As an example look at World War I. The Germans devised an exceptionally thought out plan that became known as the Schliefen Plan. This consisted of the Germans attacking the French through Belgium because they could see that the French defenses were very strong along the French-German border. When the Germans attacked through Belgium it was a big success and the Germans won the early campaign of the war. When World War II came around twenty years later the French neglected the past and set up a strong line of defense along the French-German border. Germany saw this and used the same plan that worked in the previous war. Using the blitz-krieg the Ge

As a story was told over and over it began to gain a little more story than was previously there. Each person would add a little to the story that they thought would make it sound better. As we can see in the stories of King Arthur of England. There is evidence that Arthur was king of England in early Celtic times. It is easy to see however that many of the tales told are lies. There is no evidence of the glorious city of Camelot. If it was as is told it would have been the social hotbed of England and some part of it would be left behind. Even though some stories of the round table are shown to have some historical truths to them, the glorious ness of it would show through much stronger today. Much later when these stories were written down they were so bent out of shape that they became more fables that real historical knowledge. People still argue on the truth of these stories today.

With all of the degrading writers out there it is almost impossible to know just who is right. When two writers say two different things the only person that loses is the reader. They come out of the experience not really learning anything because they don't know what is right and what is wrong. In History and Writing by Albert Cook, a good point is brought up. He begins by talking about how many historians will try to persuade readers in to thinking along their lines a little too much. "...in ways we may continue to discuss, he remains ironic, or tends toward an implied irony even though he has recourse only intermittently to the explicit ironic sentences that tend to be a constant feature of narratives written by historians of any persuasion." (p. 56) This becomes an interesting point. Are historians writing to let readers know and understand what the past was like or are they writing to give readers there view of what happened and persuade them to think in the same manner? This is where it is hard to think of historical writing as a credible source to finding information pertaining to the past. Who knows what to think?

The way that history has been past down has changed a great deal. In early Egyptian times things were not so much written, but were drawn in the form of Hieroglyphs to be pasted on to the future. This was not the best way to get the story or idea across but it did help in passing on the way of life that they lived. Another way for things to get passed on was by way of stories. This happened a lot in the Celtic regions of Europe for centuries. Fathers would tell a story to their children who would in turn pass it on to their own children. This however created problems.

rmans

Some common words found in the essay are:
England Celtic, French Belgium, Albert Cook, Carl Becker, Literature Aaron, , Greeks Romans, Ness Ness, War II, History Montaigne, historical writing, world war, writers writing, french belgium, french-german border, passed stories, writing readers, little story, story told, human race,
Approximate Word count = 1768
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)