Economic and Political History: A Comparison

Conal Fury and Micahel J. Salevouris define historiography as "the study of the way history has been and is written-the history of historical writing". When one studies historiography one studies the changing interpretations of events in the works of individual historians more than historical occurrences. The study of forms of historical writing has led to the identification of various schools of historical thought but mainly it has led to the evolution of sub-branches of history that are now demarcated as variants of history.

These variants of history are not exclusive as the boundaries between ,and indeed the evidence that suggests, different forms of history are often blurred . The two variants of History discussed in this essay are, perhaps better than none, complimentary forms. Politics and the Economy they form, or vice versa, have been studied since time immemorial as the two unarguably linked.

Political History is now considered the "History of Politics, and Politics are the activities of men in society. The political side of man's nature refers essentially to the active expression of this social organism." However this broad view of Political History as encompassing all facets of man as social animal was not always the dominant form of political history. Political History as merely "Past Politics" was the definition of early historical writing as it focused on History from the perspective of those in power, "Great Man", with other forms occasionally embraced. Economic history was one of the most common forms included in early History, nee political History, as the politics of those in power either was a result of their economic might or a result of their quest for economic might.

Although one can see the importance of Economic might in the maintenance of power and "power constitutes the essential theme of Political History", the study of Economic History has only recently come to the fore as a separate discipline and is a result of the development of economic theory.

The study of economics was first identified as the study of the political economy due to the tangible link between the two disciplines. In fact the first "Political Economist's" writings, according to W.H.B Court "the first great piece of economic history", aim were to determine the effect of Governments Policies on the economy. In Adam Smiths The Wealth of Nations his main focus are on the division of labour, the concept that specialization leads to efficiency, and the concept of an "invisible hand" in markets where he explained that an economy sustains itself and develops not because of an organized plan but rather, the selfish endeavours and industry of man creates this harmonious and efficient system. Adam Smith's writing was the first efforts to empirically study man's industry and in doing so he created the modern study of Economics and facilitated the specialization of History into Economic History.

Political History has existed since time immemorial. Some of the earliest writings known to man are examples of political History. While Economic History is a relatively new branch of History as it only existed as a separate form with the emergence of Economic Theory, a modern discipline.

Examples of this can be seen in some of the very earliest writings of any form. Thucydides writings on the Peloponnesian War were written around 400 B.C . They dealt with Political History , mainly real politik, as they sought to describe the social phnonmenon of war with emphasis on the causal effect of those in power. He sought to explain

these wars as a factors of the rulers' personal politics.

Economic History does not enjoy this rich background. Perhaps one of the most influential uses of Economic History can be found to emanate from Karl Marx used Economic History to promote his idea that " history of all hithero existing existing society is the historyof class struggle" in his work Communist Mannifesto. He studied Economic History and Political History to show that man has always stuggled to empower themselves economically while the ruling classes have intentionally created political systems to ensure their economic might at the expense of the "common man". Marx is also an example of the earlier expressed view that politics and economics are unarguably linked and at times indistinguishable as his works expounded both politics and economics and led to the formation of radical schools of thought in both fields.

Political History is also seen as the "highest form of History in that it deals with man's highest form of activity as a social being".While Economic History , although linked, is often more poorly regarded.Many reasons can be given for this, the dominance of Political History over Economic; Political History's more rich and storied path, Political inertia since History was originally

always political but it is not summed better than by S.T Bindof; " with the possible exceptionn,at some periods, the church no form of human associaton has wielded such power aas the state, nor has any activity been of such consequence as the politics of the state".When we look at the criticisms of both types of History we can see why this trend of Political History's dominance continues.

Early political Historywas generally structured in the "Great Man" style. That is that Historical writings were structured around the policies of the influential person or persons in society and all historical events viewed as being tied directly to their decisions and orders. Thucydides writngs were streuctured in this style but as history evolved and a more scientific approach was taken the idea of History from the top became less evident. Ibn Khaldun's writngs suggested a more scientific and all encompassing approach to history as he argued that history was a true science and thus one should not trust plain historical information but also know the "priciples resulting from custom, the fundamental