To understand our situation, historical context is an important starting point, but to design the future, historicism must be the endpoint.

Napoleon in defeat: historical context is not necessary for understanding thugs. After his abdication, Napoléon was exiled to Elba only to subsequently escape and return, raise another army, and once again begin slaughtering innocent people to feed his wealth and narcissism.
People should be judged within their historical context.”
Historical Context as an Endpoint
I was giving a talk at one of the country’s most prestigious universities about my last book, which opens by reviewing the horrors generated by all conquest, and by all conquerors (see cover image, below). My argument begins with Hitler’s personal heroes: Alexander, Julius Caesar, and Napoléon.
The historian who made the above comment was a respected scholar at the university. I had encountered the same objection from other historians, and I had given some thought to the problem of historical context. So I pointed out to her that, although this work looks at history, it is not primarily, nor even principally, traditional historical research. In fact, it deals with no primary historical sources other than those available in every public library; and it introduces very little new historical information.[1]With one important exception; apparently, the ‘Missing Massacre of Alexandria’ is largely overlooked by western historians. I will touch on that at another time.
The Conqueror & Historical Context
She was collegial, but persistent. “To understand Napoléon, we should study his times, and the forces that shaped him and pushed him toward his conquest of Europe.” I responded that the historical context provides little help here: no one forced Napoléon to do what he did. No country attacked France. France was not in desperate need of food, land, or other resources. Instead, without provocation, Napoléon led the French to go out and slaughter, rob, and subjugate millions of peaceful, innocent people, in order to feed Napoléon’s wealth and narcissism. She did not appear convinced, but nevertheless politely dropped the topic.

14 Awards. The real story of civilization is not at all what we were taught in history class. (Click image for more information).
Since then I have given more thought to the problem of historical context. An important insight in my book is that Napoleon’s behavior was basically the same as that of all conquerors throughout history, including Alexander, Julius Caesar, and again, Hitler. If a behavior is consistent throughout history, independent of the culture or the historical context, then it suggests that historical context is secondary, or even unimportant. In fact, when a behavioral frequently appears at all times and in all parts of the globe, it suggests that we are dealing with a pattern that has at least some scientific explanation, and perhaps even a biological basis.
Science v Humanities
In fact, here we find one dividing point between the humanities and sciences. Science focuses on phenomena which exhibit great repeatability. As a pattern becomes more consistent, the topic moves into science; on the other hand, as a pattern becomes fuzzier and less consistent, it moves into the humanities. We see a similar pattern in medicine: psychiatry deals with much ‘fuzzier’ diseases and behaviors, those for which there is no hard test, and for which there is no clear treatment. Psychiatry resembles the humanities in this regard. But as behavioral diseases become more amenable to traditional therapy— e.g., depression, ADHD— they tend to migrate out of behavioral medicine, and into the ‘harder,’ more ‘scientific’ specialties.
This separation between science and the humanities can also be seen in psychology and anthropology. The two disciplines straddle both, they aren’t clearly one or the other; so at some universities, they are included in the sciences, at others they are housed in liberal arts. At a few, I have told, they are part of the college of education. So again, I am looking at historical problems, very large and horrific historical problems, as a scientist looking at large, repeating & predictable patterns, rather than a humanist considering the uniqueness of historical context.
Historical Context as a Starting Point
In her defense, however, the historian was not entirely wrong. We definitely need to understand historical context, even if, as I have done with this book, shown that the patterns are independent of historical context. So I would slightly alter the historian’s opening proscription: People, and historical events, should be judged by starting with their historical context. It should be the first step.
But it should not be the last. Historical context should be only one item in the scholar’s toolbox, a lumberman’s saw for initially felling the facts of history.
But after that, other, finer tools must be used if we are to shape that timber into useful ideas.
Detail from Delaroche’s ‘Napoléon abdiquant à Fontainebleau‘ (“Napoléon abdicating at Fontainebleau”).
Footnotes
↑1 | With one important exception; apparently, the ‘Missing Massacre of Alexandria’ is largely overlooked by western historians. I will touch on that at another time. |
---|