Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
So, I'm normally quite a fan of @TheCrashCourse videos, but I feel I have to object to the most recent (https://youtu.be/rlx6ur_D51s ): "in military history we tend to focus on the generals and the weaponry...we also need to look at the experience of soldiers and civilians." 1/7
and "we don't talk nearly enough in military history about food." And that's just not an accurate representation of where the field is now - or really where the field has been in the last 40+ years. For one, we talk a lot about food; professionals talk logistics, after all 2/7
I've picked up from previous Crash Course episodes (particularly US History19: Battles of the Civil War) that the crash course team takes a pretty dim view of military history generally, viewing it mostly through the lens of 'drum & trumpet' (='generals & battles') history. 3/7
But that's just not where the field is. Even pop-mil-hist since 1950 (and esp. since 1976) has leaned heavily into questions about the common soldiers and their experience. That trend is much more pronounced in the scholarship. Lots of social/org. mil-hist going on 4/7
For myself, I'm someone who is trying to use weapons as a window into the experience of common soldiers, because in the ancient world, the weapons of the common soldiers are some of the only evidence we have for them. 5/7
I don't know if the folks at @TheCrashCourse consulted any actual military historians on those lines...but it sure doesn't seem like it.
I suspect they'd find more of value if they engaged with what the discipline is now, rather than what they imagine it to have been. 6/7
Anyway - @TheCrashCourse , if you want to check with a military historian before you make any other sweeping generalizations about the field...you know where to find me - I love the show, my door's always open.
end/7
yeah, it feels very targeted at “military history as taught in high school”, as opposed to “military history as actual field of scholarship”
more generously, that “we” in “we tend” is much more restrictive than it first appears
Oh for the love of all that's holy. CONSULT WITH ACTUAL HISTORIANS
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
