What type of historian are you?

[Genius of the Restoration]

I read a review a couple of days ago and came across a series of terms for historians that I'd encountered a while ago and thought it might be beneficial to post in this sub-forum as an interesting comparison to different approaches to history.

"The fox knows many things," the poet Archilochus says, "but the hedgehog knows one big thing."
...
Among hedgehog historians, some are what Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie has called "parachutists." In contrast to archival "truffle hunters," they survey the landscape as a whole rather than unearthing finds one at a time. Others are what J. H. Hexter identified as "lumpers," scholars who see uniformities, where "splitters" see particularities and complexities. A parachutist can more easily pick out broad features than diversity. The risk is reductionism, emphasizing similarities and downplaying or ignoring differences. The risks in "lumping" are greater, since the method often leads to "source-mining," in which the historian locates or redescribes passages to support the thesis and ignores what will not.

So what are you?
The foxy specialist who knows many things?
The hedgehog who knows one thing very well?
The parachutist who looks to see everything in the big picture?
The truffle-hunter who goes looking for the treasure in the the archive or primary source collection?
The lumper or the splitter?

Of course you can try to fit all these categories in some respects, but which would you be more inclined to say fits your own approach to history?

I'd place myself more in the parachutist category who looks for a broad understanding which has led me to downplay some primary source material, perhaps too much, in the pursuit of overarching themes, movements and ideas. I find that the construction of a narrative of change and continuity over time and the placement of a source within that narrative is what gives meaning to the source.

[Jingles]

deffo a truffle-hunting hedghog.

I love source hunting. I really don't like simply reading books and articles by other people and accepting them as the truth - I always try to obtain actual source material, like documents, photographs, transcripts etc. So I can draw my own conclusions about things.

What I like in a good history book is the inclusion of lots of source material, eyewitness interviews, that sort of thing.

[Offensive Bias]

I guess I would be a Foxy Hedgehog (Haha xD) Because I know a lot of things throughout military history, but I know a lot about Ancient Roman Military, specialised around the Principate.

[Last Roman]

I guess if I had to pin one to myself, I'm often guilty of "source mining" (that term is perfect), looking for anything that will support my thesis. But I wouldn't say I go so far as to totally cast off evidence that goes against it.

[MAXlMUS]

all of them and none of them
i mean it depends what kind of work you're doing, whether you're doing political, social or economic history, or if primary sources are available and satisfactory

[Automatix]

maybe foxy specialist but the most i like greek ancient history

[Lord de Lyonesse]

So what are you?
The foxy specialist who knows many things?
The hedgehog who knows one thing very well?
The parachutist who looks to see everything in the big picture?
The truffle-hunter who goes looking for the treasure in the the archive or primary source collection?
The lumper or the splitter?

I would say foxy parachutist specialist, if such a thing exists. Seeing the bigger picture of many historical happenings. I think i've been this way since I was 10.

[René Artois]

An archaeologist. I like finding something new and unknown, then investigating it further. Also trowelling.

[Automatix]

do you are a proffesional archeologist or just like me an amateur searcher with iron detector (i didnt found a lot of things and i gave them to archeologist dont worry guys)

i am just courious

[René Artois]

Metal detectorist=/=Archaeologist.

[Dr. Croccer]

A foxy parachutist truffle-hunting lumper.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I'm an author

[PompeyMagnus]

So what are you?
The foxy specialist who knows many things?
The hedgehog who knows one thing very well?
The parachutist who looks to see everything in the big picture?
The truffle-hunter who goes looking for the treasure in the the archive or primary source collection?
The lumper or the splitter?

A foxy lumper truffle-hunter.

[ivan_the_terrible]

I confess I'm irritated by 'parachutists' more often than not. I've come across too many that don't know enough about the evidence for the subject they are generalising, and their thesis is less credible for it, even if it's just one mistake. And though I think historians who are only or mainly 'truffle-hunters' miss the point, I have to acknowledge that it is usually these peoples' work that other historians draw on. So they are important to have, even though I don't see the appeal, personally (or maybe I just haven't found sources that fascinate me enough to lose myself in completely yet).

I'd say I tend towards 'hedgehoging' within several areas, though I can't make the assertion that I know any one of them 'very well'. Also, probably in between the 'lumping' and 'splitting'.

[ChivalrousKiller]

I guess I'm both a foxy specialist and a hedgehog

[Zhangir]

A parachutist?

[Gone 2 the Celts]

definetely a foxy hedgehog

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

The foxy specialist, I know everything that'sm milarty fromthe romans, and egyptians, and then from 1066 onwards, with specailized knowlage in the napolonic wars. But ask me anything other than who was king of engalnd or scotland, and I've no clue, not even what they ate.

[KaRoU23]

Personally I try to read as much as i can. I guess that the military history of Ancient Times has attracted my attention, though I have studied the military of the Viking era and that of the Imjin War.I would say the foxy specialist, since history is too large, so that i can focus on one thing.However, in order to strengthen my thesis, I try to learn as much as possible, although I will never say i am a specialist on one time period or event.Although i am focused on Warfare, in order to properly understand the motives, the situation and the factors, I started to study Political History.Therefore, i guess that there are no types of historians, but each one has his own way to approach History.


P.S : I am clueless regarding the Naval and Air Warfare... I would rather focus on Land Battles, especially at times when melee combat was prevalent!

[Claudius Gothicus]

I'm doing a Sociology degree... does that count?