Here's my attempt at both a history paper and a fanfic

Leopold von Ranke called the gathering of historians to order, “Now gentlemen, we need to know what makes a good historian and what truly is history. Each of us seem to have a different viewpoint. . .some more so than others but I believe with objectivity and looking at this multiple ways we may find the capital T truth of the matter.”

Thomas Carlyle stood up and glanced at the rest of the historians present- that of Marx, and E.H Carr. “Von Ranke, you may be a historian but you are taking out the crux of the matter. History is not an objective thing- history is the best when you can have people read your book and be transported into the story of history. Taking out the story of the French masses fighting over bread because they are hungry and emotionally worried about their future makes a lesser story. Everyone has to be represented from the lowest of the low to the highest.”'

Von Ranke calmly sat down and groaned, “Now Thomas, I do not agree with your history as you do not stay objective and outside of the picture, the idea of an historicist perspective is that you stay out of it and only “show what actually happened.”

E.H Carr sighed. “You two are just dancing around the reality of the situation. On one hand, Carlyle, you are trying to react against a historicist model of gathering facts and being a distant observer on reality- and Von Ranke, while I agree with you at points, I have lived through two wars that destroyed the unwavering faith of a progressive history. And yet you two are social creatures, ‘The thought of historians, as of other human beings, is molded by the environment of the time and place.”

Marx slid into the conversation. “Now Professor Carr, you said that there were wars in your time? How is the European spirit these days? Are they finally having a Revolution that brings them closer to the ideal of Communism?”

“No, Marx. If you are talking about how your dialectical model of yours tried to uncover the historical truth of Freedom, then no. We still have a need for history, since only Russia won in the Communist area when talking about Europe..”

“But people and materialism. . ,I would have hoped that Britain would have gotten the bug. . .though I guess that Russia did have problems and the two rules of an ‘intolerable power’ and a ‘development of productive forces’ with a large mass of propertyless workers would cause a Revolution.”

Carlyle’s mood brightened at the thought of a new book topic.“Like the French Revolution? Because I could definitely write something about that and have the people that read my book be emotionally transported there and understand the reasons why it's an important period of time.”

Von Ranke scoffed at the thought, “Yes bring an emotionally charged idea into existence, Carlyle. I would hope that we get past the subjective view of history and become less reliant on the exclamation point and wanting to put words into people’s mouths that did not happen in the records, Did you even read the French National Convention’s minutes in the archive containing them?”

“Well if you want to debate my merits on not footnoting my works like a meticulous archivist, then I come back at you with your own failings with the footnote.”

“So I might have been not the most judicious in my use of correct footnote procedure as it stands further down the line, but I liked writing it that way because I knew my text as a whole. I followed the tried and true method of not “disfiguring [my] powerful narrative and set-piece battle scenes with the ugly contrivances of scholarly mechanics.”

Marx chuckled. “This is all a matter of dogma. Now let us realize that the footnote has won the battle in academia, what we wanted to figure out is History. And what I know is that we have to discuss the means and mode of production- for humans create their own survival. History is a changing, ever increasing dialectical line towards freedom. “Where speculation ends- in real life- there real positive science begins: the representation of the practical activity, of the practical process of development of men.” What is truly important is economic development.”

Carr stood to debate Marx on this point. “Now I have let you debate about history- us here in the present moment, each from a different relative to our own, we are the past. We are a procession of historians. Each has their own way of talking about things- Carlyle, you can be eloquent in your assertion about how “Hunger and nakedness and righteous oppression lying heavy on 25 million hearts” was the cause of the French Revolution- and Marx’s point that a Revolution of the proletariat workers is based on a numbers game is correct. Numbers matter in historical events. Wars are fought with a lot of people and peasant revolts happen because the people are dealing with a problem that is too much to bear.”

Von Ranke waited for Professor Carr to stop talking so he could speak. “Now all these large revolts and masses of people had to have a leader, if I dare to presume. A Napoleon. Caesar, or a Frederick the Great. perhaps? Now we need to focus on two things if history is a numbers game. First, let us see that a nation state is important in our present discussion of history being a social phenomenon and that the smallest unit of historical measure is the figure of the Great Man in History. For example how I had to look in multiple archives to create an objective picture of Frederick Wilhelm the First and found things that did not fit into the accepted pattern of the narrative. I, as an objective historian had to show the past as it really was with documentary evidence.”

Carlyle smiled. “Finally, von Ranke, we find something to agree upon. The idea of you holding onto the nation state idea and the Great Man like Robespierre or a Marat holding his pistol. That brings me joy to see that national fervor still exists. And history is full of Great Men- they move the history along in a great march. The Assembly of Paris debating what to do with the King, the heightened fears of a mass of people trying to form a republic. . .these are the ideas I love. Of our methods differ but we hold the nation state in our hearts.”

“Now these sweet words are making me ill.” Marx grumbled, “Can we get back to the topic at hand: that of history. This philosophical debate, while interesting and reminding my days as a college man, is all superstructural illusion. What we need to realize that there is a base history and that is based on economic factors.”

“Now fellows, I do have to enjoy this debate, and the Great Man as a concept is a bad one because it is mostly flawed in more current examples.” Carr straightened his glasses and continued, “The World Wars that have impacted Europe have made this Good Queen Bess type theory problematic. There are important figures in history, I can not hide that, but I do have to speak up on the Great Man Theory since that causes historical figures to be “outside history and sees them as imposing themselves on history in virtue of their greatness. The creation of Great Men in history shows that succeeding generations had singled out those figures as great while forgetting that they were also influenced by history as well.”

“Well your future knowledge is making your objectivity fall into doubt.” Von Ranke crossed his arms. “Why not we figure out what each of us thinks of historical motion since we are getting hung up on specifics- the methods of history is the key.”

Marx began that discussion“Well my idea of history is based on a dialectical model, where history’s movement is based on class struggle- the endpoint is freedom. Each age of human development is shown, from tribal organizations, the city-state, the feudal system, and modern era. The struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat and the coming end point of Communism and the world history struggle of becoming free- that is the forward motion of history.”

“Well I support the idea of human agency even though I think the past should be studied as a separate science, because the line of progress is moving ever forward and “history recognizes in each existence something infinite, in each condition or being something eternal coming from God. Divine providence is shown through finding some virgin historical documents and discovering the ancient Truth from them.” Von Ranke felt right in his assertion.

“Well I believe in the hand of Fate having a sense in events,” Carlyle glanced over at von Ranke, “so while the French Revolution was such a whirlwind of a time; my more theatrical and interesting narrative still had a cause and effect. And as I have alluded to in my work, the Question of King Louis during the massive upheaval, the Foremost Question will be like “as Aaron’s Rod” in Exodus- a large question that “swallowed all the other serpents.” A Divine Power is still existing here in my history, His hand in events high on above.”

Marx scowled. “These historical ideas sound like theology to me. Is history just a Young Hegelian ideal where the be all, end all idea of history is that of “religious conceptions or by pronouncing it a theological matter? No, men create the idea of religion- that of God to control the lower classes and create social order so the Revolution is less likely to happen. Man is my premise for history- his existence creates his world.”

“Now after I have assessed each of your ideas of progress, I will tell you mine.” Professor Carr smiled. “Now what I see is that so far we reject the cyclical view of history, that of a continuous repeat of events ad infinitum, but what we hold on high is the teleological line of history- history goes towards a later goal. Karl’s view is Freedom, Carlyle and Von Ranke talk about some form of outside influence in a Divine Plan or Fate. But I extend an idea that there are periods both of progress and regression. Karl’s idea that there is multiple civilizations- that of a line from tribal to modern history, hints to me that “whatever progress we can observe in history is certainly not continuous in either time or place. The Second World War has made Europe less of a worldly superpower and more apt to a cynicist view of history. The colonies of the world are having their first steps in their own manner. Our view of progress is still influenced in our relation in time. Events cause the historian and historiography as a whole to revise their current views. Yet a view of this kind of view that progress is fully a divine idea is, in my eyes, wrong. And the ends that humanity seeks come “out of the course of history, not from some source outside it.”

“This has been an enlightening meeting,” Ranke sighed.

“Sorry, von Ranke, but I did say during the beginning about how the historian is a part of society. As you were shaped in your ways in research, as were Marx and Carlyle, I was also shaped in the culture I was raised. And my refutation of the ideas that have been put forward is that being completely objective is nearly impossible. And yet the ideas have complete merit since “nothing is more radically false than to set up some supposedly abstract standard of the desirable and condemn the past in light of it. History changes and our viewpoint changes.” Carr put his hand on Von Ranke’s shoulder to reassure him.

“Well this has been rather exciting.” Marx stood up, “Now what of economics and the people? How has history accepted them?”

“Well there is more than one way to have your history now- the varieties of history are varied. There’s political, cultural, and economic history among other things and there is always new things happening that affect the others.” Carr offered his hand and Marx shook it.
“Well that sounds perfectly exciting to me.” Carlyle laughed. “Perhaps I would like to see this advancement, there has to still be a romantic notion of history.”

“Can we call this meeting to a close and say that the question ‘What is History’ is a complex answer for how simple it looks and contains within it so many different questions that we could talk for hours and hours and not exhaust the opinions that we hold ever so dearly?”

“I’ll allow that.” And with that sentence, Von Ranke called the meeting to an end.