People rarely do something for a single reason. It's funny you mentioned channeling violence; I'm pretty much a non-violent person, and not one to start a fight just for the thrill of it. An old girlfriend once said that my passion for military history might be my way of getting rid of aggressive impulses. Hey, why not? Louis Armstrong played a lot of blues, but he was normally a very happy person.
I like to explore human nature, and war offers a chance to see the absolute best and worst humanity has to offer. So much chivalry, so many atrocities. So many ordinary people just trying to survive extraordinary events.
Military history can also inspire. No, I'm not speaking in the sense of, "dulce et decorum est, pro patria mora," but something else. More along the lines of, "well this is a bit of a tight spot I'm in, but remember those men at the Bloody Angle? They had it rough!" Or back in school, sweating out the hours before final exams; that in no way comes close to waiting to go over the top. I had a summer job in Virginia several years ago. An outdoor summer job, that is. One way I beat the heat was reading Donald Knox's oral history of the Korean War, in particular the chapter on the Chosin Reservoir. Sure, I was sweating buckets, but at least I wasn't in danger of frostbite!
Posted by: Chris | September 11, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Report this comment
I agree with other comments on this subject that the reasons behind 'why study military history?' are many & varied - at least for me. These include:-
o an appreciation, from my early teenage years, of the struggles of people to overcome their hardship & adversity; whether that is on the sports or battlefield.
o a desire to honour those who have made the 'ultimate sacrifice' by my reading of their efforts - whether they were successful or not. They will never be forgotten while their exploits, successes & failures, are available for all to read.
o as a way of 'linking' and thereby understanding many of the other pivotal points in history. For example, the 20th Century is littered with major & minor wars from start to finish eg World War 1, the Spanish Civil War, Japan in China, World War 2, Korea, 4 x major Arab Israeli clashes, Vietnam x 2, Falklands & Desert Storm et al. All of these in their own way are 'stepping stones' between other major cultural & human upheavals (as wars can & will cause). These changed the look of Asia, Europe and many other countries & affected 10's if not 100's millions of people.
o a 'thirst' to know 'how' the 'mechanics' of the military works eg How did this platoon or battalion take that hill? What specific tactics were used? Who moved where, how & why?
Finally, perhaps the most significant influence to me (as an Australian) is & was ANZAC day. Although other nations have 'Veterans' days I am not sure if these commemorations reach or obtain the same 'quasi religious' holiday status (second only to Christmas & Easter) as the 25th April each year in Australia & New Zealand.
This is in a way a 'natural' progression and channel for youth to ask the above question for themselves - 'why study military history?'
Posted by: John | September 11, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Report this comment
this is something i regularly have to, or at least feel the need to, explain to people who are curious about my interest.
i've been interested in military history since i was six years old, and between then and now i have studied constantly many different aspects of it, focusing particularly on 20th century warfare, both personally and through formal education to degree level. i have read countless publications, watched documentaries, attended lectures, have visited military collections and other sites worldwide etc, and feel enriched for my efforts.
for me, the military of history of humankind contains some very pertinent lessons for us all; to put it simply it demonstrates with brutal frankness what ultimately happens when one human being fails to respect another, and the futility of resulting conflict. conflict, by its very nature, and the causes of it, highlight flaws in the human condition, which its study should draw attention to and hopefully suggest remedies for. knowing what i know about the realities of war, it disturbs me when war is shown to be anything other than horrific and pointless - the romanticising of armed conflict shows a tragic misunderstanding of it. as military historians i believe that our study should serve to educate others to these conclusions in the hope that it will promote understanding between people and the avoidance of war.
in addition, the design and technology of military equipment is fascinating on an aesthetic level, from the relationship between man and machine to the influence of the natural environment on camouflage.
Posted by: YV | September 12, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Report this comment
Great question, Richard.
I agree there may be more than one reason to love Military History. (Yes, I love it). However, I think the "avoid future mistakes" reason is good for all citizens. We may not have the power to influence battle tactics, but we can certainly influence battle strategy. Some points;
A) Most modern military forces are subject to civilian control and civilians need to know military history to exert proper control over their military professional. I was a military professional and I want civilians to always rule the military, but to rule it wisely.
B) Even if you are not elected to high office where you have some say on military matters, you have the responsibility as a voting citizen to elect reasonable people to rule your military.
C) Citizens have a watchdog function as well. When a political leader decides to use the military in a way that an informed electorate disagrees with, then informed members of the electorate can rally others to their cause by knowing their military history.
Overall, citizens need to know their history, in general, to be informed citizens. They need to know military history, specifically, because it is the gravest use of state power and all citizens are responsible for the work of their government / military.
I have no illusions that every citizen will learn much military history, but the more citizens I can encourage to learn of it, the better my government will be.... and that is worth working for. I, personally, try to encourage the motorcycling (and driving) community to learn more military history by taking great rides near and around historic battlefields. Not much coverage for the population on the whole, but it is something toward a more informed citizenry
.
Keep up the good work at Osprey,
Battlefield Biker
Posted by: Battlefield Biker | September 16, 2007 at 03:38 PM
Report this comment
Why study military History?
I've always studied military history in order to understand the societies that perpetrated the wars being studied. Admittedly the technology is fascinating. But my draw is the people who did it. The leaderships and the common people who served in the armed forces or were simply part of the societies from which they came.
Posted by: M. Norman Ryan | September 19, 2007 at 03:15 PM
Report this comment
Wait! Let me go ask my 17 year old son who has a fascination with all things militarily history.
I suspect that the weaponry is a huge chunk of the interest for him at the moment but I am also confident that he is absorbing the larger lessons as well.
I have to admit that some of the military stories in history are among my favorites. My son knew this when he dragged me to see 300. He knows me well enough to know that I could look past the bloody gore because I would appreciate the themes of glory, honor and courage, not to mention King Leonidas' well muscled abs.
I am in total agreement with the encouragement to citizens to learn more military history. Heck, more history, period, would be a bonus.
And I have to say that I have often used battle tactics in my life as a mother including the United Front technique, the Divide and Conquer maneuver, and the ever handy Sneak up Behind and Hug them Before They See You Coming. (yes, I'm kidding)
Posted by: Karen Davis | September 20, 2007 at 02:49 AM
Report this comment
Of course it is important to study history however in this day and age fewer and fewer people are interested in it. Take the Normandy landings for example (frequently, incorrectly called D-Day) to many this was the start of World War Two - and many more have not even heard of D-Day! The fighting in North Africa and the Mediterranean have been all but forgotten. In recent years military history has been shaped by the media, Private Ryan and Band of Brothers plus games such as Medal of Honour brings a surge of interest in Normandy Landings, Gladiator - the Romans, 300 - the Spartans and it goes on. And of course they are never historically accurate so the vast majority then have a distorted view of history (through no fault of their own). I know I am preaching to the converted, but children should be taught that there is a whole lot more of interesting history particularly military out there and all they have to do is read !
Our research group studies the North African and Med campaigns and gives talks on the subject and it is suprising how few in our audiences have actually heard of the campaigns (incidentally you can see the work we do on our website www.d-daydodgers.com). The Battles in Italy were horrific in terms of the conditions and casualties and not unlike those experienced in World War One. The men who took part should not be forgotten until someone in Hollywood chooses to make a film about it.
Posted by: Sunray | September 20, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Report this comment
At its most intellectual and academic, studying military history, like any other form of history, disciplines you to examine what really happened, and why. Ask a question such as Why did Germany lose WW2 and you have to take into account an enormous number of factors; tactics, strategy, leadership, weapons, training; but also economics, demographics, scientific advancements, internal politics, resources, motivation to win, etc etc. You can read the primary sources yourself, you can also reading accounts by historians with conflicting points of view. At the end of your search you may not have firm answers. You may even be less certain than you were before you started your reading! I often find this myself - the more you read, the less you know.
History is enormously useful because it teaches you not to take things at face value, but to investigate them for yourself. In our modern age of political soundbytes in the media, this skill is more vital than ever. Mistakes are made when problems or issues are over-simplified. History on the other hand is the ultimate complicator!
Posted by: Don | March 09, 2008 at 09:24 AM
Report this comment
The Benefits of Studying the Changes in Warfare
Studying the impacts of changes in warfare on society benefits military professionals as well as the civilians appointed over the military. According to Jay Luvaas, “History is ‘practicable’ if it yields lessons, especially exemplary lessons in tactics and strategy that can be directly applied to some current situation. History is ‘useful’ in illustrating points of doctrine, in instilling in the young officer the proper military values or an appreciation for our military.” By studying warfare we can see other changes in societal, political, and economic realms within the civilizations that are waging it. As military professionals, we need not only concern ourselves with warfare but all aspects of society. Additionally, if we had not discounted some aspects of warfare in the past as being irrelevant in the present, then perhaps we would not have had to reinvent doctrine on counter-insurgency.
Revolutions in military affairs are identified with or driven by technological advances in the tools of combat. But just the mere fact that there has been an improvement in a weapon system does not mean that a revolution in military affairs has occured. The combination of the technological advance, associated with doctrinal or operational innovation, which then leads to a paradigm shift in the organizational adaptation of the technological advancement, is what defines a revolution in military affairs. As seen through studying military history this has occurred several times. One example is Napoleonic combined arms tactics and organization of his forces predicated on the improved mobility and reliability of artillery, which led to French domination on the battlefield until other armies incorporated their tactics. But I digress and I would like to begin the discussion with the sixteenth century and why we must understand the importance of studying the developments of warfare as military professionals.
There were significant changes in Western society during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries largely due to the noteworthy advancements in warfare and weaponry. During this period European society emerged from a “feudal society of the Middle Ages to the Early Modern Period.” According to British historian Michael Roberts, “[this period] exercised a profound influence upon the future course of European history.” Developments of the use of the longbow and increased effectiveness of artillery, improved the efficiency of combined arms operations. The effects of the assimilation of the Apache Longbow helicopter in today’s battlefield are very similar. Not only is it useful as an aerial weapons delivery platform but an integral part in incorporating all fires into the combined arms fight. Thus if we understand the effects of the longbow on sixteenth century warfare, then we can further develop the effectiveness of the Apache Longbow in twenty-first century warfare.
“Throughout the sixteenth century and most of the seventeenth, before the technical corps of the army had really developed, a number of the greatest scientists of Italy, France, and England turned their attention to problems bearing upon the technical side of warfare.” It was recognized that well trained officers must be technically proficient in addition to being tactically proficient. Scientists such as Galileo taught the science and mathematics of artillery and fortification to ensure a better overall understanding.
The Napoleonic period led to multiple developments in the organization and employment of military forces. As a direct manifestation of the French Revolution the French were able to employ an Army of volunteers, because they no longer fought for a crown but for the nation of France. Additionally, anyone could be an officer not just the aristocrats. France’s use of the levée en masse allowed for an almost unlimited well to draw upon for additional troops and resources. “Young men will go to battle; married men will forge arms and transport supplies; women will make tents, uniforms, and serve in the hospitals; children will pick rags; old men will have themselves carried to public squares, to inspire the courage of the warriors, and to preach the hatred of kings and the unity of the Republic. ” However, this led to an entire generation of the French male population to be reduced in numbers significantly.
Napoleon’s “new” tactical formations and combined arms approach proved superior to his enemies’ tactics. His institutional knowledge as an artillery officer proved to be quite advantageous to incorporate the combined arms fight. “He perfected the divisional system by grouping division and other units flexibly, according to the task at hand, into all-arms army corps. Huge armies of 150,000 to 500,000 men divided into corps could thus move dispersed a day’s or two day’s marches apart, linked by screening cavalry and couriers.” Furthermore, because French Soldiers fought for and had loyalty to France, Napoleon was able to use his troops in ways that others had not been able to in the past. He could employ them without the necessity of direct supervision, giving them the ability to forage for food and to act as skirmishers to disrupt enemy lines, without concern that they would desert. However, Napoleon was not able to adequately adjust to improvements in his opponents’ tactics which eventually led to his failure at Waterloo.
“The Civil War was the first modern war: one in which military power, built on popular support and industrialization, and projected by the railroad and steamship over hundreds of miles, approached the boundaries of total war.” It produced the most casualties in US history due to technological advancements in weapon systems combined with the use of Napoleonic era tactics. This led to the adoption of an insurgent style of fighting by the “bushwhackers” of the South, which caused great difficulty for both sides much like our difficulties today in Afghanistan. They were encountered by the Union Army when they began their campaigns in the South. The bushwhackers were snipers that hid in the bushes, not associated with the Confederate Army, who would then retreat and blend back in to the local population. Because this technique was so effective at targeting Union Soldiers, the Union army addressed this tactical problem by chastising the local population that harbored such criminals. The psychological effect of the Union Army burning its way through the South, in addition to the superior logistics of the Union, was integral in the defeat of the Confederate Army.
History is still practicable and must be studied by military professionals so we can better understand the current operating environment and to ensure we are well rounded leaders. As seen throughout military history, there were great leaders that should have learned from their own mistakes, so it is our duty to glean from the study of their tactics and techniques. But we must not take history out of context. “To recognize the frail structure of history is the first essential step toward understanding, which is far more important in putting history to work than blind faith in the validity of isolated facts.” The old adage that if we don’t learn from history then we are destined to repeat it may not apply entirely; but if we do not study the development of warfare then we may miss some important lessons learned by our predecessors.
----------------------------------------
Jay Luvaas. “Military History: Is It Still Practicable?” Parameters 12 (March 1982), p. H101RA-25.
Dr. Ethan S. Rafuse. “Advance Sheet for Lesson H102: Rise of the State and the Dawn of Modern War” H100: Rise of the Western Way of War Parallel Block, US Army Command and General Staff College (June 2009), p. H102AS-63.
Michael Roberts. “Rise of the State and the Dawn of Modern War: Advance Sheet for Lesson H102”. June 2009, p. H102AS-63.
Peter Paret. “Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age.” (Princeton University Press, 1986), p. 68-69.
Geoffrey Parker. “The Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare.” (Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 193.
Macgregor Knox and Williamson Murray. “The Dynamics of Military Revolution: 1300-2050.” (Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 67.
Geoffrey Parker. “The Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare.” (Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 233.
Jay Luvaas. “Military History: Is It Still Practicable?” Parameters 12 (March 1982), p. H101RA-31-32.
Report this comment