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
Näytä tämä ketju
-
-
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
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 10 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
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
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 8 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
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
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 11 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
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
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 7 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
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
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 10 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Now, is it true that there are some academic historians who look down on military history out of an outdated sense of what the field is about?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
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 8 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
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
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 20 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
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
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 23 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BretDevereaux
Wayne W. S. Hsieh uudelleentwiittasi Wayne W. S. Hsieh
The AHA has put out data on academic historians' self-identification:https://twitter.com/whsieh/status/1356257666952273928 …
Wayne W. S. Hsieh lisäsi,
Wayne W. S. Hsieh @whsiehA few points about this. 1. This is actual numbers, as opposed to anecdote. 2. For me, there is no sig decline in self-identified military historians (the small numbers means we shouldn't over-state the trends--although I've included the AHA summary). https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/december-2015/the-rise-and-decline-of-history-specializations-over-the-past-40-years … pic.twitter.com/lUwulIFeDENäytä tämä ketju1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @whsieh
Hurrah, data! Thank you!
21.21 - 16. maalisk. 2021
0 vastausta
0 uudelleentwiittausta
1 tykkäys
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.