In Pursuit of the Past: The Classic Historians' Methods

History is a fascinating subject. It is full of stories, has its heroes and villains – though it's sometimes difficult to distinguish the two – its comedies and tragedies, its adventures and romances. History cannot be undone, and even if I don't know about it, or if there's no memory or record of it, history still happened. It defines our identities, both individually and as a nation. However, not all history is completely accurate; history is written by the victor, and it always is slanted and biased one way or another. But histories of nations were merely stories, tales passed orally from one generation to the next, so how did they become the glorious records we have today? How did the early Christian church look at history, versus their Greco-Roman counterparts?

Many cultures and civilizations sought to keep a record of their presence, leaving some sort of monument for future peoples. Usually it was a physical monument, like the Egyptian pharaohs' pyramids. But the Greeks took a different approach: they began to experiment with a monument of literature. They wanted to perfect a way to preserve the memories and histories in a more direct fashion, as opposed to previous civilizations. Roughly around the 5^th century BC, an entirely new literary genre was born: histories. Herodotus, usually considered the Father of History, was one of the first to venture into this previously-unknown field, and despite being a pioneer in the world of historical recording, his methods were subject to harsh criticism, even while alive. His writings – while captivating and entertaining – were less than factual, something that Thucydides, a peer at the time of Herodotus, criticized him for rather severely. Thucydides preferred a more investigative method, trying to discover the truth of what actually occurred. He wanted his writings to be informative, to educate rather than to entertain. These two men set the tone for Greek historical writing, and while each subsequent writer had his own style of documentation, nearly every one mirrored either Herodotus or Thucydides in some way. ("Greek Historians", n.d.)

However, the Hellenistic age of the world ended when Greece and her empire fell to the rapidly rising Romans. Much of the Grecian way of life and pursuit of philosophical interests was absorbed and assimilated by the Romans, and such was the case with history. Romans worshiped the same gods – albeit under different names – kept many of the same cultural traits and Roman historians modeled their works after the two main Greek methods, with one notable exception: Titus Flavius Josephus, otherwise known as Joseph ben Matityahu. Josephus was a Jew by birth, into both the priestly line – via his father – and the royal line – via his mother. Not much is known about his early life, but he was highly educated in both Jewish texts and Greek works, although he was, and is, often criticized for his faulty Greek grammar. A Judeo-Roman historiographer and hagiographer, Josephus was given command of the Galilean forces during the Great Revolt in 66-73 AD, but defected and offered to record the history of the Great Revolt. Then-general, and later emperor, Vespasian took him up on the offer, after Josephus claimed Jewish prophecies that lead to the revolt also made mention of Vespasian becoming emperor, and thus Josephus began to record a first hand, eyewitness account of the fall of Jerusalem. These accounts were most certainly biased, since he was writing for arguable the most powerful man in the Roman Empire at the time; however, he mentions on several occasions that he also wrote an Aramaic version of the uprising, that might possibly had been less biased, or at least slanted to the Jewish side of the conflict. But copies of the Aramaic history have been lost in the vast expanse of time, and are yet to be discovered. Vespasian must have liked what he read, because he brought Josephus back to Rome with him, where Josephus wrote The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities, the latter of which described the complete history of the Jewish people. Despite its exhaustive nature, including a great deal of information about Alexander the Great's conquests and the destruction of the Second Temple, Josephus was accused of relying too heavily on legend and hearsay -- much like the Grecian historians he was instructed on, so he is often discredited on some subjects. ("Josephus Flavius", 2003)

Lastly, early Christian historians were few and far between, at least as we today think of historians. Since most of the New Testament authors were not classically trained, not many were learned in the ways of historiography. However, the Gospel writer Luke was one of the few with extensive training, and could be considered the first true Christian historian. ("A Christian Approach to History", n.d.) Luke wrote his works for the records of "most honorable Theophilus", writing for posterity and to clarify any mistakes or false notions that the aforementioned hearsay might have implanted in Theophilus' mind. This was unique in and of itself, since Luke was writing not to entertain, but to educate using facts in a easily comprehensible, something previous historians hadn't done, whether Greek or Roman. ("Behind Luke's Gospel", n.d.) It was in essence a biography, beginning Jesus' earthly tale with the political climate under Caesar Augustus, and merely following His life. There is some slant and bias to it, as there is with any historian's works, but it's incredibly fact-based for being religious writing, and set the tone for church scholars for years to come.

Overall, since the art of historiography was so new at the time, there wasn’t a set standard for any to follow. Some historians gave us credible histories, while some made great tales to read, but not so much to use for study. But all of them – Greek, Roman, Jewish and Christian – borrowed from each other, whether directly or indirectly. Modern historians should take all writings of the period with a proverbial grain of salt, but shouldn't discredit them entirely. In all legends, there is a small trace of truth, it's just up to us to find it.

References

A Christian Approach to History - Christian Homeschooling Resources. (n.d.). Christian Living Resources, Jesus Christ, Bible Study, Faith in God. Retrieved February 13, 2013, from http://www.crosswalk.com/family/homeschool/resources/a-christian-approach-to-history.html

Behind Luke's Gospel: The Roman Empire During the Time of Jesus. (n.d.). Patheos | Hosting the Conversation on Faith. Retrieved February 15, 2013, from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepangeablog/articles/unpublished-papers/behind-lukes-gospel-the-roman-empire-during-the-time-of-jesus/

Greek Historians. (n.d.). College of Liberal Arts and Sciences | The University of Florida. Retrieved February 13, 2013, from http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/kapparis/GreekHistorians.html

Josephus Flavius. (2003). Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved February 12, 2013, from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Josephus.html

Where East Meets West: Europe and the Ottomans

In the 19^th Century, the Ottoman Empire was dying. Plagued by wars, civil unrest and revolts, and outside meddling, the Ottomans turned to Europe for help. However, the driving force behind a nation's foreign policies at the time were – and still are – the aims of the nation, not whichever country they are supposedly assisting. This is perfectly personified in the Russian Empire's diplomatic reaching out to the failing Ottoman Empire.

Russia, who themselves had begun to emulate western European nations, reached out to the Ottomans, but not in the way one would think. In spite of the Islamic Turks being just as distrusted as the European Catholics, the Russo-Turkish War gave the Russians a considerable hold on the Black Sea, and thus, a border with the Ottomans. ("Russian-Ottoman Relations: The Origins 1600-1800", n.d.) These were later lost in one of the Crimean Wars, where the British and French staved off Russian expansion – fearful Russia would also become a major power in the Near East and breaking the monopoly both England and France shared – and gave the Ottomans a respite. Unfortunately, the Ottoman sultan at the time of World War I sided with the Germans, effectively driving the British and French into Russia's arms, with defensive agreements forming as early as 1904 and again in 1907. (Agoston, n.d.) The sultan also was forced to forfeit Tunisia to the French, along with Cyprus becoming a British holding. This, coupled with further revolts and unrest in Egypt, continued to weaken the already frail Ottoman Empire. (Weatherby, 2012) This whole time, the czars have been slowly modernizing Russia, with selective reforms turning it into a European nation with the potential to become a major player on the political map.

All these factors fed the fire that became the Russian nobility's goals: modernization, and conquest. And who better to expand upon than the ever-weakening neighbor to the south, the Ottomans? Who's very capital, Istanbul, was coveted by the czars, and claimed to be their own through the Russian Orthodox Church? Czar Alexander even planned to move the capital of Russia to Istanbul after he captured it, renaming it Czargrad and reviving the old Roman Empire. (Weatherby, 2012) But the Ottomans were not out of the fight, and a nearly constant territorial war ensued, with Russia merely copying the tactics and technology of western nations, which they had easier access to than the Turks. However, in spite of being superior to the decaying Ottoman Empire, Russia was still competing with their former WWI allies to fill the ever-growing power void being left by the diminishing Turks. Nonetheless, the czars had a considerable advantage, as they were able to devote more men and resources to the Ottomans, since there were no other nations who had plans for Russia – with the exception of Napoleon, or the Poles during the Time of Troubles under Ivan the Terrible. It was Napoleon's advance that caused a cease-fire between the Russians and Turks, with the two factions even going so far as to create a temporary alliance.

But the uneasy peace was not meant to last. Overall, the Russians were more prepared to handle the drastic changes coming in the 20^th Century, and while wresting Turkish land was never easy, the fading Ottomans were discounted by the Russians, never being considered a serious adversary. Unlike Western Europe, the Turks quite simply didn't have the resources to launch a successful offensive on the Russians, so the czars held – rightly so – that they could just pick apart the Ottoman Empire at their leisure. And if their carnivorous approach to the Ottomans was not interrupted by the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia's appetite for expansion may have never been sated.

References

Agoston, G. (n.d.). Military Transformation in the Ottoman Empire and Russia, 1500-1800. Academia.edu - Share research. Retrieved February 3, 2013, from http://www.academia.edu/596738/_Military_Transformation_in_the_Ottoman_Empire_and_Russia_1500-1800

Russian-Ottoman Relations: The Origins 1600-1800. (n.d.). digento - Fachhandel fuer digitale Medien - Homepage. Retrieved February 4, 2013, from http://www.digento.de/titel/104485.html

Weatherby III, E. (2012, February 27). The Fall of the Ottomans. Pipe N' Slippers. Retrieved February 3, 2013, from http://pipenslippers.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/the-fall-of-the-ottomans/

Ancient Meets Modern Where the East Meets West

The year is 1839. The Ottoman Empire is dying. Mahmud II, Ottoman Emperor at the time, realized this harsh reality, and recognized that the Ottomans needed a reformation to survive. Multiple crises were erupting across the Empire, both domestic emergencies and threats from outside the borders, something had to be done, and it had to be both drastic and rapid. Enter, the 'Tanzimat'. Turkish for "reorganization", the Tanzimat was the building blocks for the modernization of the Ottoman empire. But was it effective? Or merely too little, too late?

First implemented in November of 1839, the Tanzimat was the first real attempt by a Muslim world power to change into something more civilized and Western. The reformist sultan Mahmud II first started the changes, which were applied gradually until 1876, and were the brainchild of the Great Mustafa Rashid Pasha. The reforms were directed at taking the Ottoman Empire in a more secular direction, and bringing the Empire alongside other European nations in both mindset and technology. Some changes were purely cosmetic, almost symbolic in their casting off of the old way of life: military uniforms and the formal dress of the ruling class were two of these. However, most of the reforms issued in the Hatt-al Serif of Gulhane, or "Noble Edict of the Rose Chamber", established institutions that were previously unheard of in the Muslim world, institutions that would assure a security of life, property, honor and more, to every person living in within their borders, Muslim or not.

Some discounted the reforms as merely attempting to garner European approval and support, pointing to the Armenian Genocide – which the Ottoman government claimed was due to World War I – and reports that taxes to allow non-Muslims into the Turkish army were simply rebranded and kept, but for the most part, the reforms were as they seemed to be. The army was recreated into a modern day force – albeit influenced heavily by the French, bureaucracies were centralized, justice and education systems were rejuvenated and secularized. Copious public work projects sought to the infrastructure and physical appearance of the Empire, while new cities, rail lines, roads and telegraph lines were constructed in a European fashion.

Overall, the Tanzimat was paramount for the Ottoman Empire, but not enough to save it. It was not in vain, however, because it laid the groundwork for modern-day Turkey, who remains one of the West's staunchest allies in the entire Middle East to this day.

References

Akgun, S. (n.d.). The Emergence of Tanzimat in the Ottman Empire. Ankara Üniversitesi Dergiler Veritabanı. Retrieved February 3, 2013, from http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/19/834/10541.pdf

Era of Modern Reform: The Tanzimat. (n.d.). Countries Quest. Retrieved February 3, 2013, from http://www.countriesquest.com/middle_east/turkey/history/era_of_modern_reform/the_tanzimat.htm

Tanzimat (Ottoman reform movement). (2013). Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 1, 2013, from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/582884/Tanzimat