Coherence and Plausibility in Historical Writing

To make a coherent historical argument, it is first of all important to follow the conventions of good expository writing. You should ensure that you sustain your argument throughout your paper, referring back to it frequently and linking each piece of evidence to your larger thesis. State your argument clearly in the introduction, and sum things up again in your conclusion. This is not an exercise of listing off facts. Even when you are writing a review of another author's work, summary should represent a relatively small part of your paper. Your main goal should be to convince your reader of the validity of the particular historical argument that you are making.

Coherent writing in general also requires the use of signposts. These are small phrases and comments that make it clear to your reader exactly where you are going with your argument. Do not simply assume that your reader will see the logical connections between a bit of evidence and your thesis. Explain why this evidence demonstrates your point. Use explicit statements like: "this demonstrates," "proving that," "elucidates," "reveals the connections between" .... Other handy words for making links between one point and another include: "moreover," "consequently," "therefore," etc.

Most importantly, making a coherent and plausible historical argument requires historical perspective (as described above). This means constructing an argument that pays attention to the logic of cause and effect. It is not enough to simply list off events in order of their occurrence. You must explain how events came about. What particular social/economic/political circumstances contributed to the outcome of the event you are exploring? Who was the actor that set in motion a particular chain of events and what structural circumstances made this possible? (The former element is often referred to as "structure" while the later is called "agency".) You cannot just assume, for instance, that just because certain prominent figures wanted a given event to occur, they actually succeeded in bringing it about. This is particularly true of the various revolutions of Modern European History, which were often precipitated as much by economic turmoil and bad harvests as they were motivated by new political ideas. Both the agents of change and the structural circumstances of their actions must be clearly articulated to make a convincing historical argument.