Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
A 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/lUwulIFeDE
3. Military history is a small sub-genre, akin to labor history, and noticeably smaller than STS. 4. I think a lot of military historians believe this is too small a footprint, especially if one was raised in a tradition going back to Thucydides. This is obviously debatable.
5. Cultural historians are obviously dominant (if any sub-genre is in a field as fragmented as History), but they rule over a shrinking empire. 6. Military historians have an economic backstop in PME (a problematic refuge in many ways, but still a refuge) other fields do not. END
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
