The History Thread

[villa4europe]

12 minutes ago, AVFC_Hitz said:

A-Level History back in early 2000's was. WW2 - Corn Laws - Cold War - Vietnam - 1920/30's USA and seeing Mr Gaunt pop out for a fag half way through a lesson.

I didn't do Vietnam! Would have loved that, didn't do USA 1920s either 

Mine was unification of Germany, nazi Germany and how they came in to power, corn laws, 100 years of Russia 

The pick any subject coursework I did something along the lines of "was JFK a good president?" bit off way more than I could chew, loved it though 

Edit - I'm sure GCSE covered the tudors, definitely WW2, maybe WW1 and then something else which I can't even remember

 

Edited November 25, 2021 by villa4europe

[AVFC_Hitz]

Just now, villa4europe said:

I didn't do Vietnam! Would have loved that, didn't do USA 1920s either 

Mine was unification of Germany, nazi Germany and how they came in to power, corn laws, 100 years of Russia 

The pick any subject coursework I did something along the lines of "was JFK a good president?" bit off way more than I could chew, loved it though 

Forgot the Weimar Republic as well.

[villa4europe]

1 minute ago, AVFC_Hitz said:

Forgot the Weimar Republic as well.

Yeah that was the nazi module, something like Germany 1918 to 1945

Russia was probably Alexander III in 1845 to 1945 but also did a lot before and was hard from memory, lots of info 

Corn Laws was boring but I liked palmerstom so focused on him front he exam, also a bit of Gladstone - I couldn't tell you a thing about it now though

Unification of Germany was bismarck and didn't cover that much 

[sharkyvilla]

What pissed me off was GCSE and A Level history were pretty much the same syllabus, but with Suffragettes and Irish history thrown in to A Level (not particularly PC of me but I had almost zero interest in either back then).  I half-arsed it and went from A* to C because I just re-used my GCSE coursework whenever I could.

[cyrusr]

Kings and Queens is infinitely easier in child friendly song:

 

[mjmooney]

Should take this to The History Thread. 

[mjmooney]

Bringing this over from the Things You Wonder thread... 

A very simplified summary of my school history syllabus. 

Primary school (1959-1965) 

Don't remember much, tbh, but it definitely included stuff on the stone age. 

Grammar school (1965-1972)

1st year (that's year 7 to you youngsters): Ancient history (taught as a separate subject - fertile crescent, Egypt, Greece, Rome)
British history - Iron age, Roman Britain 

2nd year: Vikings/Saxons/mediaeval Britain 

3rd year: Tudors & Stuarts

4th year: 18th Century 

5th year (O-Levels - that's GCSEs t.y.y.): French Revolution, industrial revolution in Britain 

6th form (A-Levels): (a) European history 1648-1870 (b) British history 1815-1914 

University (BA Hons, International History and Politics): 20th Century/World Wars 

The school syllabus was definitely a gallop through history 'in the right order', ending before the First World War, which seemed to be regarded as the end of history - the whole 20th Century was deemed to be 'now', and wasn't taught at all. As a WWII buff, I found this frustrating, and did my own reading - and it definitely influenced my choice of university course. 

The upshot was that there was no era about which I didn't get a bit of knowledge, however superficial - no huge 'blind spots', for British history at least, and a reasonable coverage of Europe (but not the USA or the rest of the world). Of course, unlike me, many dropped history after the third year, so it wouldn't apply to them. 

[Seat68]

I didn't do History beyond 3rd year of senior school, up to that point it was in Junior school, a **** ton on Nelson. A ridiculous amount on the industrial revolution (Shropshire school). Senior school was the seed drill, it seemed like this went on for 3 years but we also had a bit of the d day landings in there. Monarchs, mentioned in passing, Victoria probably. 

Amongst all of that we also had highlights of Captain Webb, Charles Darwin, Abraham Darby and Clive of India. This predates Carol Decker being a person of note. 

[sidcow]

11 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

(but fwiw if I was going on a quiz show you can bet your bottom dollar id learn them all)

Proper quizers will know monarchs. It's food and drink for them. 

[desensitized43]

I remember at primary school doing ancient egypt and stonehenge but not a lot else.

Secondary school was battle of hastings, tudors, industrial revolution, WW1, rise of hitler. Weirdly they skipped WW2 and went straight to Vietnam and the Civil Rights movement.

[Seat68]

29 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Proper quizers will know monarchs. It's food and drink for them. 

True. The Chasers always go on about monarchs, if you are serious about it you have to know your monarchs. 

[mjmooney]

1 hour ago, desensitized43 said:

I remember at primary school doing ancient egypt and stonehenge but not a lot else.

Secondary school was battle of hastings, tudors, industrial revolution, WW1, rise of hitler. Weirdly they skipped WW2 and went straight to Vietnam and the Civil Rights movement.

I suspect the thinking nowadays is something like "We can't possibly fit everything in, so let's just cherry pick a handful of random topics and attempt to make them vaguely interesting". 

I notice that (industrial revolution aside) the 18th Century seems deeply unfashionable these days. I can still reel off the Duke of Marlborough's four great victories in the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714) -  Blenheim, Ramillies, Oudenaarde and Malplaquet. Of course, most people will say "What earthly use is that knowledge in the modern world?" And I'd concede "Apart from quizzes, probably none". But I still find it somehow satisfying, so, thanks Mister Starling. 

[tonyh29]

13 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

"What earthly use is that knowledge in the modern world?" Apart from quizzes, probably none

Sadly that's about 95% of the stuff my brain kept 

If I ever get stranded on an Island where every night is Quiz night and you want to know random useless shit I'm sorted ..however if I get stranded on an Island and we need to build a shelter , hunt for food or build a raft and navigate off the island   then you might as well roast me over a fire and use me for food 

[desensitized43]

15 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

I suspect the thinking nowadays is something like "We can't possibly fit everything in, so let's just cherry pick a handful of random topics and attempt to make them vaguely interesting". 

I notice that (industrial revolution aside) the 18th Century seems deeply unfashionable these days. I can still reel off the Duke of Marlborough's four great victories in the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714) -  Blenheim, Ramillies, Oudenaarde and Malplaquet. Of course, most people will say "What earthly use is that knowledge in the modern world?" And I'd concede "Apart from quizzes, probably none". But I still find it somehow satisfying, so, thanks Mister Starling. 

Tbh the industrial revolution we were taught was more 19th century (Brunel, Steam power, textiles, slavery etc). I don't even think we ever covered Waterloo, the Americal Revolution or the War of 1812.

I really wish I'd decided to become a history teacher or something, it's something that as I've gotten older I've decided is far more interesting with the interconnected nature of it all than when I was actually at school. You pull a thread and you have no idea where it leads.

Even some of the topics that we were actually taught, WW1 for example, a lot of things were missed like the Russian Revolution and what happened to their imperial family. The breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire and all the ethnic consequences of it.

[tonyh29]

I seem to recall  my school history was  Spanish Armada , Industrial revolution , Corn laws and  WW II  .. it was pretty shit to be honest ,  but I've said before , i went to a shit school .

The teachers  were decent enough people , I used to go down the pub with some of them , my games teacher was a linesman in division one (as was) and used to bring me in autographed programmes each time he ran the line at  a match , I even used to walk home with my science teacher sometimes as he lived near by and we'd talk football and stuff  , but from a teaching POV there was no Dead poets society / Dangerous minds style inspiration going on ... we had so many toe rags in our school , I just think the will to teach was very quickly lost .

 

 

 

[tonyh29]

17 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

I really wish I'd decided to become a history teacher or something, it's something that as I've gotten older I've decided is far more interesting with the interconnected nature of it all than when I was actually at school.

I went to Egypt in 84 ( would have been 14)  with my parents and picked up a fascination with the whole ancient Egypt era , for a while I wanted to be an archaeologists but  I lacked the desire to study  , but I think that's where my interest in history came about and a desire to travel to places to learn history first hand .. Obviously  , unless you are Sharmeena Begum its not easy to run a school trip to Syria , or visit Persepolis , Machu Picchu etc  , but I really wish as a school kid we were taught more about these places instead of mainly focusing on British history 

 

[villa4europe]

6 hours ago, mjmooney said:

I suspect the thinking nowadays is something like "We can't possibly fit everything in, so let's just cherry pick a handful of random topics and attempt to make them vaguely interesting". 

there must be a teacher on here somewhere, theres a degree of flexibility in the curriculum, you can see it when you sit the exam, thats why i did russian history but others did vietnam, when you get the paper it has something like 4 or 6 questions on it and from memory you have to answer 2 of them (in like 3 or 4 pages worth of detail)

they will try and make them overlap at a guess, learning about bismark pops up when learning about gladstone and then again with hitler, thats why i would guess that my school didnt do vietnam or the civil rights movement, as interesting as it would have been it doesnt share anything with the other topics we picked (unless others can say more) spending a year studying the tudors and then a year studying the nazis has no flow to it for example, you cant take the knowledge gained and then use it in any way

Edited November 26, 2021 by villa4europe

[tonyh29]

18 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

there must be a teacher on here somewhere

There are a few  , but they learnt the hard way and now join cyclists and people who put gravy on stuff  and stay hidden for fear of ridicule 

[chrisp65]

49 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

There are a few  , but they learnt the hard way and now join cyclists and people who put gravy on stuff  and stay hidden for fear of ridicule 

They haven’t got time to be on Internet forums, they’re working between 9:00am and 3:30pm for 9 months solid.

[Mark Albrighton]

My school/general knowledge of the monarchs from when I was kid was mainly formed from a wooden rule I picked up on a school trip to Boscobel House. But the ones that stood out were -

William the Conqueror/the other fella getting an arrow in the eye

Richard 3 (something to do with a hump)

Henry 8 - wives. 

Elizabeth - Walter Raleigh and the coat over the puddle

Charles 1 - fancy facial hair 

Charles 2 - fancy facial hair + tree + spaniels

Victoria - who happened to coincide with the Victorian age.

I also remember hearing about the Tudors & Stuarts and the War of the Roses and thinking that they were exactly the same thing. 

 

My theory why people struggle with all of it is that for centuries on end seemingly every important man was called William, Thomas or Henry and every important woman was called Elizabeth or Mary.

Edited November 26, 2021 by Mark Albrighton