“We are met on a great battlefield of that war [the Civil War]. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here [at Gettysburg].”
In academia, military history seems to have been de-emphasized in some recent decades
The last few decades have seen a rapid proliferation of academic disciplines – including, among others, humanities disciplines. Within the academic discipline of history alone, there has been a similarly rapid proliferation of specific sub-fields within history. These include social history, labor history, ethnic history, women’s history, and LGBTQ history – among many, many others. But, interestingly, one kind of history seems to have been de-emphasized in some recent decades. This is simply: military history. This was traditionally one of the major areas of historical research. It goes back to the very founding of the academic discipline of history. That is, Herodotus covered the Greco-Persian Wars, and Thucydides covered the Peloponnesian War. Together, these two men co-founded the modern discipline of history.
19th century illustration of Athenian Greeks hammering the Persians at the Battle of Salamis
It’s true that the ivory tower has its own spin on warfare, but they seldom study it in depth
It’s true that the ivory tower sometimes likes to talk about warfare, and has much to say about wars. Usually, both sides are criticized equally in a morally relativist way – unless one of them is Western and the other is not. In that case, the spin received is usually predictable, even at times when it’s not corroborated by any actual evidence. Other commentaries come from a pacifist element, or one that criticizes nuclear arms races among the superpowers. Nonetheless, it’s getting harder and harder to find classes with a more traditional focus on political and military history. Those that do exist are likely to discuss their effects upon society at large, rather than the traditional military strategies and tactics that produced these effects. These other things are important, too – and I’ve done this kind of societal analysis myself on this very blog. But you’d almost have to go to some kind of military academy, to find coverage of the strategies and tactics that won (or lost) a particular conflict. Seldom do civilian colleges and universities bother even to mention these things.
Hannibal crosses the Alps with his war elephants, to fight the Romans in Italy itself
A few of the reasons why military history seems to have fallen out of favor these days
To be clear, I’m not entirely sure about why military history has been de-emphasized in these recent decades. But I have a few guesses to offer here on that score. One is that military history seems to have disproportionately attracted a male audience. And, as we all know, masculinity is considered “toxic” these days. Unless, of course, we’re talking about a trans man – in which case we’re expected to celebrate them for being “brave.” I’m not sure why masculinity would be considered “brave” at some times and inherently “toxic” at others, but so goes the argument. And the aforementioned pacifism, along with movements to freeze nuclear arms buildups, may also play a role here. But, for whatever reason, offering military history classes has fallen out of favor these days. You’d almost be better off learning these things on your own – from books, movies, or documentaries. At the very least, it’s cheaper than a typical college education would be these days. Some of these media have the same problems alluded to above. But others of them are able to talk about the subject matter in a relatively dispassionate way. For example, some of them can recognize heroic acts, or good strategies and tactics, performed by the wrong side of a conflict – and criticize incompetent or cowardly acts performed by the right side of a conflict, which fail to bring the desired results for the more righteous cause. I’m somewhat skeptical about whether the academic sins towards this particular subject will (or even can) be redeemed anytime soon. But I’m convinced that we have lost something from this unfortunate de-emphasis upon the role of armed conflict.
Scene from the Bayeux Tapestry depicting the Battle of Hastings – England, 1066
Military history needs to be put back into the standard history curriculum today
Thus, this post will try to show the value of studying military history, and make an argument for putting this subject back into the standard history curriculum. In doing this, I should clarify that other kinds of history can still be valuable, and I’m all right with continuing to study many of them – even if I’m critical of the kinds of spin that these subjects usually receive today in the ivory tower. Rather, my argument will be for a return to military history being a respectable (and prestigious) academic subject, which should be offered at modern universities alongside of the other still-respectable sub-fields … within the academic discipline of history.
Sultan Mehmed II’s entry into Constantinople, 1453 (in what is today Turkey)
Military history teaches us how we can prevent some future wars from happening
First and foremost, military history tells us how and when we can prevent some future wars from happening. Even at times when a current war is necessary, its goal should always be (at least in part) to reduce the frequency of such wars in the future. At times, it would be better to not get involved in a conflict at all. There are many examples of unnecessary conflicts in history. But history also teaches us that societies are better able to protect their interests and values, when they’re negotiating from a position of strength. We are most likely to be attacked at those moments when our military budgets have been gutted nearly into irrelevance. Relatively few would want to attack a nation that is strong and powerful, and which has the ability to retaliate – although some, sadly, still do so today. Military history tells us why wars break out, how they turn out, why the winners win, and why the losers lose. And, most importantly, they tell us what is at stake in their ultimate outcome. If that’s not practical, then I don’t know what is. Such knowledge tells us how to avoid the most unnecessary and bitter of warfare, and how to promote the most stable and satisfying of peace.
Battle of the Somme (France, 1916) – during the First World War
And, actually, the free world’s nuclear arsenals continue to make a nuclear war less likely
In the days since the Cold War, this means that the largest nations of the free world have needed to maintain a nuclear arsenal. The left’s standard spin today is that having nuclear arsenals makes nuclear wars “more” likely to occur. It’s true that this likelihood can increase, when these nuclear arsenals are excessive. Indeed, that was one of the chief reasons behind certain arms control agreements – as negotiated by Republican presidents like Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. But having no arsenal at all is an invitation for the free world to be wiped out by tyrannical nations who do possess such arsenals. And, before we agree to dismantle any amount of our own nuclear weapons, we need to be able to get our worst enemies to do the same. That is, unilateral disarmament does not (and cannot) work. We have to play hardball, to actually reduce the likelihood of nuclear war. And some amount of our arsenal still has to be retained, to give us the necessary clout. That’s why these Republican presidents were far better at getting arms control agreements from the Soviet Union than the Democratic presidents were. They ensured that the Soviets were actually keeping their end of the bargain – thus leading to actual disarmament from both sides, rather than just from the one side.
An SM-65 Atlas, the first US ICBM, first launched in 1957
The implements of war have changed greatly, but the psychology of war has not
Next, military history tells us about the true degree to which wars have changed. Many aspects of warfare have indeed changed, such as the technologies used to fight it. Today, we have submarines patrolling the depths of the world’s oceans, military planes flying high in the world’s airspace, and spy satellites photographing ground positions from beyond the earth’s own atmosphere. We have ICBMs that can go into orbit, and which can then deliver death and destruction from outer space. We have communications technologies that can allow us to coordinate massive campaigns, and computers that can uncover each other’s most compromising secrets. Yet, for all of this, human warfare remains much the same as it ever was. Troops still come under fire when their boots (or other shoes) hit the ground, and casualties are still sustained when well-laid plans go badly wrong. There is still something primal about warfare, with the same reptilian brain that moved the cavemen to fight and kill each other. The motivations for war likewise tend to be the same as they always have been. Man is as greedy and brutal as he ever was, and his worst instincts are still curbed more by fear and force than by love and friendship. I remain skeptical that human nature has changed to any significant degree. Thus, the wars of the past tell us much about the wars of the present, and the wars of the foreseeable future. While the implements of war have changed, the psychology of war (for the most part) has not.
Soviets preparing to ward off a German assault in Stalingrad’s suburbs, during World War II
Honoring the sacrifices of our armed forces, who have protected every kind of freedom
And warfare also teaches us about the sacrifices that were needed to get us where we are. To paraphrase Victor Davis Hanson, the United States was born in war, reunited in war, and saved from external threats by war. This country’s controversies about chattel slavery were settled, not by force of arguments, but by force of arms. We were saved from fascism, not by our superior morality (although that morality was real), but by our superior might. And, as Charles M. Province once wrote, “It is the Soldier, not the minister, Who has given us freedom of religion. It is the Soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press. It is the Soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech. It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer, Who has given us freedom to protest. It is the Soldier, not the lawyer, Who has given us the right to a fair trial. It is the Soldier, not the politician, Who has given us the right to vote. It is the Soldier who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag, And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protester to burn the flag.” (Source: “It Is The Soldier”) I couldn’t agree more. To paraphrase Will and Ariel Durant, the ability to kill and destroy is a prerequisite for permission to live and build.
Japanese carrier Hiryu shortly before the Americans sank it at Midway, 1942
Our Constitution has always depended upon the contributions of our armed forces
Even our Constitution will mean very little, if we are unwilling to make the sacrifices needed to preserve it forever. As Ronald Reagan once said, “Freedom is a fragile thing and it's never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. And those in world history who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.” (Source: His Inaugural Address as Governor of California in 1967) Those who have dismissed our Vietnam veterans as “baby-killers,” to put it bluntly, were guilty of some base ingratitude towards those who had served them. Few of our veterans ever volunteered to be there – and many of them were killed, wounded, or psychologically scarred from their harrowing service to their country. To a significant degree, military history is about honoring the contributions of our armed forces, who gave us the freedoms that the above poem “It Is The Soldier” so movingly enumerates. It’s true that our soldiers have sometimes gotten out of hand, and some (such as Benedict Arnold) even betrayed their country. But, for every American veteran who ever got out of hand or betrayed his country, there are legions more who were unheralded heroes, often with great deeds forgotten to their children. It behooves us to celebrate their deeds, and not just on Veterans’ Day and Memorial Day. To me, these people are the ones who most kept our Constitution alive. And, to be clear, this includes people like George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant.
An American marine gets his wounds treated during the Vietnam War, 1968
Supporting the living veterans, and paying our debt to the fallen and to their families
I fear that I have failed to do justice to such an important topic in a post of this length. Even in tomes of much greater length, I could barely scratch the surface of what the discipline of military history is all about. Our military keeps us safe – both in times of war, and in times of peace. Even when their trial by fire is over, their ordeal often continues long after they get home to their families. To me, it seems self-evident that our living veterans need our ongoing support. To me, it seems self-evident that the families of the fallen likewise need our grateful and tireless support. And, to me, it seems self-evident that military history is still relevant today – and needs to be revitalized, both inside and outside the halls of academia. To the extent that we forget it, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. And, to the extent that we remember it, we can pay our debt to those who have gone before – and do whatever it takes to attain the noblest and best kind of peace.
“It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment