Historiography

[Jona Lendering]

What do you think, is the following an adequate description of current modern military history?

Ignoring the ocean of studies about details ("The use of roof tiles in street fights", etc.), there are currently two main branches, which I would like to call "face of battle" and "cultural context".

An example of the first group of texts is, of course, John Keegan's masterpiece, after which it is called. When studying Antiquity, this is a difficult approach. The battle of Issus is one of the few conflicts that can be studied in some detail.

The other approach is to analyze war as a social phenomenon with cultural consequences. Example: Modris Eksteins' Rites of Spring. For Antiquity, this is again a difficult approach. The amount of nonsense that has been written about the importance of Marathon and Salamis is astonishing. The only ancient conflict that has cultural consequences that are with us today, is the war between Rome and the Jews, which led to the schism between Judaism and Christianity.

Perhaps, there is a third trend: the return of biography - e.g., the wave of Alexander books and Goldsworthy's In the name of Rome. However, I have a feeling this is limited to the Anglo-Saxon world, which has always been strong on biography.

What do you think, is this oversimplifying current military historiography?

[Praefectusclassis]

Hi Jona,
Those two are certainly important current schools. One should not forget that - mostly for Rome - the 'organizational' school is still alive and kicking, studying every bit of testimony to reconstruct structure, hierarchy, internal functioning and displacement of Rome's armed forces.
Also, there may still be the strategic discussion which started with Luttwak and his defenders and attackers. Isaac, Mattern and such belong to this discussion which seems to have calmed down since the late 90s.

The really new thing is how war is influenced by contemporary culture and influences culture itself. That's fairly new, but is definitely considered the new rage. Lendon's Soldiers and Ghosts is the prime example for ancient history, but it comes from a larger trend in military history and books such as John Lynn's Battle.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Then there is also the Object Ananlysis, history using a mix of "secondary sciences" as source as well as the ususal ones. Matthias Pausch´s Die römische Tunika is a good example ( Or, my thesis )

[Felix]

Hi Jona,
Those two are certainly important current schools. One should not forget that - mostly for Rome - the 'organizational' school is still alive and kicking, studying every bit of testimony to reconstruct structure, hierarchy, internal functioning and displacement of Rome's armed forces.
Also, there may still be the strategic discussion which started with Luttwak and his defenders and attackers. Isaac, Mattern and such belong to this discussion which seems to have calmed down since the late 90s.

The really new thing is how war is influenced by contemporary culture and influences culture itself. That's fairly new, but is definitely considered the new rage. Lendon's Soldiers and Ghosts is the prime example for ancient history, but it comes from a larger trend in military history and books such as John Lynn's Battle.

And if I recall correctly, Lynn was writing at least in good measure in reaction to Victor Davis Hanson.

[Vincula]

( Or, my thesis )

Whats that then?

[Jona Lendering]

( Or, my thesis )

Whats that then?

Yeah, tell us more!

[caiusbeerquitius]

"The Shield in Late Antiquty and the Early Middle Ages - An Investigation of a Military Object in Europe from the Later Roman Empire to the Battle of Hastings"

That´s it. P

[Felix]

THAT sounds interesting! More details, please?

[Praefectusclassis]

And if I recall correctly, Lynn was writing at least in good measure in reaction to Victor Davis Hanson.

Yes, it is (in part) a reaction to or inspired on VDH's Western Way of War, which is an interesting little booklet in itself. That influenced Keegan's History of Warfare which made it mainstream.

[Tarbicus]

"The Shield in Late Antiquty and the Early Middle Ages - An Investigation of a Military Object in Europe from the Later Roman Empire to the Battle of Hastings"

That´s it. Very Happy Razz

I've got it. It's a top read. Translucent rawhide shield layers and everything.

[caiusbeerquitius]

The really new thing is how war is influenced by contemporary culture and influences culture itself.

Is that so new? It was von Clausewitz´s main argument, I think.
"Der Krieg ist die Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln" is just what this is about. Or all the stuff about the "Limes-society" in the Later and Late Empire: military and culture.

Is there any Roman/Ancient military-micro-history anyone can think of?

If you want to read my thesis, pm me.

[Jona Lendering]

The really new thing is how war is influenced by contemporary culture and influences culture itself.

Is that so new? It was von Clausewitz´s main argument, I think.

I have a feeling there's a misunderstanding here. Lendon's book is about how a nation or a culture has a style of fighting of its own, to which it adheres in spite of technical innovations; it is comparable to D.H. Fischer's Washington's Crossing, who describes the birth of an American fighting culture and opposes it to the British way of war. Or compare the book I mentioned, Eksteins' Rites of Spring, who shows how the progressive, German war cultur in WW1 forced a conservative Britain and France to adapt itselves, and how WW1 was the breakthrough of modernity.

Which chapter of Clausewitz do you refer to?

[caiusbeerquitius]

I refer specifically to the quote above " Der Krieg ist.." and the surrounding text. 1st Chapter.

Unfortunatetly this statement by v. Clausewitz is regularly misunderstood and misinterpreted, as almost noone so far has made the effort to check whether the terms used by v. Clausewitz had the same meaning in his time as they have today. Checking "Meyers Conversationslexikon" from e.G. 1850 "Politik" has a completely different meaning, which leads the careful linguist :lol: to a different meaning of the quote. Not "If the means of politics are not able to reach a solution, war is waged", or "The Army should always be under the rule of the political leadership" but in context :
"The way a state wages war is a mirrior of it´s culture and society"

The really new thing is how war is influenced by contemporary culture and influences culture itself.


Is that so new? It was von Clausewitz´s main argument, I think.

This is of course some kind of nonesense what I say there. It´s not his main argument, but it´s one of his most important arguments. And Clausewitz merely states that it is so. He does not investigate HOW, as Jasper said above. Shouldn´t be writing posts so late after a hard day...

[D B Campbell]

Yes, it is (in part) a reaction to or inspired on VDH's Western Way of War, which is an interesting little booklet in itself.

Not strictly relevant to this thread -- apologies -- but Harry Sidebottom's little booklet, Ancient Warfare: A very short introduction (Oxford, 2004), is also interesting as a reaction to VDH.

[Praefectusclassis]

And a very nice booklet as well!