Thread:
Military training needs to focus less on military history and more on creativity, suggests Texas National Security view. Does anyone else feel that military history really is a runt of the academic litter, which nobody seems to want? 1/ https://warontherocks.com/2020/05/professional-military-education-needs-more-creativity-not-more-history/?utm_source=WOTR%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=1499170fa0-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_10_30_2018_11_23_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8375be81e9-1499170fa0-68229229&fbclid=IwAR0tEKhdRS1fMZlUPh1wKx67bJ0F1Hzw4lF1uTtPGm-Qym2UBXM06SOKhKI

This is an ongoing issue I encounter. If you speak to some historians (not all by any means, but still a significant number) & admit that you're a military historian, they genuinely give you a slightly patronising smile, and politely imply that you don't study PROPER history. 2/

The irony is that military history has to sit an intersection between conflict, social, and political history. You can't understand how combat dynamics work, without understanding people, and the way they both respond to and are affected by war. 3/

You can't understand strategy without appreciating the political dynamic between combatant nations, and the domestic pressures their governments were under. You can't understand war without understanding how politics, economics, and most importantly people interact. 4/

I wonder if part of the issue is the perception of military historians (usually seen as a bunch of old blokes meeting up for dinner & 10 bottles of wine while they discuss tactics from an armchair - either that, or we're anoraks who obsess about the shape of uniform buttons). 5/

The reality is of course a world away. Its no surprise to anyone that many of the best historians of conflict are women. Whilst there, frustratingly, isn't gender parity (yet), the balance is (thankfully) definitely improving, helped by great initiatives like Herstory. 6/

The work being done is subtle, nuanced and relevant, providing a better understanding of the human face of conflict, and transcending sub/disciplines . Yet the perception remains - people mean very well when they call my work interesting 'for a military historian'. 7/

The position of 'war studies' in history, at least to a PGR looking at the job market, & trying to work out how to get a uni job, is worrying. I have to look carefully at how I can 'sell' my research to unis so that I'm not pigeon holed as 'just a military historian' 8/

I am genuinely curious, is this something that all PGRs fear? Is this a concern for political, economic, social, or gender historians? Do those in other disciplines find that they have be careful about how they pitch their topics for fear of being stereotyped? 9/

I can't help worry about the future of military history. If the view of the Texas National Security Review prevails, it'll be less welcome in the armed forces, and already feels less welcome amongst some academics. Despite being popular with the public, does it have a future? 10/

And to clarify, in case people think I'm being unfair, I'm not trying to spark a war between the different sub-disciplines of history. I am a keen advocate of interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary studies (I set up an interdisciplinary journal). I'm also NOT saying that 11/

… all historians are patronising about military history. There are plenty out there that are supportive, kind and genuinely interested in our work. Yet I've increasingly noticed this attitude as I speak to people at conferences, and try to think about the job market. 12/

I'm also not the only one to notice it. So my aim is to try and see whether this is unique to military history, and if so, why people have an issue with military history, and what therefore needs to be done to break down the misconceptions. 13/

Please think of this not as someone whining, but as someone at the start of their career, with genuine concerns about the relevance of their work being called into question, and their future job prospects. End/