Does it matter anyway, especially if its outside the Holy Bibles history? Whats more important is whats coming and, of course, whom. Jesus Christ and His Second Coming (Luke chapter 21 and Revelation chapter 6 onwards). Throughout history seemingly accurate records were kept at certain times, some survived but most got lost (imagine what got lost that was in the great library at Alexandra. Would have been heaps of occult...so that dont matter). Mostly there are huge gaps in what has occured. Much went to myth like Camelot and Arthur, though if Arthur was in a serious two-way relationship with a wizard (Merlin) it explains to committed christians why anything recorded... got blotted out. Civilisations exist or fall on how they behave (seen Mel Gibsons film Apocalypto?).
History therefore is like spaghetti thrown at a fan...its all over the place. Not really worth getting too much involved with unless we are looking at the fall of civilisations from a "way not to be" position. A good solid Bible focus is best.

As Winston Churchill famously said "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it".

you're having a laugh, right gibo?

very few absolutes exist due to the vagaries in personal perception and the nature of our chaotic universe. People come to agree on events not because of any equality of perception but, to share the reward of a common perception.
The us.

No Paul.L I'm serious. Ive been a born again christian 24 years and thats part of what Ive learnt. All of the really wise men in history went for Gods Word instead of the imperfection of mans recording of events. The Holy Bible is the truly reliable standard. When one confesses his/or her sin and receives Jesus as Lord and Saviour and what He did on the Cross with His Shed Blood for all of us; and becomes born-again (John 3:3) he/or she receives The Holy Spirit...Who...confirms everything in The Word as being truth. The new life, now on Gods Side and filled with The Holy Spirit, begins to forget mans version of things and continues on as The Holy Spirit Guides and changes things inside the body. Rotten addictions drop away. In truth, to the new believer, it doesnt matter much about mans version of history or what man decides is the right way. The new christian now knows Gods Will and His plan for mankind, which is written in the Book; generally taken as 6000years in length is His Plan so far since Adam and the fall. The earth maybe old, but not The Plan. As for civilisations. Once they give themselves over to the worship of idols (todays love of modern tech), sexual immorality (todays "everything goes") and to sacrifice (todays abortion) they fall. Christians worldwide see the fall coming; and draw closer to Jesus Christ where His Peace is.

The sub-title of this article concerns the methodology of history - yet it seems to me that the author has an imperfect grasp of that methodology.

Often, upon reading sweeping statements concerning Universities per se I wonder if my own Universities are a-typical. But just as often I wonder upon what comprehensive basis this knowledge of "all" Universities is based.

I take exception to the statement that a liberal education is unavailable in Australia - and to the implicit generalisation that historicists as a general group are not liberal thinkers.

As to: "The science of history asserts that it alone understands man, that its truth about human affairs is superior to that of philosophy."

Who eactly is it that asserts such an ethos? Obviously the subject of the sentence - "science" - being inanimate can make no such assertion: therefore it is in fact the proponants of said science who presumably do so. It has not been my experience ever to have heard any such assertion made by either my lecturers or colleagues. Cross disciplinary studies are in fact encouraged.

One wonders exactly in how many history subjects the author, studying Law,was tutored? If indeed such assertions were made during the course of his career in tertiary education I still take issue with the fact that this experience is used to codify all historicists as having the same bent.

I also take exception to the fact that throughout this essay the historicist is gender-specified as male. Discrimination such as this is also outlawed both at the University through which I am continuing post-graduate work and the one at which I lecture.