what set me thinking about history and how often we seem to give credit for significant changes to kings and queens rather than other causes was my visit to Petra, and how the brochure merely mentioned that in the end the caravans no longer visited the place, and that was that ...
pretty unsatisfactory as an explanation, especially when i heard Iain Stewart in the BBC series Earth: The Power of the Planet
mention that tectonic movements gradually restricted Petra's water supply until there was none left, after which it would obviously no longer be a stopping place for caravans intent on stocking up on water to get across the desert
that made me think of how unsatisfactory historical explanations were at the time when i went to school (maybe things are different now, but somehow i doubt it) : why did whole crowds migrate ? granted that tribes moved out of the way when the Huns invaded, but what made the Huns leave their homeland to start with ? was it a combination of population growth during a benign climatic period followed by hard times when they were not ?
is it because historians are usually not well versed in climatology and geology that they overlook the initial causes for why things happen, and instead frame all their explanations in terms of kings wanting to conquer stuff ?
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet