"people who have idea about uniforms" Topic

on another forum, we have a game were you paint a picture from a movie or tvseries.

I wanted to mix things up so I posted a wargaming pic with some photoshop done to it, to me it would seem like a easy thing

this was the first pic i did
picture
and people guessed the patriot.

so i thoght mabye it was to far away
so I posted this pic
picture
and this
picture

and people guessed Glory, like a french uniform looke anything like a ACW uniform.
i mean how manye tv show's or movies have french Voltigeurs
and Green uniformed soldiers

to me it seems easy as pie, it would be Sharpe

but nobody got it, the guessed enything from three musketeer to ww2 movies.

how hard is it to atleast get the right century from a uniform.
I can 95% of the time place a uniform/armor to the spesific war or atleast the time period, even if i don't have a special intrest in the era,

other excampels are people who can tell the diffrence between 1400 century plate armor and Hoploites from the era of alexander the grate even if it's a 1600 years apart

Yeah, but how important is it to know something like that?

I'm pretty sure there are avid students of history out there, whose knowledge of history far exceeds 99% of the people who frequent this site and wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a British Light cavalryman from the Crimean War and a Russian musketeer from the Great Norhern War. That is if the one wasn't on his horse.

Totally with Pictors on this.

Knowing uniforms, equipment, OOBs, units, casualty lists, vehicles, tactics, strategy, and all other esoteric military info that seems so important to a lot of gamers is NOT history. It is militaria or military science.

Knowing and understanding history involves the how and the why of historical events and developments and what they mean to us. All of that other stuff is just, well…stuff. Sure it is nice to know, and certainly the ability regurgitate that kind of info is handy…but it isn't history.

A lot of people confuse militaria/military science with history. Even military history is the study of the how, why, and what happens when military forces fight each other not that other stuff.

There are a lot of militaria/military science buffs in the wargaming hobby to be sure, but I do also think there are a lot of good, solid, and well informed military *history* discussions here by fellow TMPers. (You could always tell the historians from the militaria guys because the militaria guys talked specific equipment, while the historians talked politics, logistics, and human motivations!

I love when the militaria buffs get angry when they hear historian guest speakers commit the unspeakable sin of not talking about their favorite esoteric militaria topic. Many of them just want to hear a historian regurgitate technical information about their favorite pet tanks for example. It's one thing to know and memorize a collection of facts and technical data. It's another thing entirely to *understand* historical events and how the past happened.

There was some grumbling a few years back from a few Grognards about a guest speaker on the Eastern Front at Historicon because he "never even mentioned the T-34 and the Panther!". He even fielded a few of those types of technical questions and since he hadn't memorized that relatively useless technical info and brushed those types of questions aside, the Grognards considered him to be less of a "historian".

That, of course, doesn't mean that the two things never overlap nor "never the twain shall meet"…but just a general observation about how some folks confuse the two.

I know many an excellent historian who couldn't tell you the difference between a WWI and WWII uniform because, well…it doesn't matter actually.

My own 2 cents plus inflation.

other excampels are people who can tell the diffrence between 1400 century plate armor and Hoploites from the era of alexander the grate even if it's a 1600 years apart

Apparently 15th French artists couldn't either.
Have you ever seen Medieval, Byzantine or Renaissance scenes from the Bible or the Classics? Invariably they depict Hector in plate armor, or Goliath in Byzantine.

"and people guessed Glory, like a french uniform looke anything like a ACW uniform."

Forget the uniforms, how about the fact that Glory is about a 'coloured' regiment and there isn't a single black face among those figures…you would think that would have tipped people off to the fact that it isn't Glory.

QED

And yet I have had this happen to me on several occasions:

What do you mean you don't know the tin content of the lapel buttons of Left Handed Bavarian Kettle Drummers for the War of Jenkins Ear!?!?!?? If you're going to sell historical miniatures you should really know your history!!

Or I have heard/read a comment like

and the history teacher couldn't tell me the make up of the 7th corps artillery reserve at the Battle of Marmalade on Rhein – the first one between Her Royal Majesty's Belgian Waffleers and the German state of Pancake-Hesse-Damaple-Stadt – no wonder kids in public schools don't know their history!!

In the second example, to be fair, the difference between the standard corp artillery and the 7th made a huge difference. The radical use of platypus on the ends of the rammers and the inclusion of the Vienna boys choir made all the difference in the battle and changed, not only the course of the war, but the course of all human history.

Knowing uniforms, equipment, OOBs, units, casualty lists, vehicles, tactics, strategy, and all other esoteric military info that seems so important to a lot of gamers is NOT history. It is militaria or military science.

It's a good point, but I think you pushed that too far with the inclusion of casualty lists and strategy.

The casualty lists of WWI were what caused the political changes after the war (revolutions, Socialist governments, emancipation for women). I presume you mean *detailed* casualty lists.

As for strategy -- well that is clearly the realm of normal history. Often it is even governed by civilians for political ends, when the military have other ideas.

Keen of history and wargaming, I often find myself in odd moments of incomprehension. People find it difficult to accept that I can game and study a period -- say the RCW -- and yet not know what rifle was used. But I find such details unbelievably boring.

The worst is tanks -- was there ever a subject more inclined to useless detail than them?

I KNOW of the Sharpe books but have never read one and I really have very little interest about Napoleonics in general so even though I know my stuff in a number of periods I would probably have muffed your "test" as well. Not as miserably as your friends, perhaps, but a fail is still a fail… 8)=

The worst is tanks -- was there ever a subject more inclined to useless detail than them?

Not tried Napoleonics then? :0)

It's a good point, but I think you pushed that too far with the inclusion of casualty lists and strategy. The casualty lists of WWI were what caused the political changes after the war (revolutions, Socialist governments, emancipation for women). I presume you mean *detailed* casualty lists.

Yes, I meant the detailed lists. For example you might find someone who knows exactly at what strength a unit was at a certain time: such as the 20th Maine was at this strength on July 1st, and by the 3rd had sustained x casualties". While this has value to the militaria enthusiast a historian would see that factual detail as less important than say, the concept that casualties in the regiments were not replaced and the effect this had on the troops and their motivations to fight. One is a relatively unimportant (in the grand scheme of things) fact, while the other is an important *concept* to understanding the military history of the war. This being just an example off the top of my head.

Maybe casualty lists are important to those seeking their geneaology of family members who served…so it's not entirely useless I guess, just not "history" as it is practiced in the discipline.

As for strategy -- well that is clearly the realm of normal history. Often it is even governed by civilians for political ends, when the military have other ideas.

Yes, I probably shouldn't have included strategy, bad choice on my part. Strategy is important to the field. Tactics less so except where they impact the larger war (such as in Normandy where Bocage caused such a setback and the overcoming of it was a major part of understanding the theater).

So while tactics like how to storm a house or clear a room or how to employ a squad in defense is important to a gamer and militaria enthusiast, it's not as important as say understanding the overall strategy for winning a war and how that influenced the politics and impact of a war…

So yes, strategy was a bad example or word choice on my part.

Does it matter? I probably could not always place a uniform correctly, still doesn't stop me enjoying wargaming and life in general. Sheesh.

I'm not only talking about uniforms, but anything

some way of beeing able to place a thing atleast to some degree in history,

if you see a computer in a painting you should know that the painting isn't about the siege of Constantinople

I think that would be dependent on the people.

And I think you were only talking about uniforms, or at least uniforms and armour were all you mentioned.

My guess is that if you put a picture up with a figure working at a computer nobody would have guess Troy or Gladiator.

Went to the Dive Show in Birmingham a few years ago and there was a talk by one of the people responsible for raising the Monitor from the seabed. During the whole talk he was going on about the American Civil war 'in 1765'. I assumed that he was just saying it by mistake so I quietly asked him at the end why he was going on about 1765. He honestly believed that was when it had happened…..

Militaria vs History… H'mm. Perhaps the number of rivets or the type of weld used in the construction of the Tiger/Sherman/Churchill has no direct impact on the understanding of military history, the mere fact that these equipments (or the Baker rifle, or the decision to replace 8 pdrs by 6 pdrs, etc, etc) existed must, through their use, impact on the manner in which campaigns and battles are fought, even if it is only the troops' perception that "Every tank is a Tiger, every gun is an 88.)

Would the Soviet army have fought at Kursk if they hadn't felt that they had a weapon that could defeat German armour?

To that extent, at least, military historians should have some familiarity with the weapons systems in use during the period they are studying.

My five pennorth.

yeah.

the Minieball muskets of the ACW changed ALOT of the way the war was fought, not as much as multi shot rifles, but still there were a diffrence.

charged became alot harder, as you had to walk thought 3-5 minutes of more small arms fire, the use of canister as offencive ammo changed ect.

Of course.

But mistaking memorization of facts (ie rivet counting) for practicing history is a mistake often made by militaria enthusiasts.

And in fact, you make my point for me, ie understanding the *impact* of these types of things (such as the Minie Ball) rather than just memorizing technical data.

To that extent, at least, military historians should have some familiarity with the weapons systems in use during the period they are studying.

Of course they should. But often militaria enthusiasts criticize historians for not memorizing technical data in volumes. "What? You mean you don't have the entire French OOB of 1940 memorized?!" or "You don't know ALL of the lace colors for the British Regiments that fought in the Ware of Jenkin's Ear?"…or "He confused a Confederate canteen for Union canteen…what kind of historian is this?"

I think you get the point.

A smart person memorizes facts. An *intelligent* person knows how to apply and adapt facts and the concepts surrounding them.

Again, my 2 cents. And again, I don't believe there is no room for both in the study of history. I am making an observation about some military history enthusiasts.

To that extent, at least, military historians should have some familiarity with the weapons systems in use during the period they are studying.

Not really. They probably should know that the Germans at Kursk thought their weapons superior, and therefore acted the way they did. Which weapons and why is largely by the by.

From anyone but a militaria enthusiasts, would it have made any difference if the armour was better, or the guns, or the ammo, or the aiming system? No.

A historian of WWII therefore needs to know that tanks are important, and that their improvements do have an effect. But the actual nature of the improvements is unimportant.

charged became alot harder, as you had to walk thought 3-5 minutes of more small arms fire, the use of canister as offencive ammo changed ect.

Ah, you still don't get it. The ammo greatly changed the way the *soldiers* behaved. To everyone else there was no change. They fought basically the same way they always had.

Put it this way -- what political or social change resulted from the improvements of the Minieball?

Was there even any change in army organisation or recruitment?

So the Minieball's effect on anything other than militaria detail was effectively zero.

Mark and Keith are, of course, correct. Even the knowledge of how battles develop is largely irrelevant to the course of history. As far as a useful knowledge of history goes battles are something like this:

Two armies enter a black box, one comes out victorious either by a lot or a little or it is a draw. The result might be important but even the battle itself rarely is.

There are instances where this is not true, of course, but for the most part it is.

There are some weapon systems that do change the political landscape. The introduction of gunpowder weapons, pikes and longbows all did their part to swing the balance of power from one where nobility did all of the fighting to one where the people were more responsible for their nations defense. If national defense is a term we can even use with any accuracy with reference to the middle ages.

So there are weapons with social impact, hell the effect of just putting metal wheels and other parts on wagons was huge.

But the point isn't how they were used in battle or how big they were or the weight of the ball it was what the effect of them was. It doesn't matter if you understand that the long bow could penetrate x inches of armour at y yards, it just matters that you understand that it leveled the playing field to some extent.

That is if you want a true understanding of history and the events that caused the political and social changes that made the world turn out the way it did.

Ah, you still don't get it. The ammo greatly changed the way the *soldiers* behaved. To everyone else there was no change. They fought basically the same way they always had.

it's military history, and militaria is part of that, military history is about battles and campaigns and how they effected the world before and after,

the minie ball did have an effect about how the battles were fought, sure it took almost the whole war before the generals got the point, but the ACW did see alot more long range and longer firefights then the american-mexican war.
and number of succesfull charged got smaller.

"That is if you want a true understanding of history and the events that caused the political and social changes that made the world turn out the way it did."

For 'history' yes, I agree, but for 'military history' the case alters. If, for example, there had been no Kursk, or if the Soviets had been defeated at that battle, what effect would there have been on the course of WWII? And the post-war world – no 'Cold War' perhaps?

Obviously, if we pursue this argument, then we enter the realms of speculation, but I use Kursk to illustrate my point.
The same might be said of the Waterloo Campaign. if Napoleon had managed to beat the combined Anglo-Allied/Prussian armies, what effect would that have had on European history?

I am not saying that historians, even military historians, should know the colour of the worms in the lace of every British infantry uniform throughout the ages, but military historians should have some understanding of not only how, but also why, armies engaged in battle in any age. To that extent I maintain that a familiarity with weapons and tactics, and possibly strategy, is fundamental to the study of military history.

To take up Gunfreak's point re the minie ball… I am not an expert on the ACW, but if generals (on both sides of the conflict) marched their troops into battle, expecting Napoleonic style engagements then the casualty rates ought to have been astronomical – surely that impacts on social history? In much the same way, the casualties amongst the 'Pals' Battalions of Kitchener's Army plunged entire villages and areas of cities in Britain into simultaneous mourning. It is a social phenomenon that the casualties on the Somme (particularlly those of the first day) have left such a scar on the British national psyche, when although conditions were much worse, and the casualty lists as long at Third Ypres, that battle seems not have impacted the national consciousness in the same manner.

I like the exampel of Mexican-American war vs ACW.

the Mexican war was a small thing, were the mexicans got run over by the american like 10 000+ americans died most in non combat.

then you get the ACW and you get 600 000 dead, you can then look at why the war was more blody,

the first and most obvious is ofcouse longer war, more menn involved, BUT as said over here by Byrhthelm, the commanders expected a war like the Mexican-American war, but they got something completely diffrenct. and this lead to alot of death. and therefor effected alot of other stuff outside of the war.

I don't like your examples, I have to say.

The Franco-Prussian war was fought with much better weapons than the ACW and with more men in both starting sides. Less casualties though.

Absolutely the best way to rack up heavy casualties is when the two sides are evenly matched and prepared to have at it for years. At that point it is going to be very bloody, even if the armies only have swords.

Alas Mark and Keith, Gunfreak is not listening. He is clinging to his idea of what an historian should be rather than accepting that a historian is a cat of a different colour

Historians look for context, cause and effect – among other things. Knowing the colour of the 13th Foot and Mouth's facings or the casualty returns for the Battle of the Little Big Nose isn't going to help much with the bigger picture… the mechanics of warfare is a minor component of history

It's probably why 'proper' history books – with all that boring socio-political stuff – appear dull to many people

eh, the Franco-Prussian war just as deadly, it lasted less then 1 year end still racked up about 250 000 dead and wounded

some of the battles of the war was also just as deadly as the more deadly ACW battles.

mabye the reason it wasn't worse was simply that the officers knew more about the new tactics that followed better weapons

I would suggest that obsessing about the minutiae of weaponry is only a problem when it obscures one's ability to see 'the bigger picture'. Did the fact that the Brits had Lee Enfields and the Germans had Mausers have any bearing on the result of battles in WW1? I doubt it – what is important to a military historian is that it was arguably the first clash of 'industrialised' armies, not the muzzle velocities of the rifles used.

However – I do think a complete lack of knowledge of subject detail makes it hard to take seriously the rest of what a commentator / writer / historian has to say on the matter. I have winced countless times as so-called 'defence correspondents' on the BBC or CNN use the word 'tank' to describe any military vehicle with tracks, describe every encounter as 'heavy fighting' and describe any and all troops as being 'elite'.
Another example is a book I recently read called "Churchill's Bodyguard". The author refers to HMS Prince of Wales as being a 'destroyer' and at one point describes how, on a tour of the front, Churchill fires a "92 inch gun" (or something – either way it is obvious that the gun should have been described as – eg – a 9.2" gun). I was amazed that a chap could be motivated enough to spend the time researching what was a very interesting book on the subject of the Second World War, but not have heard of the HMS Prince of Wales or have any concept what sort of calibre artillery pieces are. That these mistakes were not spotted by proof readers is even more baffling.
Though it would be exaggeration to say it 'ruined the book', it certainly made me wonder how many other mistakes there were which I hadn't spotted.

Everything is "History".

Trying to parse what should and should not be known by an historian in a particular field of study is pointless.

The study of the history of technology, whether military or civilian, are both historical study, whether one is looking at power plants or artillery shells.

To say that historians only want to know the causes and effects of the "big picture" is flat-out wrong. Some history is the study of a very small subject that had absolutely no impact on the world. And example of this would be the history of a fortress. It is still history even if we don't try to place it in context of the surrounding political and economic conditions that caused its construction and use.

That view is the result of our modern education system that devalues facts, and emphasizes trends, human interest stories, and outcomes. That's all fine to know, but please don't pretend that ignoring and devaluing the knowledge of small details (military or not) and concntrating on the "big picture" makes one a superior historian.

Everything is "History".

Absolutely NOT true.

Trying to parse what should and should not be known by an historian in a particular field of study is pointless.

Not true. The field MUST attempt to place value on what is studied and practiced. Otherwise what is the point? Placing value on what we study is how ANY field progresses, so why would it be any different for the field of history? Of course, any historian may study and learn what he wants, but the field overall will, and should, place value on those studies to advance the field. It is simply the way the field works. This does make the field susceptible to trends and controversies, but that's the nature of the beast.

The study of the history of technology, whether military or civilian, are both historical study, whether one is looking at power plants or artillery shells.

Wrong. That is the STUFF of history. It is the raw material and data that historians use to UNDERSTAND the past. In and of itself it is NOT history. The study of how those things impact the last might be history, but by themselves they are static, they are meaningless unless we place them in context. Looking at a power plant or an artillery shell tells you nothing about the past unless you place that in the context of the past. You can memorize the output of that plant or the velocity of that shell all day, but until you understand those items impact, you aren't practicing history. Science perhaps, but not history.

To say that historians only want to know the causes and effects of the "big picture" is flat-out wrong. Some history is the study of a very small subject that had absolutely no impact on the world. And example of this would be the history of a fortress. It is still history even if we don't try to place it in context of the surrounding political and economic conditions that caused its construction and use.

Rubbish. Placing it in context IS the whole point entirely. Again, otherwise and it is just science or something else. NOT history.

That view is the result of our modern education system that devalues facts, and emphasizes trends, human interest stories, and outcomes. That's all fine to know, but please don't pretend that ignoring and devaluing the knowledge of small details (military or not) and concntrating on the "big picture" makes one a superior historian.

Our modern education system has nothing to do at all with this discussion. It does show a particular axe to grind, but it is irrelevant.

No one is devaluing the ability to memorize data or know small details. What is being said is that this is merely a tool or skill. That doing those things in and of themselves, while commendable, is NOT in fact practicing history.

If it is, it literally goes against everything I have learned in my history education.

It's our JOB to place context. Knowing factual data is just a tool towards that end. It is not an end in and of itself as far as history goes. Like I said, it may be science or something else, but it sure isn't history.

Best definition I ever heard of the field of history was this: "History is an interpretive narrative that conveys significance."

From Collins Concise English dictionary:

History :
1.a record or account of past events, developments etc.
2.all that is preserved from the past esp. in written form.
3.the discipline of recording and interpreting past events.
4.past events, esp. when considered as an aggregate.

From my own meagre opinion I would suggest context and interpretation are the nub of the issue, however without the relevant data (and that my friends is the sticking point) how can you make an informed personal judgement? History might just turn on the want of a nail as somebody far superior to I once pointed out, but do we need to know the make of that nail?

"The field MUST attempt to place value on what is studied and practiced. Otherwise what is the point? "

so unless somethig as HUGE sosial and political effects on the world it's not history,

so learing about a indesivisive battle has no use as it didn't change the history of a country or the world.

I think you confuse military history and social/political history

Meh. Who am I to argue with the dictionary? haha.

3. is my own personal take on history. At least as it is practiced by the field. That is the whole point anyway. Everything else is stuff until it gets put into the larger context. At least IMO.

<<3. is my own personal take on history. At least as it is practiced by the field. That is the whole point anyway. Everything else is stuff until it gets put into the larger context. At least IMO.>>

That's correct, In YOUR opinion. "The Field" that you like to quote so much is hardly a monolithic group, and just because you feel one way doesn't make you correct, as this discussion has shown.

so unless somethig as HUGE sosial and political effects on the world it's not history,

Well the division is between *useful* history and the mere collection of facts.

Any facts collected which have no flow on effect to later events do not advance knowledge. Such collections are, in a real sense, not historical.

I could write a "history" of my collecting of toy soldiers. I could write a "history" of my use of paper napkins. I don't think anyone would seriously consider those to be history in any useful sense.

So the tallying of uniforms, discussing of rifle calibres, etc is not history because these facts do not *lead* anywhere. Moving up the scale, the exact manoeuvres to win a battle do not affect the results -- any suitable tactic would be the same to a non-military historian.

Don't get me wrong -- I collect books on uniforms, and I love to read about battle tactics. (And I bet Ivan does too.) But I don't consider that meaningful history -- because that requires some flow on effect.

That's correct, In YOUR opinion. "The Field" that you like to quote so much is hardly a monolithic group, and just because you feel one way doesn't make you correct, as this discussion has shown.

Ok, I take that back. It isn't my opinion. I was joking around in regards to britishlinescarlet2 post about the dictionary definition (as in who am I to argue with the dictionary).

Perhaps I should say the field of history as in the academic field, which is the field I work in.

It really is how the field operates though. Placing events and things in context is central to the work of the field. I know of no historian worth his salt who does not place his research in historical context. In fact, every historian I know does this because that is his JOB. It is the whole point of their work. Historians ask questions in order to interpret events for the value it serves to help us understand the past.

Maybe the field is not monolithic, like you say, but that doesn't change the fact that what I said is true.

Maybe archivists do not value the context of the past. Separate field, though it overlaps.

so unless somethig as HUGE sosial and political effects on the world it's not history,

so learing about a indesivisive battle has no use as it didn't change the history of a country or the world.

I think you confuse military history and social/political history

Have you been reading what I have written?

I never said something has to have a HUGE impact did I?

Read carefully now please:

The historian has to, as the central part of their job, place events and things into some kind of context. A historian can examine something from the past and find out that it has no major impact (such as studying an indecisive battle) and still derive value from it because it can serve to improve *understanding* of the past.

Perhaps it might have been better if I had used the word understanding instead of impact earlier.

A historian can study all manner of things that have no real impact on the past as far as changing the outcome of an event or events, but unless he places them in context no true understanding is gained. You MUST place things in the context of the past to truly begin to understand the past.

This should be self explanatory really.

The stuff of history does NOT SPEAK for itself. The past MUST be interpreted by historians for value and to understand the past for ourselves.

To not do so might be archival work. It might be curio and relic collection. But it is NOT history as is practiced by those in the academic field. I am not confusing social and military history. Both do this.

Military history is the study of how people (societies) prepare and fight in wars (or as John A. Lynn also says "the study of military institutions and practices and of the conduct of war in the past."). It is the study of the pursuit and the act of war.

Studying artillery shells is military science (which has value to the study of military history no doubt and is one of the tools used by the military historian). However, studying HOW they were used and their effect, or lack of (even if it is negligible or non existent-which is still a result, however unintended by the user) is military history.

Context is necessary. Without it you do not have the practice of history in the academic field.

Are either of you archivists or museum curators? Those fields do what you are saying, but they are not the same field as academic history, despite their connection and overlapping interests in things of the past.

Here's a simple exercise which demonstrates the point…

Which of the following statements is valuable to the study of history? Which, in essence, is a "historical" statement.

"The German Panther tank was equipped with a 7.5cm KwK 42 L70 gun."

and

"The Panther was too complicated to maintain in the field, too expensive for the resources used, and too few in number to change the outcome of the war. Though it did influence future tank design."

Which one is military science, ie a technical fact and which is a historical interpretation of a technical piece of equipment?

Both are related, to be sure, but a person can still know the value of the second as far as historical understanding of the past without having actually memorized the first.

Concerning your example. If I were to add a conextual statement such as "…which was developed in order to deal with the heavily armored Soviet tanks the Germans encountered upon the invasion of Russia in 1941, continuing an 'arms race' as each side developed bigger and heavier tanks to counter the other's…" would that be enough for it to be "history" or does it have to be of greater import than that?

"…which was developed in order to deal with the heavily armored Soviet tanks the Germans encountered upon the invasion of Russia in 1941, continuing an 'arms race' as each side developed bigger and heavier tanks to counter the other's…"…would that be enough for it to be "history"

Absoluetly!

or does it have to be of greater import than that?

Nope, what you wrote was fine.

That's exactly what I am talking about. That is context. You are putting the technical fact into a greater context and making an evaluation or interpreation based on that information. That's practicing history right there. The outcome or importance of a single fact or event is not as important as the act of placing context to come to a greater understanding.

"You are putting the technical fact into a greater context and making an evaluation or interpreation based on that information."

Just so, but if the historian is unaware of the technical information, then he is not in a position to put that information in context. Which is why I argued that the 'Military Historian' needs some familiarity with technology and tactics. Without that familiarity how can he contextualise (is that a word?;-)).

Please note that I write about Military Historians in particular, rather than Historians in general.

But to revert to the Somme on 1 July 1916, without some idea of the effectiveness of the Maxim, as an integrated part of a DF task, can an historian (of any species) understand how/why British casualties were so heavy on that day? This situation also requires some idea of how German DF Tasks and tactics worked.

So while the impact of those casualties in the streets, villages and cities of Britain is of interest to us all, and may be the proper study of a social/political historian, IMHO, the manner in which those casualties were inflicted, and an understanding of the how/why, they were inflicted is a proper study for a military historian.

Sorry to bang on about this, but I felt the need to attempt to state my position. And it is my position, or opinion, or judgement or belief… I put forward for your consideration, not in an attempt to force you into accepting it as gospel.

Regards to all.

At this point, I will pick up the gauntlet and agree that there should be context wrapped around a fact for it to mean anything from an historical standpoint. I think I was bothered when I saw the original message that knowing facts and data were not "history". Of course they are, but alone they do not equate to historical study, which is "IIKs" point.

FWIW, I've an undergraduate degree in History, but have pursued my hobby these past 20 years as if it were a profession. By that I mean that I don't just play a game on a period, but I an not satisfied unless I have a good understanding of the period in question. For example, I have acquired just about every book in print (and some long out of print), and visited the National Archives for additional information in my research on the Mexican-American War.

Just so, but if the historian is unaware of the technical information, then he is not in a position to put that information in context. Which is why I argued that the 'Military Historian' needs some familiarity with technology and tactics. Without that familiarity how can he contextualise (is that a word?;-)).

True, technical information is important, especially to a military historian.

Please note that I write about Military Historians in particular, rather than Historians in general.

But to revert to the Somme on 1 July 1916, without some idea of the effectiveness of the Maxim, as an integrated part of a DF task, can an historian (of any species) understand how/why British casualties were so heavy on that day? This situation also requires some idea of how German DF Tasks and tactics worked.

True as well. I guess my point would be that memorizing the technical specs of the Maxim, while important, is nothing without knowing how it changed warfare. I mean, is muzzle velocity important here? Is knowing the exact ROF and Sustained ROF as important as simply knowing that it was a fast firing weapon that nullified the old tactics? Of course, a good military historian will know the technical details…but memorizing that info in and of itself is of no real value. I could look up the ROF if I needed to if it was important to answering a trivia question though…

Technical data is the raw material that the military historian uses to come to those conclusions when examining the outcomes. The technical data alone doesn't speak for itself. And memorizing that technical data alone, while interesting from a engineering/scientific perspective, isn't half as useful as placing it into the larger picture of the outcome of it's use.

Did the Brits on the receiving end care that the ROF was 450 (if that's what it is…dunno offhand haha)? Not really…It was high enough to cause the British to call it's effect of July 1 the "Black Day" by killing 20,000 of their men.

At this point, I will pick up the gauntlet and agree that there should be context wrapped around a fact for it to mean anything from an historical standpoint. I think I was bothered when I saw the original message that knowing facts and data were not "history". Of course they are, but alone they do not equate to historical study, which is "IIKs" point.

FWIW, I've an undergraduate degree in History, but have pursued my hobby these past 20 years as if it were a profession. By that I mean that I don't just play a game on a period, but I an not satisfied unless I have a good understanding of the period in question. For example, I have acquired just about every book in print (and some long out of print), and visited the National Archives for additional information in my research on the Mexican-American War.

That's cool, I hope I didn't come off too strong in the conversation…my apologies if I did.

That's cool that you have done archival research into the MAW. That's not a conflict I know a whole lot about.

My own archival research has been into the FIW in Pennsylvania concerning the Delaware Sachem Teedyuscung for my MA thesis.

All in all, I did enjoy the conversation all around…so no hard feelings if that was the case.