Historical Significance

Consider the difference between (a) Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon on the 10th of January 49 BCE, and (b) Julius Caesar had an odd number of hairs on his head when he crossed the Rubicon. Intuitively, (a) is historically significant, while (b) is not. What is this distinction? In this paper, I argue for a normative response-dependent account of historical significance. On this view, (a) is historically significant in virtue of how a relevant community of historians ought to respond to it. The normative account allows us to maintain historical realism while also accommodating the obvious ways in which history is contextual and value-laden.