Importance of Economic History

When teaching and learning about general history, economics should be the main focus. Economic history can involve information regarding both industrial capability and financial elements, but industrial capability is by far the most important. This should be the main focus of history in both academic and hobbyist circles. The reason this should be so is that economics is the main factor in deciding the course of history. However, it is normally politics and events (such as war) that are predominantly focused on in regards to general history. Though these factors can certainly alter history and sometimes are the biggest factor in history, this is usually not the case. It is economics that should be focused on, with politics and events being a side note unless exceptional. Unfortunately, the situation is and always has been the opposite. Often, economics is even completely ignored. The main problem with this is that it gives academic communities, and therefore society, an incomplete view of history at best, but often a completely erroneous view of history and reality. Historic cause and effect usually become very distorted with this approach to the study of history. This further results in assisting a disastrously delusional view by society in other areas of reality, such as politics itself. The backwards approach to the study of history has caused much societal regression. Economics deals with productive output; this involves any kind of production, such as the gathering of natural resources and manufacturing or the ability to increase technology and raise armies. Even in regards to the quality of products, thinkers, and militaries, economics is at the heart of all this activity. The stronger and more efficient the economy, the higher the probability of better material, cultural, and technological outputs. Wealth is certainly no guarantee of any of this, but having more of it simply increases the probability of successful results. There are plenty of instances where a lesser economy outperforms a greater economy, but this is not the norm. This, of course, should be studied as well. But the problem is that the main force behind our societies is almost completely ignored from an academic standpoint, especially in regards to historical research. Historic results are usually credited to politics and events, when in fact it was usually economic factors at the root cause. This brings up the secondary concern, which is that the topic of cultural traits in history is also ignored in favour of politics and events. Again, societal behaviors have more of an overall impact on history than do the politics and events of the day. Economic and other sociological factors of the general population have played the biggest role in forming the reality of our societies, not politics and events, which are generally tertiary. Politics and events are normally the correlated result of economic and sociological factors, not the cause. The behavioral patterns of a population are much more important in regards to understanding history than the petty dealings of leaders and the events they bring, in most cases. Historic studies should deal with economic figures and facts primarily, social behaviors of populations secondarily, and then politics and events when important. Order of Historical Importance This must be arranged accordingly, depending on the situation, but the default order of research and discussion regarding historical situations should generally follow this order. For example, a leader could have the traits of an academic or philosopher, or a leader could make a decision with an extreme result that may offset another factor to a varying degree. Also, the less developed civilization is, the more importance natural resources, geography, and climate events generally have over industrial capability and trade because of the exponential impact of the level of industrialization. Industrial capability and trade. Natural resources, geography, climate events. Behavioral traits of general population. Impact of scientists, inventors, academics, technicians, and philosophers. Groups in both the public and private sectors. Impact of political, business, cultural, and military leaders. As is obvious, the last item on the list generally gets the most attention in both academic and hobbyist circles. Even in encyclopedias, something as petty as social icons usually receives more attention than the most important factors in history. Fortunately, in archaeology, the situation isn't as backward, though it could be argued that it could be better. However, in most other areas of academics, the priority in addressing historical factors is sadly backward. Commoners Over the Educated Though the opinions and traits of the best scientists, inventors, academics, technicians, and philosophers are generally of higher caliber than those of commoners, their impact is generally less. Common opinions and traits tend to have more of an impact compared to superior ideas. For every great thinker like Socrates whose ideas achieve fame, there are an unknown number of other such intellectuals who are completely ignored, busy with survival, or put to an early end by war, injustice, or natural factors before they can make a public achievement. Even Socrates himself was put to death, and many of his good ideas were thrown away by society in the end. On the other side of the spectrum are many inventions and related progressive achievements, which can have a greater impact on the results of the commoners. However, even in these cases, the commoners usually misuse the achievements. And as is usually the case, even the most educated people usually share or submit to the opinions and traits of the general population. The same could be said for the poor quality of opinions and traits of leaders against the educated, but generally, leaders will have a smaller impact on history than the educated in the long run. And in the case of specification, there are many degrees between commoners and the educated, with a blurry line in between. Educated commoners could be considered skilled laborers and normal progressive thinkers who generally offer a positive impact on society and history but do not initiate this impact like certain scientists, advanced technicians, and philosophers are able to. Degenerative War Obsession One of the worst cultural diseases that has infected both the academic and hobbyist historical communities is the obsession with war. Though there is nothing wrong with having elements of these communities specialize on the topic, the degree to which the topic of war has ousted the most important historical topics from the mainstream is inexcusable. Many tellings of history are nothing more than a string of conquests and related leaders with no explanation or understanding of the true causes of the aforementioned politics and events. The perception of the fabric of our socioeconomic reality is extremely broken for these communities. The result of this is that wars end up being given too much weight for history, the current status, and even technology. This blunder doesn't just exist within these historic communities; it has often spread to the mainstream perception. The other side effect of this is that much knowledge and talent are being driven away from the topics that will lead to a better understanding of our history, current situation, and future. Historic Role of Leaders A similar degenerative situation exists in historical communities with a high focus on leaders. As mentioned before, occasionally a leader does make a decision that seemingly changes history for the better or worse (usually worse), but even in a lot of these cases, it is only a perception. However, it does still happen often enough in reality. But their impact is still greatly exaggerated, outside of certain situations. Leaders are often picked by commoners, bestowed power through family, or gain power through force. They usually do not have any exceptional characteristics except for psychopathic, sociopathic, or narcissistic traits other than charisma and the power that they wield.  In other words, leaders are generally equivalent to a commoner with the addition of charisma and with or without some disproportionate negative traits. Leaders generally work within the limits the socioeconomic situation has put on them, with little ability or creativity to change the status quo. One leader is usually as predictable as the next and can usually be easily replaced with no loss. This is the opposite situation for educated thinkers, who are difficult to replace and almost single-handedly play key roles in maintaining society and the economy. They often have the imaginative abilities to potentially alter the course of history to a noticeable degree in a revolutionary manner. Behavioral Traits and Social Engineering It could be argued that many leaders alter the traits of the commoners and therefore should be classified higher in order of consequence. This is another instance that can be explained through exceptionalism; in other words, in some exceptional cases, this is true. For the most part, aside from biological factors, the cultural traits of a population are the culmination of many historic factors with some cultural drift. Cultural leaders usually follow this same process, therefore generally making their decisions indistinguishable from those that otherwise would be. In certain situations, special credit, positive or negative, can be given to a specific leader, cultural leader, or group of leaders for artificial social engineering rather than a predominately natural phenomenon. Even in the case of the most unique thinkers, this is probably always the case, but there are varying degrees of conscious input into society and history that can be debated and judged by historians, economists, philosophers, psychologists, and sociologists. In the end, regardless of the classification of importance, measurements or estimates of industry and wealth are needed to decipher history to any realistic degree.