Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Or you could make a full database of programs at R1 schools (tougher, but very doable as a research project); dates they were created, dates disbanded, etc. Hard data here is super achievable and is never presented; I can only assume why that is. 4/19
FWIW, my impression is that military history is a recovering field and would be properly expanding if it weren't for the general 'pillaging of the humanities' trend I've discussed before. If History were healthy in terms of funding (it isn't), mil-hist would be good. 5/19
But since this take has no data at all, they try to support the argument in other ways, which are poor evidence (more to the point, they're not actually evidence, but additional unsupported assertions) and deserve to be called so. 6/19
First off, the claim that mil-hist moved into the military and that post-9/11 they got "too busy to take care of military history" which is just hot nonsense. AUP is still churning (check it out, they also are on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX9G3c6jkROVZ0tXr4gvUKQ …)...7/19pic.twitter.com/yQoYCQiytb
...there are great teacher-scholars at the USAWC or ACSC, etc. A lot of great work has come out of those programs and continues to. Of course the article makes this nebulous claim of atrophy there, but again with no data. It's an assertion, not evidence. 8/19
And seriously, *again* this is an *easy* research problem to run down. If I didn't have 15 plates spinning, I'd do it myself - you just need to ask the departments about their teaching lines. It's public information! Not hard to get! 9/19
So with no actual evidence that either civilian or military-based military history programs are actually shrinking, the entire argument really is balanced on this one point: that new military history isn't real military history: 10/19pic.twitter.com/IBysdoSwkX
Which is, you will pardon me, just damned stupid. I talk about the various lenses of new military history here, if you want a sense of them: https://acoup.blog/2020/11/13/collections-why-military-history/ … 11/19
But in short form, if these writers think that new methods like organizational mil-hist, 'war and society' or the 'face of battle' school of examining the experience of combat aren't relevant to modern military operations, they *deserve* to be laughed out of the field. 12/19
I can demonstrate the importance of those lenses in a freakin' *blog post* using just LOTR (and did: https://acoup.blog/2020/05/15/collections-the-battle-of-helms-deep-part-iii-the-host-of-saruman/ … ). Ignoring those lenses means ignoring *most* of the factors that actually produce victory and defeat in real non-fantasy wars! 13/19
Honestly, does anyone look at the last 20 years and think, "Ah, the US military: great at cultural understanding, organizational self-assessment, and strategic thinking, but just needs a bit of work on tactics"!? And to be clear, we still discuss tactics too. 14/19
And this isn't just something for ivory tower academics. Ask any number of current or former service personnel doing the hard thinking about the harder fighting and you'll find immediately that emphasis on society, culture, organization, etc. of the 'new military history.' 15/19
What's really happening here is a circular argument where the authors discount the modern, more sophisticated forms of military history that are being done and then complain no military history is being done, having ignored all of the examples. 16/19
Now, is it true that there are some academic historians who look down on military history out of an outdated sense of what the field is about? Sure. Are they the major obstacle keeping military history in American universities from reaching its potential? No. 17/19
What *is* holding military history back is the general reduction in funding for history departments (& humanities generally) more broadly in American universities. Trying to encourage military history while history departments are shrinking everywhere is a lost project. 18/19
So in short: Put up (actual data) or shut up, but don't act like every innovation in mil-hist since 1950 is heresy. And if you still think there is a military history problem, fund history departments. Start by giving me a job! Will history for food/tenure! end/19
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
