I think your idea of what the field of military history looks like, beyond the pop-books about the ACW, may be a bit outdated. Drum-and-Trumpet history like that hasn't really been the core of the field for 40+ years now, even if it sells at battlefield parks.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Which ought to make sense! How often is public policy the story of "this one mid-level or upper-level bureaucrat rolls in and revolutionized everything all on their own, by their own genius" It happens, right? But not often.
More often what you see is "this result was the consequence of complex institutional incentives, existing bureaucratic culture and the expectations of broader society which shaped the possibility-space of decision-making." Turns out, armies work the same way.
-
-
So we're stuck with the hard task of trying to write a more complete, useful history, while competing against, as you put it, right-wing weirdos selling a simplified, unhelpful version.
-
Again, happy to chat about this if you want. It's a problem with historians of all types that we're not as direct and engaged with the public as we ought to be, explaining why what we do is important and how it can improve decision-making in the here-and-now.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.