[HN Gopher] Why Military History?
___________________________________________________________________
Why Military History?
Author : alexpetralia
Score : 103 points
Date : 2020-11-14 13:15 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (acoup.blog)
(TXT) w3m dump (acoup.blog)
| nickik wrote:
| Wonderful article, I totally agree.
|
| There is ungodly amount of garbage history military history out
| there, because people want to read it. However, that does not
| mean there is not a huge amount of great work done in that field.
|
| Its quite simply the case that for 1000s of years states major
| spending was on military and military matters, and the greatest
| transformation of society and economics happen during conflicts.
| Trying cut out military history from other fields is a
| fundamental mistake of the modern historians and more importantly
| universities.
|
| I often listen to lectures from military historians and they
| quite often have a 'black sheep' feel around them, making self-
| depreciating jokes about how they still exist, this often leads
| to good lectures because they are already not inhibited by the
| conventions and trends other historians tend to follow.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| > I often listen to lectures from military historians and they
| quite often have a 'black sheep' feel around them, making self-
| depreciating jokes about how they still exist, this often leads
| to good lectures because they are already not inhibited by the
| conventions and trends other historians tend to follow.
|
| Sort of.
|
| My wife is a historian, so I am friends with an unusually large
| number of history faculty. There is good military history that
| is widely respected by the community. The problem is that there
| are a lot of very old academics who refuse to acknowledge new
| ideas and methods, leading to a lot of continued publication of
| bad work.
|
| It isn't military historians being free from conventions that
| trap other historians. The available analysis methods of modern
| history are very wide and there isn't a trend trapping the
| field. If anybody is stubborn and stuck in conventions, it is
| the aging group of military historians who refuse to integrate
| new ideas.
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| It's not clear that "new techniques" would actually add
| anything. History's been around a long time, and it's not as
| though Gibbon's any less definitive today than he was in
| 1800.
| nickik wrote:
| There are some older military historians who do great work
| and don't get respect, because just doing military history is
| considered old fashioned. And some of the old methods are not
| necessary bad, just considered bad but I don't always agree
| with that assessment.
|
| And somewhat younger historians who are military historians
| but feel like they are kind of outsiders from their peers.
| ateng wrote:
| Being a professional technologist (which is probably as far
| away as one could get from being a historian), it baffles me
| that the academic military history discipline is treated as
| said in the article --- war is still being waged daily in the
| modern world, and in the very foreseeable future it will not
| end. Surely at least the military academies around the world
| would do serious studies on the past to predict the future
| wars, at bare minimum?
| thoughtleader31 wrote:
| Well that's the thing the article touches, people tend to
| think that military history is not studied in a serious
| manner as far as an academic discipline goes. Military
| academies can do the bare minimum in rigor as far as they
| need to impart their military tradition and form effective
| officers, just like the author said about aristocrats
| learning how other aristocrats did their thing before
| smashing some peasants.
| NineStarPoint wrote:
| It's also plausible that military institutions are less
| likely to want to share their findings than civilian ones
| though. If the US military thought it had found a unique
| predictive insight in history, it really wouldn't want anyone
| else to know about it.
| smogcutter wrote:
| On the contrary: https://www.armyupress.army.mil/
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Strange. In Chrome this IP address can't be found,
| whereas it loads just fine in Firefox. This is the second
| time in a week I've come across a problem with a .mil
| domain, though the other one wasn't browser-specific.
| mcguire wrote:
| I prefer https://www.usni.org/ :-)
|
| Also, there's https://history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/c
| ollect/collect.ht..., specifically the "U.S. Army in
| World War II Series".
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| Serious studies are being done all the time. The "anti
| military history" positions expressed in the blog post are
| not reflective of the position some monolithic "board of
| academics" who control all the funding and classes. They are
| opinions that are sometimes held by some individuals in a
| diverse field, who sometimes are in positions to deny or
| attempt to deny funding in local situations.
|
| Serious research is being done, serious books and papers
| published, serious courses and lessons are taught.
|
| If you want a technologist analogy, there are some parallels
| to what I assume PHP or Perl communities might be like.
| Whenever you go out into the broader world, you need to
| acknowledge how everyone else likes to take potshots at your
| language, and then move on to explain why your language meets
| certain needs anyways. And in the end, all the pot shots
| taken at PHP or Perl don't remove any of the immediate needs.
| platz wrote:
| Just in time for the latest Hardcore History episode now out
| today
| jeanlucas wrote:
| Exactly my thoughts. Even if it's audience is definitely
| amateur, it's incredible how Dan Carlin gives all the points me
| ruined in the post throughout all of his series. Especially, to
| me, ww1 and supernova in the East.
| rg2004 wrote:
| In my opinion your links are hard to differentiate.
| barce wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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_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 wrote:
| 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.
| kodah wrote:
| > 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/Bonu
| s_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.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I have a hard time understanding what these statements are
| talking about.
|
| > to fight _less_ wars. That 's a lofty goal, and maybe
| attainable, but probably far off for humanity as a whole.
|
| It's not only lofty and "maybe" attainable, it's already
| happened, beginning decades ago. You're living in the most
| peaceful time in human history. There are almost no
| international wars (maybe Armenia and Azerbaijan count?). The
| great powers fight no wars with each other. War is almost
| unimaginable across vast geographic areas: Europe, especially
| sans Russia. North America, South America - _the entire
| Americas_. South and Southeast Asia, with the possible (and
| significant) exception of India and Pakistan. East Asia
| except North Korea. Etc.
|
| It's not an accident or luck; it was a program of the early
| 20th century to make war illegal, and that came to fruition
| after WWII when the victors (who were not daydreamers - they
| knew more about war than we can ever imagine or want to know)
| formed the UN and the roots of the EU explicitly to prevent
| future wars.
|
| It's like saying that extending human average human lifespan
| past 50 years is "a lofty goal, and maybe attainable, but
| probably far off for humanity as a whole."
|
| > Critical to any military, much less society, is the concept
| of a warrior class.
|
| There is no "warrior class" in the West or in the democratic
| world. For most of American and democratic history, wars were
| fought using draftees and citizen recruits, like the
| Minutemen - everyone, not a class. The current American and
| most wealthy country militaries are filled with volunteers,
| people from all walks of life - not a class, unless we
| redefine the meaning of "class" as 'any group of people in
| the same job'. They are not trained over generations; in
| fact, many in the U.S. military are immigrants and the
| children of immigrants.
|
| A 'warrior class' doesn't have a place in U.S. society, which
| is explicitly anti-class. That doesn't mean there is perfect
| social mobility, but generally we expect and encourage
| individuals to follow their own paths - not many reading this
| follow the family profession (especially in IT!) - and to
| succeed or fail by their effort and merit. If Mary's mother
| was a farmer, we aren't shocked if Mary becomes a programmer
| or doctor or artist. Obviously, we have much work to do to
| achieve those ideals, but the ideal is certainly not a caste
| system.
| nickik wrote:
| > Also by teaching military history you actually form trust
| in the institution of the military.
|
| An easy argument can be made that the pretty absurd deference
| the US population has for its military is harmful both to the
| military and the population.
|
| For me we don't need claims of the use of military history,
| other then that it is history. If we measure by impact on
| history, military history is undeniably important.
| skybrian wrote:
| Yes, it's often the wrong kind of deference, one that puts
| people on a pedestal but doesn't try to get to understand
| what's going on well enough to discuss war and military
| issues in a serious way.
|
| I'm reminded of James Fallow's article:
|
| The Tragedy of the American Military
| https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-
| tra...
| kodah wrote:
| > An easy argument can be made that the pretty absurd
| deference the US population has for its military is harmful
| both to the military and the population.
|
| I wouldn't call what I see in modern times deference. As I
| described it in my post it's more nationalistic and
| chauvinistic. There's a big difference.
| WesleyLivesay wrote:
| A great read, really gets at both what military history can be,
| and the way that it can be reductively criticized. The roots of
| military history within the education systems of the elites is
| important, it promoted so much focus on military history as a way
| to teach future military leaders how to win future wars, not to
| understand the past.
|
| Unfortunately, I don't know if it can, as a discipline, break
| away from some of the problems that it has been saddled with.
| There is a lot of bad military history out there, and
| specifically a lot of REALLY popular bad military history.
|
| A lot of people don't want critical and expansive (beyond the
| battlefield) military history. They want either good guys vs bad
| guys narratives or deep rivet-counting/platoon-chasing level
| histories that ignore anything beyond a very narrow focus on
| specific actions on the battlefield.
| mcguire wrote:
| History in general has had (and has) that same problem; see the
| Great Man Theory. But the better classes of professional (and
| amateur) historians now regard that as poor analysis and try to
| produce and promote better things.
|
| Ultimately, narrative history---and that includes a lot of
| good-guys-vs-bad-guys and rivet-counting---isn't going to go
| away. In fact, it can't, because that is some of the base data
| for critical history.
| zeotroph wrote:
| The author makes a distinction between the "drums and trumpets"
| / "cult of the badass" following and the actual academic
| discipline, so I think this field is doing fine. It has a
| similar problem as the "pop sci" fluff resulting from badly
| copied university press releases which were inaccurate in the
| first place. The enthusiasts which then pick up from there are
| just a lot more, because to them war is just too interesting
| and emotionally satisfying. This then has an effect on the
| society as a whole, something for maybe military sociologists
| to research? But nothing the field itself can be blamed for, if
| anything without it the situation might be a lot worse.
|
| I found this quote fitting: "[..] military historians study
| conflict in the same way that doctors study disease; no one
| assumes that doctors like diseases, quite the opposite."
|
| _Edit:_ Also thought provoking and reflecting on the
| fascination of war, in the comments the user TomBombadil quotes
| musings of a sentient machine from Iain M. Banks Culture novel
| Excession:
|
| "It was a warship, after all. It was built, designed to glory
| in destruction, when it was considered appropriate. It found,
| as it was rightly and properly supposed to, an awful beauty in
| both the weaponry of war and the violence and devastation which
| that weaponry was capable of inflicting, and yet it knew that
| attractiveness stemmed from a kind of insecurity, a sort of
| childishness. It could see that--by some criteria--a warship,
| just by the perfectly articulated purity of its purpose, was
| the most beautiful single artifact the Culture was capable of
| producing, and at the same time understand the paucity of moral
| vision such a judgment implied. To fully appreciate the beauty
| of the weapon was to admit to a kind of shortsightedness close
| to blindness, to confess to a sort of stupidity. The weapon was
| not itself; nothing was solely itself. The weapon, like
| anything else, could only finally be judged by the effect it
| had on others, by the consequences it produced in some outside
| context, by its place in the rest of the universe. By this
| measure the love, or just the appreciation, of weapons was a
| kind of tragedy."
| smogcutter wrote:
| Not arguing, but just want to throw in the rivet-counting can
| have its place. For example _Shattered Sword_ , one of the
| examples he gives of a "campaign" history that has deeper
| value, uses a _ton_ of technical detail to show the tactical
| options that were available to the Japanese fleet, and
| ultimately puncture a lot of myths about Midway.
|
| The important point in this case is that the rivet-counting has
| a purpose, it isn't just for forum warriors to obsess over gun
| weights or which battleship was the most badass. _Shattered
| Sword_ uses it to show that a lot of the popular account of the
| battle is factually impossible.
| mcguire wrote:
| Another example would be _Jutland: An Analysis of the
| Fighting_ by J.M. Campbell. As far as analysis goes, it 's
| fairly weak. On the other hand, it's a good and extremely
| detailed base collection of who did what, when, and with what
| result. It is therefore a excellent reference to start from
| for more actual analysis.
| d23 wrote:
| I know nothing about this field, nor its criticisms. Can anyone
| point me to some good reading that describes the detailed
| strategy and nuances that led to wars being won or lost? Things
| like not planning for muddy terrain contributing to a battle
| being lost -- that sort of thing. I don't know if this is what
| the author is for or against, but it's definitely something I'd
| be interested in reading.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| I think there are broadly two types of ways to lose in a war.
|
| The first way is that you've been to articulate clear goals,
| have been able to string together methods and means that at
| least on paper allow you to reach those goals, have been able
| to secure the relevant support (so national/popular will,
| backing of an aristocratic class, etc etc) to see through the
| task, and then come up short. For a classic example of this, we
| can look at WW1 Germany. Despite everything we know about how
| the war ended up, there was a path (but treacherous) to the
| Central Powers achieving their goals and being able to set the
| terms at the end of the war.
|
| The second level is that you've failed one or more of the above
| tasks. In which case you're likelihood is losing gets much
| higher, possibly to the point where future historians might
| look back and say that you've lost before you even started. For
| classic examples of this, you would look at WW2 Japan and Pearl
| Harbor. It is incredibly difficult to find any analysis that
| didn't require continuous strings of miracles for Japan to
| achieve its aims once it had attacked the United States. Note
| that the second case consists mostly of a lot of "non-military"
| things.
|
| Another thing that may help you out in your quest is to grasp
| of some of those is to understanding the three tier
| organization of tactics, operations and strategy. In fact, I
| can point you right back to one the author's blog series (this
| is part one of a six part series) where he analyzes the siege
| of gondor (yes LOTR) from a realistic-ish point of view
| (https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-
| gondo...).
|
| It'll probably start to give you a feel for maybe how you could
| rephrase your original question into forms that'll more likely
| give you the types of answers that you'd be satisfied with.
| krimpenrik wrote:
| Sun Tzu - Art of war
| mercurial wrote:
| Hardly. This is in no way a historical treaty.
| jholman wrote:
| Pedantic observation in case you didn't know: the word you
| were looking for was not "treaty", it was "treatise". If
| you did know, or if you don't care, ignore me.
| mercurial wrote:
| Wars are rarely won by single battles. That said, it really
| depends what period of history you are interested in. If you
| want to stick to the XXth century, Anthony Beevor regularly
| produces very readable books on WWII or the period immediately
| before (mostly concerned with the European theater).
|
| If you are interested in more ancient history, I can warmly
| recommend Keagan's Peloponnesian War (which mostly draws on
| Thucydides eponymous masterwork).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-11-14 23:01 UTC)