what actually happened.

You may have a point, but to me it's still a more interesting topic than just restating the historical facts you gleaned from wikipedia.

 

[Valerie]

Write a paper about the history of World History classes.

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

Sort of in the same vein as the great "What if's" of history, I think it might be pretty interesting to write a paper about tiny, seemingly insignificant things that end up having a huge impact on events. Like a loose bolt on a plane ends up playing a big role in the battle of Midway. I have a book about that kind of stuff called The Hinge Factor, and I should really read the whole thing someday (I've only read bits and pieces for research). Anyway, that sort of thing would probably make for a great paper.

 

[Valerie]

Sounds a little like chaos theory; but after reading the description on Amazon, it seems to have a bunch of plausible stuff instead of BS*.



*chaos theory is ghey.

 

[Zephyrus]

Sort of in the same vein as the great "What if's" of history, I think it might be pretty interesting to write a paper about tiny, seemingly insignificant things that end up having a huge impact on events. Like a loose bolt on a plane ends up playing a big role in the battle of Midway. I have a book about that kind of stuff called The Hinge Factor, and I should really read the whole thing someday (I've only read bits and pieces for research). Anyway, that sort of thing would probably make for a great paper.

Check out the book What Might Have Been, if you like alternative history.

 

[Divine Victim]

You may have a point, but to me it's still a more interesting topic than just restating the historical facts you gleaned from wikipedia.

Since when is 'normal' History about "restating the historical facts"?

 

[The Ozzman]

I think the most interesting paper I had to write was a counter argument to something about history. For example, I wrote a paper about how Nixon's foreign policy was absolutely atrocious when it actually wasn't. I got a decent grade on the paper. Other people wrote about how FDR actually wanted WWII to happen, etc.

 

[Zephyrus]

Since when is 'normal' History about "restating the historical facts"?

Because I see it all too often when high schoolers write research papers on historical events. The trend places too much focus on just stating what happened, and gives insufficient attention to actually assessing the historical impact.

 

[Divine Victim]

Well they're just writing bad papers then aren't they!

 

[Alter]

Medieval Times a-la Peste Noire style artwork.

 

[MasterOLightning]

I think the most interesting paper I had to write was a counter argument to something about history. For example, I wrote a paper about how Nixon's foreign policy was absolutely atrocious when it actually wasn't. I got a decent grade on the paper. Other people wrote about how FDR actually wanted WWII to happen, etc.

Speaking of FDR, he didn't really do a good job with the New Deal. This would make a good topic. You could look at the various programs; which ones succeeded or failed, and what other actions could have been taken. People remember FDR fondly for getting the US out of the depression (when he didn't), and they forget that Hitler fixed what was probably an even worse financial crisis in Germany.

 

[Zephyrus]

It was the war that lifted the US out of the depression, not nearly so much the New Deal. This is common knowledge.

 

[cookiecutter]

The New Deal definitely helped keep the economy afloat, not to mention improve the country and the lives of its citizens, but it was World War 2 that lifted the crisis.

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

...and they forget that Hitler fixed what was probably an even worse financial crisis in Germany.

Well it would have been pretty tough for FDR to push a massive rearmament program though congress.