4 ms·
There is, but whereas a government and its generals could legitimately learn lessons from studying ancient tactics, we don't have that kind of carry-over to the
by huffmsa 11y ago
There is, but whereas a government and its generals could legitimately learn lessons from studying ancient tactics, we don't have that kind of carry-over to the present day, so that kind of knowledge becomes pure academic interest.
Insead, the CIA more or less lead the funded of creation of "mass communications studies" departments across the US in the 50s,60s, and 70s because it was research with applications to improve their abilities to engage in covert warfare.
- jessriedel 11y ago> ...so that kind of knowledge becomes pure academic interest. I don't understand. We're talking about academia. Elite historians study the middle ages and the ancient dynasties of China. Is it obvious that these have more useful lessons than the Civil War?
- huffmsa 11y agoAcademia and "the arts" have never been solely about the collection of knowledge for knowledges sake. Generally academics and artist have had patrons of some form who pay for a specific project, which is used to subsidize the academic's other endeavors. History definitely falls under this umbrella, first with kings wanting their accomplishments recorded for posterity. Academic military history grew out of the practical need to study tactics. Since that need is much declined, so too are the universities offering course in the field. You still have your collection of purists who study for the sake of study, but the number who do it because they are seeking to apply it to current issues has decreased.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]