5 ms·

Which historians is he referring to here? It is no real secret that as a discipline, military history is sometimes held in low regard by other historians. The

by barce 6y ago

Which historians is he referring to here? It is no real secret that as a discipline, military history is sometimes held in low regard by other historians. The crux of his argument is that military history needs to be studied so that we can have less wars. He throws shade at other historians for looking down on military history. But as a total outside to this debate, who am I to trust?

scarmig 6y ago
It's the red-headed stepchild of historian specialties, in significant part because popular military histories rarely even qualify as histories, except insofar as they refer to particular dates and historical figures. See https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6br8ck/why_do_so_many_academic_historians_look_down_on/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6br8ck/why_d... for some context, and a useful example: > As Peter Paret summarised in 1966 (!?), "Is there another field of historical research (military history) whose practitioners are equally parochial, are as poorly informed on the work of their foreign colleagues...and show as little concern about the theoretical innovations and disputes that today are transforming the study and writing of history?"
- nickik 6y ago
  But this is also simply a value judgment by historians. The argument that its all about 'culture', like in so many other fields is a very questionable approach. Similar arguments are often made about Political Scicne that we must study 'political culture' and that this will give us information about why things happen. In both cases I think this is very questionable assumption being made. Individual choice in one battle or one political move can and does change things, and if you want to understanding what happens is absolutely relevant. Also, things like doctrine that has been studied for a long time, are very related to culture so I don't even fully agree that military historians have ignored culture.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    > The argument that its all about 'culture', like in so many other fields is a very questionable approach. That isn't the argument. Cultural history is indeed trendy, but the bulk of new writing is not cultural history.
kodah 6y ago
> The crux of his argument is that military history needs to be studied so that we can have less wars Former military here, now a technologist. When they teach military history in the military (and I imagine the goal of academics like this person are similar) the goal isn't explicitly to fight less wars. That's a lofty goal, and maybe attainable, but probably far off for humanity as a whole. This article talks about war and militaries in general but I wanted to talk about how this can benefit Americans. The reason they teach military history is so that we learn what's worth going to war for, what's not, and what we can do differently in the future. Ignoring what popular culture entertains around military logic for a second, the military (and governments) put a lot of factors into going to war. Those deserve some honest review, what often happens is outright downplaying, dismissal, etc because as they said the sentiment is that war is ugly. No matter the side you find yourself on this is the case. This thought can be refined that war is ugly, but someone has to do it. Critical to any military, much less society, is the concept of a warrior class. Americans by in large, at least the ones I know, have no knowledge of the qualities, creeds, or convictions of the warrior class and thusly don't respect it much beyond some stuff they see in movies or read in books. History can help shape the warrior class through the generations but also gives us good lessons on how to be healthier, more efficient, and more effective when needed. Learning from groups like the Israelis or the French Foreign Legion who maintain strong warrior cultures can teach us things about mental health, strategy, traditions, etc... Also by teaching military history you actually form trust in the institution of the military. For instance, America's military at the time of it's forming was quite unique. You had a military force of volunteers that sprung up and after the revolution maintained some autonomy from the government but took a solemn vow of apoliticalness. This vow is still alive and well in military institutions but it can wane. Not only could it garner the trust of the public that people like the Joint Chiefs have the American people in mind but it would also remind service members why that vow is sacrosanct in a world that increasingly pressures you to be and act politically. The last thing I'd like to mention is that provides some real pride around the military. Not nationalistic, chauvinistic pride but pride that even the people who have to do the most seemingly in-humane jobs have some humanity about them. Additionally, there's some confidence that if a powerful foreign nation did start World War III that we would be well equipped with citizens who can deal wit it. In my life I've met people who have some facade appreciation of the military or people who clearly hate the military and let those convictions infect other thoughts. Seemingly there's pretty few inbetween and I think a lot of this comes from a lack of understanding. One of the stories I found more recently is the story of The Bonus Army (further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army#:~:text=The%20Bonus%20Army%20was%20a,redemption%20of%20their%20service%20certificates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army#:~:text=The%20Bonus....) Patton and McArthur are widely regarded as champions for the idea that no service member should be left behind, even if they were a corpse. It's the same ideology that fuels us continuing to search for bodies to this day. These same people, of the same convictions, right before the war attacked an encampment of veterans from WWI who were seeking early cash out of their war bonds because they were already homeless and had lost everything. They drove tanks into DC with Army Infantryman to take down peaceful demonstrators of their own ilk. I don't think McArthur and Patton are bad people, on the contrary I think they're people of astounding convictions, but knowing this history lets us understand a bit about people and maybe a little about life.

by barce 6y ago

scarmig 6y ago

It's the red-headed stepchild of historian specialties, in significant part because popular military histories rarely even qualify as histories, except insofar as they refer to particular dates and historical figures. See https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6br8ck/why_do_so_many_academic_historians_look_down_on/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6br8ck/why_d... for some context, and a useful example: > As Peter Paret summarised in 1966 (!?), "Is there another field of historical research (military history) whose practitioners are equally parochial, are as poorly informed on the work of their foreign colleagues...and show as little concern about the theoretical innovations and disputes that today are transforming the study and writing of history?"

nickik 6y ago
But this is also simply a value judgment by historians. The argument that its all about 'culture', like in so many other fields is a very questionable approach. Similar arguments are often made about Political Scicne that we must study 'political culture' and that this will give us information about why things happen. In both cases I think this is very questionable assumption being made. Individual choice in one battle or one political move can and does change things, and if you want to understanding what happens is absolutely relevant. Also, things like doctrine that has been studied for a long time, are very related to culture so I don't even fully agree that military historians have ignored culture.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  > The argument that its all about 'culture', like in so many other fields is a very questionable approach. That isn't the argument. Cultural history is indeed trendy, but the bulk of new writing is not cultural history.

kodah 6y ago

> The crux of his argument is that military history needs to be studied so that we can have less wars Former military here, now a technologist. When they teach military history in the military (and I imagine the goal of academics like this person are similar) the goal isn't explicitly to fight less wars. That's a lofty goal, and maybe attainable, but probably far off for humanity as a whole. This article talks about war and militaries in general but I wanted to talk about how this can benefit Americans. The reason they teach military history is so that we learn what's worth going to war for, what's not, and what we can do differently in the future. Ignoring what popular culture entertains around military logic for a second, the military (and governments) put a lot of factors into going to war. Those deserve some honest review, what often happens is outright downplaying, dismissal, etc because as they said the sentiment is that war is ugly. No matter the side you find yourself on this is the case. This thought can be refined that war is ugly, but someone has to do it. Critical to any military, much less society, is the concept of a warrior class. Americans by in large, at least the ones I know, have no knowledge of the qualities, creeds, or convictions of the warrior class and thusly don't respect it much beyond some stuff they see in movies or read in books. History can help shape the warrior class through the generations but also gives us good lessons on how to be healthier, more efficient, and more effective when needed. Learning from groups like the Israelis or the French Foreign Legion who maintain strong warrior cultures can teach us things about mental health, strategy, traditions, etc... Also by teaching military history you actually form trust in the institution of the military. For instance, America's military at the time of it's forming was quite unique. You had a military force of volunteers that sprung up and after the revolution maintained some autonomy from the government but took a solemn vow of apoliticalness. This vow is still alive and well in military institutions but it can wane. Not only could it garner the trust of the public that people like the Joint Chiefs have the American people in mind but it would also remind service members why that vow is sacrosanct in a world that increasingly pressures you to be and act politically. The last thing I'd like to mention is that provides some real pride around the military. Not nationalistic, chauvinistic pride but pride that even the people who have to do the most seemingly in-humane jobs have some humanity about them. Additionally, there's some confidence that if a powerful foreign nation did start World War III that we would be well equipped with citizens who can deal wit it. In my life I've met people who have some facade appreciation of the military or people who clearly hate the military and let those convictions infect other thoughts. Seemingly there's pretty few inbetween and I think a lot of this comes from a lack of understanding. One of the stories I found more recently is the story of The Bonus Army (further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army#:~:text=The%20Bonus%20Army%20was%20a,redemption%20of%20their%20service%20certificates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army#:~:text=The%20Bonus....) Patton and McArthur are widely regarded as champions for the idea that no service member should be left behind, even if they were a corpse. It's the same ideology that fuels us continuing to search for bodies to this day. These same people, of the same convictions, right before the war attacked an encampment of veterans from WWI who were seeking early cash out of their war bonds because they were already homeless and had lost everything. They drove tanks into DC with Army Infantryman to take down peaceful demonstrators of their own ilk. I don't think McArthur and Patton are bad people, on the contrary I think they're people of astounding convictions, but knowing this history lets us understand a bit about people and maybe a little about life.