Combining many things

We present another way to teach history.

We’ve noted before that our tutoring consultant is not happy with the way history is now taught in the schools.  It’s not a matter so much of content and emphasis, as of method: things are presented as matrix-entries to fill in, or lists of facts to memorize.  It abandons any attempt at narrative (history is a story, after all) in favor of PowerPoint thinking.  But of course there’s a lot of material to cover, and it’s not obvious how to organize it in a memorable way.  He has suggested the Holy Roman Empire as a central theme, from which one could trace branches in many directions; or the functioning of law on the local scale, as having more actual importance than grand enactments.  Now, together with our navigator, he is suggesting tracing history through ships.

Consider that a ship must (i) float, (ii) move, and (iii) carry something.  These seem undemanding requirements, until the fine print is filled in.  A ship must float, under all conditions of loading, weather and sea she is likely to encounter; and float right-side up.  A ship must move in a generally controllable direction, fast enough to accomplish her voyage within the time constraints imposed by cargo and crew.  And transporting the cargo (which may be a verbal message in the mind of the captain, but is generally bulkier and heavier) must be worth not only the cost of building the ship, but operating it for the voyage.  In fact these impose very strict limits; a city or a building, for instance, need not float or move.  At the same time, there are many ways of satisfying them in any particular case, which illuminate the abilities, thinking and priorities of a seagoing civilization.

Just constructing a sound vessel requires the best engineering available.  A roof that will keep out the rain, however monumental the building under it, is far easier to make than a hull that will keep out the sea.  How, where and by whom were this culture’s ships built?  What were the limits imposed by materials and craftsmanship?  Why a square sail, and why a lateen one?  Why was the caravel an improvement on previous designs?

Navigation makes demands on the best science and mathematics available.  Did the mariners steer by the stars, or by the sea and wind?  What did they know of the tides and monsoons?  How proficient were they in geometry (plane or spherical)?

Where did the ships go?  What were the worthwhile destinations, and for what goods?  There is the chance of tremendous insight into historical economies, which in fact were very rarely understood at all by the inhabitants.  And who paid for the building and operating of the ships?  Why was the joint-stock company so valuable in the development of these expensive items?

As we looked at our notes and our outline-syllabus, we finally had to abandon the attempt.  Even leaving aside the preliminary lessons on ship construction and stability, there was just too much to cover.  To understand a ship required understanding everything else first.  They are places to end, not places to start.