What historical events really mean in practical terms.

[raccoon]

Last edited Sun Aug 12, 2018, 06:40 PM - Edit history (1)

For instance, regarding the Battle of Waterloo:

“At stake was control over Europe for the foreseeable future. A French victory would mean a radical change in the power equation. No longer would Britain and British commercial interests be predominant. Important investments would turn, as it were, on the flip of a coin. Governments allied with Britain might default on their debts. Traders could be cut off from their markets. The British East India Company’s lucrative trade with India and the Orient could be threatened. Even the internal security of Britain itself could be endangered.”

From Blood in the Streets by James Dale Davidson and William Rees-Mogg. New York: Warner Books, 1988.

This is what I like to read in history books. What was the real meaning of the event. Other than simply, “the British won the battle of Waterloo.”

Also in this book, these guys talk about changes in the power equation among foreign governments, technological determinism, etc. I don’t agree with a lot they say in this book—They seem pretty right wing.

I like the way they explained the consequences of events such as the battle of Waterloo. Consequences which might occur to a historian but they didn’t occur to me.

If there is a scholarly term for what I’m trying to express, please let me know. Also if you know of any other books or authors and that discuss this sort of thing.