The historians call this activity of the historical figures "the reaction."
The historians quite falsely represent Napoleon's faculties as having weakened in Moscow, and do so only because the results did not justify his actions.
This latter sense has been adapted and extended by modern historians concerned with the frontiers of the Roman Empire.
- Historians are agreed that Pericles was one of the most powerful personalities of ancient times, and generally allow him to have been a man of probity.
It is too much to call him "the first of German historians"; he is a forerunner of Gottfried Arnold, with more vigour and directness of purpose.
The Bohemian historian, Palacky, fifty years ago thoroughly disproved this accusation, and, though it has recently been revived by German historians, it must undoubtedly be considered as a calumny.
His policy in encouraging the drama has already been mentioned: among his friends he could count three of the greatest Greek writers - the poet Sophocles and the historians Herodotus and Thucydides.
- The campaigns and life of Alexander did not lack contemporary historians, some of them eye-witnesses and even associates.
He left Batavia on what has been designated by Dutch historians the " Happy Voyage," on the 14th of August 1642.
So it is impossible to understand by what reasoning the historians reach the conclusion that this maneuver was a profound one.
All historians agree that the external activity of states and nations in their conflicts with one another is expressed in wars, and that as a direct result of greater or less success in war the political strength of states and nations increases or decreases.
So say the third class of historians who regard all historical persons, from monarchs to journalists, as the expression of their age.
Governments, thieves, scientists, treasurer hunters, historians and despots of all kinds would crave his skill.
Having devoted much time to the study of the Latin writers, historians, orators and poets, and filled his mind with stories of the glories and the power of ancient Rome, he turned his thoughts to the task of restoring his native city to its pristine greatness, his zeal for this work being quickened by the desire to avenge his brother, who had been killed by a noble, a member of the ruling class.
Less favourable is the view taken by non-Catholic historians, which seems in some measure to be confirmed by St Francis himself.
We know from the Roman historians that a large force of Gauls came as far south as Rome in the year 390 B.C., and that some part of this horde settled in what was henceforward known as the Ager Gallicus, the easterdmost strip of coast in what was later known as Umbria, including the towns of Caesna, Ravenna and -Ariminum.
Modern historians, although less rhetorical, speak in the highest terms of the importance of Magna Carta, the view of most of them being summed up in the words of Dr Stubbs: "The whole of the constitutional history of England is a commentary on this charter."
The Christians suffered from systematic persecution, and many historians, with a strange lack of historical insight, have poured denunciation upon him for an attitude which was the natural outcome of his convictions.
In early times irrigating canals distributed the waters over the plain, and made it one of the richest countries of the East, so that historians report three crops of wheat to have been raised in Babylonia annually.
Skene in The Historians of Scotland.
The historians of the day give us but imperfect records or make unsatisfactory allusions.
In the heyday of the Athenian democracy, citizens both conservative and progressive, politicians, philosophers and historians were unanimous in their denunciation of "tyranny."
Of the Historians' History of the World (" Times " ed., 1907), which also includes considerable extracts from Russian works not elsewhere translated.
This work for the first time made possible the existence of the modern school of scientific historians of medieval Germany.
Tiridates adopted the name of his brother Arsaces, and after him all the other Parthian kings (who by the historians are generally called by their proper names), amounting to the number of about thirty, officially wear only the name Arsaces.
If these things, however, indicate Prescott's deficiencies from the point of view of ideal history, few historians have had in a higher degree that artistic feeling in the broad arrangement of materials which ensures popular interest.
The ancient historians, who together cover this period, are strangely indifferent to the importance of the Jews, upon which Josephus is at pains to insist.
But Domitian, according to pagan historians, bore hardly on them.
The particulars of Arbuthnot's life are found in Calderwood, Spottiswood, and other Church historians, and in Scott's Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae.
Hoyt's The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence (New York, 1907) is the best presentation of the view generally adopted by competent historians that the alleged Declaration of the 10th of May 1775 is spurious; G.
We now have categories for Dutch writers, Dutch historians, Journalism (linked to Industry and business), Animal Husbandry and Horticulture (linked to agriculture and agriculture was linked to economics and biology).
Two days after the departure of the Simons the prisoner is said by the Restoration historians to have been put in a dark room which was barricaded like the cage of a wild animal.
64, called by Darius Haumavarka); and the historians of Alexander mention a march through Gedrosia, where he lost his whole army but seven men (Arrian vi.
Without having recourse to any elaborate process of economic reasoning, by confining out attention to one simple question, namely, what happened, we can establish conclusions of the greatest interest to economic historians and, further, define the problem we have to investigate.
But like the early statisticians of the 17th century, economic historians are the " beginners of an art not yet polished, which time may bring to more perfection."
We must include the pioneers of the historical school, the economic historians, the socialists, the statisticians, and others whose contributions to economics are now appreciated, and without whose labours the science as we know it now would have been impossible.
This determination closes the first chapter of his life; the second, from 1304 to 1314, is occupied by his contest for the kingdom, which was really won at Bannockburn, though disputed until the treaty of Northampton in 1328; the last, from 1314 to his death in 1329, was the period of the establishment of his government and dynasty by an administration as skilful as his generalship. It is to the second of these that historians, attracted by its brilliancy even amongst the many romances of history and its importance to Scottish history, have directed most of their attention, and it is during it that his personal character, tried by adversity and prosperity, gradually unfolds itself.
On the coins) are almost always called Arsaces, whereas the historians generally use their individual names.
"If," to quote Dr Robertson, "by attempting to relate the various occurrences in the New World in a strict chronological order, the arrangement of events in his work had not been rendered so perplexed, disconnected and obscure that it is an unpleasant task to collect from different parts of his book and piece together the detached shreds of a story, he might justly have been ranked among the most eminent historians of his country."
Mounds of bones marked his road, witnesses of devastations which other historians record in detail; Christian prisoners, from Germany, he found in the heart of "Tartary" (at Talas); the ceremony of passing between two fires he was compelled to observe, as a bringer of gifts to a dead khan, gifts which were of course treated by the Mongols as evidence of submission.
According to Aimoin of SaintGermain-des-Pres, and the chronicler, Richer, he was a Saxon, but historians question this statement.
To this was appended a critical dissertation on the historians who had dealt with the period (Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtschreiber), which, showing as it did how untrustworthy was much of traditional history, was to be for modern history as epoch-marking as the critical work of Niebuhr had been in ancient history.
The leader of modern historians, he was in truth a man of the ancien regime.
3 Thus under the Chow dynasty (1122-225 B.C.) they were known as Sewshin, and at subsequent periods as Yih-low, Wuh-keih, Moh-hoh, Pohai, Niichih and according to the Chinese historians also as Khitan.
The legend has been followed by modern historians; but in point of fact Peter is a figure of secondary importance.
Prutz has also a short account of some of the historians of the Crusades (Kulturgeschichte, pp. 453-4 6 9).
From Egypt Hadrian returned through Syria to Europe (his movements are obscure), but was obliged to hurry back to Palestine (spring, 133) to give his personal attention (this is denied by some historians) to the revolt of the Jews, which had broken out (autumn, 131, or spring, 132) after he had left Syria.
Constantine has been described by the orthodox historians of his time as a.
Abbad makes extensive quotations from early historians of Spanish America.
The history, Tarikh Bulgar, said to have been written in the 12th century by an Arabian cadi of the city Bolgari, has not yet been discovered; but the Arabian historians, Ibn Foslan, Ibn Haukal, Abul Hamid Andalusi, Abu Abdallah Harnati, and several others, who had visited the kingdom, beginning with the 10th century, have left descriptions of it.
Among historians who looked upon geography as an important aid in their work are numbered Polybius (c. 210-120 B.C.), Diodorus Siculus (c. 30 B.C.) and Agathachidus of Cnidus (c. 120 B.C.) to whom we are indebted for a valuable account of the Erythrean Sea and the adjoining parts of Arabia and Ethiopia.
It was only the chronologists and historians of the church who, following Julius Africanus, made use of apocalyptic numbers in their calculations, while court theologians like Eusebius entertained the imperial table with discussions as to whether the dining-hall of the emperor - the second David and Solomon, the beloved of God - might not be the New Jerusalem of John's Apocalypse.
Various animals, apparently indigenous, that are described by the early historians of the conquest, have disappeared.
They were men of great culture, and many historians, poets and writers belong to this class.
Though it isn't so much a time as a state of mind, historians plot the Renaissance as moving around Europe for a couple of centuries.
To us, their descendants, who are not historians and are not carried away by the process of research and can therefore regard the event with unclouded common sense, an incalculable number of causes present themselves.
Napoleon's historian Thiers, like other of his historians, trying to justify his hero says that he was drawn to the walls of Moscow against his will.
He is as right as other historians who look for the explanation of historic events in the will of one man; he is as right as the Russian historians who maintain that Napoleon was drawn to Moscow by the skill of the Russian commanders.
But later on, to fit what had occurred, the historians provided cunningly devised evidence of the foresight and genius of the generals who, of all the blind tools of history were the most enslaved and involuntary.
All the historians describe the affair as follows:
On the twenty-fifth of August, so his historians tell us, Napoleon spent the whole day on horseback inspecting the locality, considering plans submitted to him by his marshals, and personally giving commands to his generals.
So one might have thought that regarding this period of the campaign the historians, who attributed the actions of the mass to the will of one man, would have found it impossible to make the story of the retreat fit their theory.
And lastly, the final departure of the great Emperor from his heroic army is presented to us by the historians as something great and characteristic of genius.
"C'est grand!" * say the historians, and there no longer exists either good or evil but only "grand" and "not grand."
Who has not asked himself how it is that the French were not all captured or destroyed when our three armies surrounded them in superior numbers, when the disordered French, hungry and freezing, surrendered in crowds, and when (as the historians relate) the aim of the Russians was to stop the French, to cut them off, and capture them all?
The explanation of this strange fact given by Russian military historians (to the effect that Kutuzov hindered an attack) is unfounded, for we know that he could not restrain the troops from attacking at Vyazma and Tarutino.
The Russian military historians in so far as they submit to claims of logic must admit that conclusion, and in spite of their lyrical rhapsodies about valor, devotion, and so forth, must reluctantly admit that the French retreat from Moscow was a series of victories for Napoleon and defeats for Kutuzov.
The source of this contradiction lies in the fact that the historians studying the events from the letters of the sovereigns and the generals, from memoirs, reports, projects, and so forth, have attributed to this last period of the war of 1812 an aim that never existed, namely that of cutting off and capturing Napoleon with his marshals and his army.
What would then have become of the activity of all those who opposed the tendency that then prevailed in the government--an activity that in the opinion of the historians was good and beneficent?
The ancient historians all employed one and the same method to describe and seize the apparently elusive--the life of a people.
At the basis of the works of all the modern historians from Gibbon to Buckle, despite their seeming disagreements and the apparent novelty of their outlooks, lie those two old, unavoidable assumptions.
Biographical historians and historians of separate nations understand this force as a power inherent in heroes and rulers.
As soon as historians of different nationalities and tendencies begin to describe the same event, the replies they give immediately lose all meaning, for this force is understood by them all not only differently but often in quite contradictory ways.
So the historians of this class, by mutually destroying one another's positions, destroy the understanding of the force which produces events, and furnish no reply to history's essential question.
Writers of universal history who deal with all the nations seem to recognize how erroneous is the specialist historians' view of the force which produces events.
Not only does it occur at every step, but the universal historians' accounts are all made up of a chain of such contradictions.
This condition is never observed by the universal historians, and so to explain the resultant forces they are obliged to admit, in addition to the insufficient components, another unexplained force affecting the resultant action.
Specialist historians describing the campaign of 1813 or the restoration of the Bourbons plainly assert that these events were produced by the will of Alexander.
And in the same way the universal historians sometimes, when it pleases them and fits in with their theory, say that power is the result of events, and sometimes, when they want to prove something else, say that power produces events.
A third class of historians--the so-called historians of culture-- following the path laid down by the universal historians who sometimes accept writers and ladies as forces producing events--again take that force to be something quite different.
The historians of culture are quite consistent in regard to their progenitors, the writers of universal histories, for if historical events may be explained by the fact that certain persons treated one another in such and such ways, why not explain them by the fact that such and such people wrote such and such books?
Of the immense number of indications accompanying every vital phenomenon, these historians select the indication of intellectual activity and say that this indication is the cause.
But why intellectual activity is considered by the historians of culture to be the cause or expression of the whole historical movement is hard to understand.
And the only such conception known to historians is that of power.
As gold is gold only if it is serviceable not merely for exchange but also for use, so universal historians will be valuable only when they can reply to history's essential question: what is power?
The universal historians give contradictory replies to that question, while the historians of culture evade it and answer something quite different.
And these are the three ways in which the historians do explain the relation of the people to their rulers.
Evidently the explanations furnished by these historians being mutually contradictory can only satisfy young children.
Recognizing the falsity of this view of history, another set of historians say that power rests on a conditional delegation of the will of the people to their rulers, and that historical leaders have power only conditionally on carrying out the program that the will of the people has by tacit agreement prescribed to them.
But what this program consists in these historians do not say, or if they do they continually contradict one another.
To this question historians reply that Louis XIV's activity, contrary to the program, reacted on Louis XVI.
And so these historians also see and admit historical events which are exceptions to the theory.
Historians of the third class assume that the will of the people is transferred to historic personages conditionally, but that the conditions are unknown to us.
The leaders, these historians tell us, express the will of the people: the activity of the leaders represents the activity of the people.
If the whole activity of the leaders serves as the expression of the people's will, as some historians suppose, then all the details of the court scandals contained in the biographies of a Napoleon or a Catherine serve to express the life of the nation, which is evident nonsense; but if it is only some particular side of the activity of an historical leader which serves to express the people's life, as other so-called "philosophical" historians believe, then to determine which side of the activity of a leader expresses the nation's life, we have first of all to know in what the nation's life consists.
If we unite both these kinds of history, as is done by the newest historians, we shall have the history of monarchs and writers, but not the history of the life of the peoples.
Such is the reply historians who assume that the collective will of the people is delegated to rulers under conditions which they regard as known.
The historians, in accord with the old habit of acknowledging divine intervention in human affairs, want to see the cause of events in the expression of the will of someone endowed with power, but that supposition is not confirmed either by reason or by experience.
Examining only those expressions of the will of historical persons which, as commands, were related to events, historians have assumed that the events depended on those commands.
All seriously thinking historians have involuntarily encountered this question.
- we must agree with those historians of religion who affirm that the world has known only a single living monotheism, viz.