As to qualifications, I hold a MA from Lancs in Historical Research, as well as a "cand.mag" (2-year master level) in general history from Copenhagen Uni. My thesis was on statebuilding in the renaissance with special emphasis on colonial companies.
As for amateur vs. professional I believe that: Knowing something about a period / topic is something everybody can do by reading books and watching TV. I'm sure that *many* people knows more facts about history than I do. But actually writing history is something for the professionals, as it is a craft just like carpenting or engineering. It just seems, for the unaware, as a simple procedure of collecting facts and putting them together, but there is much more to it.
Does that make me a better person, or make my posts more intelligent? I must confess the answer is "no" i both casesBut I will claim to be more trained in answering questions about "why" something happened, as that is my profession. Amateurs will be excellent in answering questions about "who", "where" and "when", and there is a time and a place for that as well.
/KotR
Bookmarks