5 ms·

This is a long running debate among scholars. The main "cause" of the decline appears to be the expansion of other historical narratives. The OP has a link to

This is a long running debate among scholars. The main "cause" of the decline appears to be the expansion of other historical narratives. The OP has a link to "Military Histories Old and New: A Reintroduction" [1] by Robert Citino (2007) which goes over this theory. That said, I think the War Is Boring post is pretty lazy. "Why Don't More Colleges Teach Military History?" (2008) by Justin Ewers published in US News and World Report [2] covers the same ground but with a more objective viewpoint including mentioning the work of John Lynn from the University of Illinois. Lynn has written extensively about the disappearance of Military History from most colleges, beginning in 1997 with "The Embattled Future of Academic Military History" [3] and more recently in 2008 with "Breaching the Walls of Academe: The Purposes, Problems, and Prospects of Military History." [4] [1] http://military.hist.unt.edu/Citino%20AHR.pdf http://military.hist.unt.edu/Citino%20AHR.pdf [2] http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/04/03/why-dont-colleges-teach-military-history http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/04/03/why-dont-coll... [3] http://militaryhistoryfoundation.org/resources/lynn.html http://militaryhistoryfoundation.org/resources/lynn.html [4] https://www.nas.org/articles/Breaching_the_Walls_of_Academe_The_Purposes_Problems_and_Prospects_of_Milit https://www.nas.org/articles/Breaching_the_Walls_of_Academe_...

jessriedel 10y ago
> The main "cause" of the decline appears to be the expansion of other historical narratives. Can you say more about this? To a layman this sounds like "because historians started writing more about other stuff", which of course doesn't really answer the question. What prompted them to start writing about other topics? What new principles do they use to decide what to write about? EDIT: For instance, I'm reading the US News & World Report article: > And yet, in an analysis Lynn conducted of the past 30 years' worth of articles published in the American Historical Review, he found that not a single article had appeared on the conduct of—to name a few—the Revolutionary War, World War II, or Vietnam. I don't think that's really compatible with historians merely finding other interesting things to work on.
- sdenton4 10y ago
  I think it's not just new topics, but different models of why things change, and why history rolls on. The 'great men' concept of history (the bio part of the military history trifecta) has pretty much fallen apart at this point, leaving a lot of space to fill n the whys of history.
- hownottowrite 10y ago
  A number of things changed, though perhaps the most important would be the demographics of university students in general. As a result, there was a natural shift toward a broader look at historical topics from different points of view. There was also a late 60s/ early 70s explosion of PhDs in the humanities that didn't quite accord with job prospects which in turn created a push towards more specialization.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    OK. I'm looking at the current issue of American Historical Review. https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/american-historical-review https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/amer... I'm finding it hard to believe that increased specialization or increased student diversity could come close to explaining how the editors have chosen these topics while not publishing once on World War II in 30 years. That said, I very much appreciate the points you bring up and your very helpful links for further reading.

jessriedel 10y ago

> The main "cause" of the decline appears to be the expansion of other historical narratives. Can you say more about this? To a layman this sounds like "because historians started writing more about other stuff", which of course doesn't really answer the question. What prompted them to start writing about other topics? What new principles do they use to decide what to write about? EDIT: For instance, I'm reading the US News & World Report article: > And yet, in an analysis Lynn conducted of the past 30 years' worth of articles published in the American Historical Review, he found that not a single article had appeared on the conduct of—to name a few—the Revolutionary War, World War II, or Vietnam. I don't think that's really compatible with historians merely finding other interesting things to work on.

sdenton4 10y ago
I think it's not just new topics, but different models of why things change, and why history rolls on. The 'great men' concept of history (the bio part of the military history trifecta) has pretty much fallen apart at this point, leaving a lot of space to fill n the whys of history.
hownottowrite 10y ago
A number of things changed, though perhaps the most important would be the demographics of university students in general. As a result, there was a natural shift toward a broader look at historical topics from different points of view. There was also a late 60s/ early 70s explosion of PhDs in the humanities that didn't quite accord with job prospects which in turn created a push towards more specialization.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  OK. I'm looking at the current issue of American Historical Review. https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/american-historical-review https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/amer... I'm finding it hard to believe that increased specialization or increased student diversity could come close to explaining how the editors have chosen these topics while not publishing once on World War II in 30 years. That said, I very much appreciate the points you bring up and your very helpful links for further reading.