"Christian military history" Topic

I was interested to see that in the US there are books written on military history from a Christian perspective
link
– as a Christian in the UK not something I've come across (albeit that of course historians personal beliefs/prejudices or what you will come out in their books anyway) other than when reading some biogs of people like Stonewall Jackson's Chaplain etc.

There is, evidently, a good market in making many things geared to Christian ethos here. Rock music, cooking, you name it. It is interesting to hear how it compares to the UK.

There is a Christian rock music thing in the UK with certain people having crossed from one to the other – generally in the UK though the voicing of Christian views (other than by the usual suspects i.e. the clergy) is viewed as a bit off/not cool/embarassing (for listeners) or whatever you want (unless its and I phrase this carefully, people from certain minority communities where the attitude seems to be that due to their culture we don't mind – viz progs on Afro-Caribbean churches etc).
Having been in the reserve military (and now in Law Enforcement), I also say that in those areas it's less common than in the US from what I gather from watching US TV (the old British officers mess thing used to be no discussion of politics, women or religion – i think that the first 2 have fallen by the wayside but the latter remains and in wider society too)

Aside from the hugely doubtful concept of "Providential Battles" I note that, looking through the series, there is a massive preponderance of English speakers beating foreigners and Protestants beating Catholics. As an English-speaking Protestant I question this; I also note that the author seems unaware that, after 1707, the term "England" was replaced by "Great Britain" in battles, if not in sports.

However, I think the key item is in volume II, where we are told of -

Gaines Mill—1862 Robert E. Lee vs. George B. McClellan (War for Southern Independence) The Confederate States of America in a unique engagement with the "United States of America."

In Volume IV we get -

"Discover the story of General Oliver Cromwell, his New Model Army, and the overthrow of King Charles I. Meet Major Henry Berry, Colonel Adam Murray, and the other Scots-Irish defenders of Derry under William of Orange. And see how God protected Andries Pretorious and his fellow Voortrekker commandos during their struggle against the fierce Zulus of South Africa."

So, it seems we have a narrow set of biases wrapped up in claims of Divine intervention. Catholics, Yankees and furriners need not apply.

"Mr. Potter … made us feel we were wathcing these amazing battles. —A Homeschool Mom"

Spellcheck???

As someone who has read and written military history, and is an ordained deacon in my church (so I claim two checks for credibility!) I suggest these sort of things are best not touched with a bargepole.

This is perhps THE most ridiculous piece of nonsense that I have ever come across.

What the chuff is a 'providential military highlight' ?

Other gems include 'Victorious Christian Armies Commanded by Courageous Men of God' (whereby one example is how 'God protected Andries Pretorious and his fellow Voortrekker commandos during their struggle against the fierce Zulus of South Africa.'!)

I might even go out and buy 'How the Scots Saved Christendom: Tales of Bravehearts and Covenanters' where one can apparently '… halt with us as we remember the legacy of the Covenanters, 18,000 of whom gave their lives for freedom.'

erm…what did the man just say???

This sort of hogwash has no place anywhere in anyone's education, and certainly not as a reference source for Military History.

I see a DH coming. But this is truly, utter $%&*&^!

have slightly duplicated MJS post above…

we are nearly on the same wavelength.

This is scary stuff if you think about it.

MJS
I'd agree that most of us (of whatever beliefs or not) are capable of reading a variety of books and forming our own views. Having said that for example much of the history of the ECW was written and sometimes still is by people with a degree of partisanship – some of the classic ECW histories were penned by High Tory royalists as are some of the hugely sentimental pieces on Montrose which also portray the Covenanters in what I think if a very unfair light (by people either coming at it from a romantic Jacobite angle or a modern secular liberal pov). Equally i've read books such as one on the trial of Charles 1st (by one of the top and most experienced QCs in the country today) that is so biased against the monarchy as to be completely OTT and had me, as a convinced Roundhead and Cromwell fan, feeling like throwing it out of the window at one point

indeed -
they also peddle
Why Satan Wants Your Firstborn and What to Do About It

Other gems include 'Victorious Christian Armies Commanded by Courageous Men of God' (whereby one example is how 'God protected Andries Pretorious and his fellow Voortrekker commandos during their struggle against the fierce Zulus of South Africa.'!)

-----------------
Visit the Voortrekker Memorial link near the Voortrekker Hoogte military base (now renamed Thaba Tshwane) in South Africa and you'll see that up to 1993 that was exactly how that part of SA history was taught.

I'd agree btw that this kind of writing might only be useful if one wanted to see what particular points of Christian reference detail etc they might have drawn out (I didn't know the names of any of the defenders of Derry). I do think that its impossible to understand men like Cromwell or Stonewall if one either ignores the central role of Christian faith in their lives, or as some writers do, approaching it from a modern liberal pov, treat it as risible (as I saw a childrens progam on Jackson did recently along with some of his other characteristics – fit only for poking fun at – thereby kind of entirely missing the point that he was a brilliant general and not Charlie Caroli from Billy Smarts Circus in uniform).
Of course this doesn't just apply to Christians I'd add

I dont think that any of these books offers any serious examination (for example) of Cromwell's faith.
If you want a rational examination of the siege of stroke city read John Childs.
And besides were not the enemies of Protestants also Christians?

And besides were not the enemies of Protestants also Christians?

-----------
Not I suspect to persons of some denominations sadly. Churches (like wargames clubs) are very schismatic!

If you want a rational examination of the siege of stroke city read John Childs.
-----------------

Is that from 'Warfare in the 17th Century' by him – I googled Siege of Stoke City John Childs and got various pages referring to Swansea City playing Stoke in the Premiership – battling and laying siege to the goal and refs to John Charles (Swansea player of yore) and Mel Childs (a sports photographer at the match) etc!

I am reminded of that passage in LotR where Tolkien describes hobbits as preferring books "filled with things they already know, set down fair and square with no contradictions."

I suggest these sort of things are best not touched with a bargepole.

But probably a gold mine for the unscrupulous.

What utter claptrap.

And how thoroughly dispiriting and depressing that there appears to be a market for it.

Being a christian I have to point out that these apparent loonies missed the point ofbeing christian – Rule one being not to use violence ever.

I say apparently since I refuse to read them after the little tidbits in this thread so far.

Most American military historians are Christian. I am. Can you write a novel or account from a spiritual prespective? Yes. While I write with logic and basing opinions on facts which can be dry, I have seen collections of short stories and accounts of battle. These are on the individual soldier's point of view and often include God's intervention or protection as the underlying basis of the outcome.

God's intervention as to who may win a battle. Can that happen? Does God really care about specific outcomes? Good questions. Up until the 1900s most soldiers had little if any education. the promise of God being on their side was crucial for morale and motivation. So the promise of God's favor by leaders to their troops will have an impact.

Remember what German belt buckles were stamped with in both WW1+2?

Being a christian I have to point out that these apparent loonies missed the point ofbeing christian – Rule one being not to use violence ever.

---------------
Not strictly correct at all levels (though if you are a pacifist then I respect that) without getting into a major theological debate about just wars and Jesus's comments about the role of the authorities etc. I am a Christian working in Law Enforcement (as would be said in the US – not really a UK expression I know but it covers a multitude of sins!)and carry a baton and handcuffs and pepper spray at work and am trained to use them (in a lawful manner)to defend myself or protect others or to effect an arrest. If you say that that no Christian should ever use force in any context, then that kind of means you can't have any in the police or forces and I know some very fine people in the former (including one family of several generations of bobbies whose police constable son and very devout Christian was murdered by a terrorist suspect whilst trying to disarm the latter). I have also undergone selection involving the use of firearms. I wouldn't use violence personally (albeit that if I saw sometime happening like someone getting a kicking when off duty I'd get involved anyway including using proportionate force as need be)

Looking at the website to see if it was as bad as I suspected it would be, I note there is a glowing reference from "Homeschool Mom" which seems a clear indication of what the quality of the product is likely to be. As if we didn't have enough problems with revisionist and politically correct rewrites of history, there is now a "Christian perspective" of the Battle of Salamis, 480 BC or Cannae, 216 BC – perhaps someone should explain to the author what the abbreviation BC actually means. Maybe it's just being a Brit, but I like to keep politics and religion out of my hobbies. Try reading a book by a real historian instead of one who probably thinks the world is only 5,000 years old.

Nothing intrinsically wrong with revisionism. Why should we be saddled with previous generations' judgements of history and set them in stone as gospel? We'd end up in the same pit of ignorance as the folks who buy the rubbish in the link.

I'd rather not have my view of colonialism formed solely by the opinions of white Victorian imperialists if it's all the same to you.

I'd rather not have my view of colonialism formed solely by the opinions of white Victorian imperialists if it's all the same to you.

------------------
I think that makes the point that really people are free to read what they choose – there are some revisionists such as on the Holocaust who are obviously advancing a pernicious agenda but the problem with suppressing such is that it just gives credence to them and their whole "the authorities are hiding something" angle. I personally also don't believe all the WW1 revisionist stuff re how poor Germany was pushed into war by evil Albion but people are free to write it. In that sense whatever our views, religious revisionist historians have got as much right to write stuff as anyone else – otherwise we end up with a situation where people have the right to express every shade of opinion (bar any that are actually illegal) except a religiously based one

Remember what German belt buckles were stamped with in both WW1+2?

--------------
although by WW2 the Nazis (in terms of the party and SS at least) had a decidedly anti Christian stance and increasingly meant God in a more pagan sense since Hitler didn't like all the compassion etc bits in Christian teaching

Who said anything about suppressing anyone? I certainly didn't.

Who said anything about suppressing anyone? I certainly didn't.
-----
I know you didn't but it was commented on that these kind of books have no place in anyone's education. I wouldn't go that far – the problem would be though that the kind of parents who might buy this would not buy anything putting other points of view. I've read accounts from all perspectives re say Tianamen Square as China is a country I have strong family ties to – but I am able to draw my own conclusions as to what happened – knowing the line that was promoted in China is useful though

There is a significant difference between legitamately 'having another look' at historical events, especially when using new or previously ignored sources, and promulgating an alternative history that fits in with a certain belief system.
History from a fiercely right wing Christian perspective is just as flawed as if it were presented from a Communist or Nazi point of view.
There is revisonism and just plain (insert expletive of choice).
However should a person write or choose to read/believe such rot, then we have a duty to subject such opinion to ridicule.
Such rot has no value, save to expose the frailties of human intellect and as such has no place in legitimate education.

There is revisonism and just plain (insert expletive of choice).

----------
I'm not defending this but depends also surely how one defines revisionism – Holocaust revisionism to me fits into your characterisation of alternative history promulgated by those with certain belief systems (primarily a racist one) so actually isn't revisionism at all (since it doesn't use new or ignored sources) just seeks to explain away the Holocaust in order to try and de-toxify anti-semitism. Other forms of revisionism (say on Cromwell's campiagns in Ireland) are to me legitimate – but none too popular with folk in Ireland who might see it on a par with Holocaust revisionism!

There is a significant difference between legitamately 'having another look' at historical events, especially when using new or previously ignored sources, and promulgating an alternative history that fits in with a certain belief system

The problem is this, no matter the belief of the person who is writing about the history of an event, that bias will always come out in the way they see history unfolding. Thus, you never get an unbiased account of what happened.

The only way to avoid the bias of someone else, is to take the time to research and read documents and the first person accounts of the events in question.

History is being rewritten all the time to give another view point other than what we are use to seeing. And, what we forget when reading any thing on history is to first understand the author of the book. Understanding the author helps us then to understand the bias the book will take.

The author of these books has clearly stated his bias, so when a person picks up these books they will know from the out set what is in store. But, using only one source as one's take on history never really challenges anybodies mind to explore and discover. There are times that we need a look at the extreme bias of another to challenge our views of historical events.

It seems I should have been clearer in my use of the word revisionist. I didn't see how it could possibly be interpreted as relying only on contemporary accounts and never doing any further research. Revisionism in the context I thought we were talking about, namely these accounts of "Providential Battles" is the distortion of facts to fit a particular ideology.

Incidentally, I see that the Christian website advertising these accounts also features some other educational items under the heading of World History for Boys – replica guns, bullwhips and a rather nifty Swiss bayonet knife. At 9 3/4 inches of hardened steel it sounds like an ideal Xmas present for the kids. I am with wyeayeman on this, it is truly, utter $%&*&^!

I am not sure that this defines the issue clearly though.
Yes, any 'historian' brings a set of beliefs to any topic, and part of their skill is to examine the facts and interpret them within those beliefs.
So a 'Marxist' historian can give us an interesting slant on the French Revolution (as many already have), because they look at the events in terms of the great out-pourings of social and political causes, not as the 'acts of great men'. That is a perfectly respectable approach.
However these 'Christian books' claim a Christian bias even when none could possibly have influenced events viz how can there be a 'Christian' view of the battle of Marathon. And when their starting point is the claim that 'God helped the Greeks' (perhaps) this goes beyond a legitimate interpretation of the facts and becomes almost Pythonesque in both its initial assumptions and conclusions.
Such methoidology does not, in any way, improve our understanding of events.
Revisionism is good, challenging and often enlightening. Cromwells motivation (see above) is important. He believed in his God. Many of his soldiers believed in the same God. They lived in an age where men did terrible things to other men – and importantly – this was the way of things, it was understood. However to discuss those events on the basis that the hand of a right wing Christian God was behind these events and that such actions (whatever actions these were) were 'Gods intent' is both disgusting and spurious.

"So, it seems we have a narrow set of biases wrapped up in claims of Divine intervention. Catholics, Yankees and furriners need not apply."

LOL, yes well that says it all really.

Revisionism is a neutral term. Loading it with negative meaning and using it as a pejorative term helps nobody. Whether the revisionism is sensible or crackpot is dependent entirely on the conclusions one comes to.

some other educational items under the heading of World History for Boys – replica guns, bullwhips and a rather nifty Swiss bayonet knife.
----------------
well thats back to my other hobbyhorse ref the various posts elsewhere on here in the past re models of naked Greeks and Celts (and indeed the adult filter being applied to such) as opposed to the same folk being happy to play games that in miniature relate to the shredding of the human body in multiple ways. (As an aside the guy I always was most impressed by was a Danish Colonel who said he wasn't really interested in guns other than them being a tool to do his job – one only has to look at today's videogames to see how fetished weapons have become with FPS giving players a vast variety of guns that in truth are very little different in performance)

As I always like to be fair to everyone (its not for nothing that I was known as PC Softy Softy – the prisoners friend – when I used to work in custody at the local nick) I think it worth putting in this link that relates to the author (William Potter) of the audio book I started this thread with

link
link
I have to say that the lecture he quotes in his piece on D Day is probably one of the best short pieces I have read on US involvement in WW2

When I made my comments, I was not thinking about revisionism, but ideology. That is why I said you need to either understand the ideology of the author or in some cases the publisher.

I live in a state with a lot of Indian casinos. The more money those casinos take in, the more power the tribes get, the more Indian history changes. The change is not necessarily based on any new research or evidence, but a change in ideology that is no different than what this christian author is being attacked and criticized about. And, yet there is no criticism leveled towards the Indians for this change.

I believe the issue is simple, if comes from a right wing or Evangelical Christian, then the system was flawed to begin with because most people don't like their ideology. If the ideology is wrong, then any method used to come to conclusion is wrong.

I have higher critical theology books on my shelf at home that I have read and studied. The men that wrote these books are consider brilliant scholars, and still quoted in research books today and yet historical evidence shows many of prior conclusions about history to be wrong. Again, we can accept the ideology of a liberal theologian and his views of history, because that ideology is perceived as coming from a rational mind. A conservative, well there is something wrong with them.

Unfortunately the word revisionism has been tainted by recent history.
You can revise a letter, you can revise a school paper, but if you try to revise history by including previously undiscovered matters, then you are 'evil'.
Revisionism is happening all the time in history as more data on topics come to light or a new way of looking at things occurs. Thus there is revisionism of the French revolution, of the Russion revolution, of how Newton came to the concept of gravity. But the attempt by certain sections of the community to 'revise' facts about the Holocaust has meant that revsionism now has the taint of ant-semitism and pro-nazi.
I note that certain posters have used the term revisionism in its true dictionary meaning, not in any sense attempting to imply the tainted meaning. However, the mere use of the word seems to trigger immediate angry responses by others, like a red rag to a bull. And thus flame wars start!
I wish there was another word we could use than revisionism, but, to paraphrase someone else in a like situation, if you concede the use of revisionism to the loonies, then they have won.

But the attempt by certain sections of the community to 'revise' facts about the Holocaust has meant that revsionism now has the taint of ant-semitism and pro-nazi.
---------------
I'd agree that the term per se should have a neutral meaning- however when its ref the Holocaust, those doing the revising are not (in my experience) neutral (as I know from having many fruitless internet discussions with them usually ending with me being called a race traitor, commie, friend of Israel, crypto-jew etc) – their perspective being "no it didn't happen – but actually it should have". I think the word revisionism has taken on a pejorative sense in the same way as 'liberal' does in the some countries and 'evangelical' does in others. I hope this is not leading to a flame war btw as that was not my intention – I simply had not come across books of that kind in the UK even on my forays into Christian bookshops.

There's "Warriors of Christendom" by John Matthews and Bob Stewart link
And "Warriors of the Old Testement" by Mark Healy
link

I've got both and they are great reads!

Rule one being not to use violence ever.

Is that so? – I thought that there are few Christian debates and schisms where the path to the 'truth' has not been reached over a pile of corpses…

(not really having a pop at Christianity per se, you understand, I can think of at least one other religion of the Book I'm grateful not to have been reared in….which also has its share of corpses…Clearly the fault is with the human side of the equation rather than Himself…)

As far as the Military History is concerned, surely any historical work written from a particular standpoint is suspect in its objectivity?

Is not teaching history from the christian point of the view the same as teaching creationism? To say that god saved George Washington from harm as he was gods instrument shows the same lack of source/facts as saying god gave the panda a thumb.

I'd would argue that any subject taught from a specfic religious point of veiw (any religion) is fear based. In other words there must be some guiding, rational power behind all that I don't understand so I don't need to be afraid of the world and the bad things in it.

I don't mean to imply being religious equals being a coward, but those who need to see the hand of god in every detail are using faith as a crutch.

I'll also note that under the girls section the history link leads to fictional stories to "equip girls for womanhood". Appearantly girls should long for nothing more than a home and family of their own, while the boys are told to "long for the thrill of adventure"!

Now I've made myself angry reading this claptrap. These people have a very specific agenda, and they would bring the US (and thus the world) back to the 50's! Any futher comments I would make would almost certaily get me DH'ed.

"As far as the Military History is concerned, surely any historical work written from a particular standpoint is suspect in its objectivity?"

There is of course the broader question about whether history can ever be anything but subjective. The interpretation at any rate.

Religious sectarianism is probably not a good basis to start a historical account from, particularly as it is often the 'history' bits which go on to fuel continuing sectarian resentment. Northern Ireland anyone?

Certain aspects of sectarianism are also bound up in politics, and class, like the red faced skinheads bawling out 'No Surrender' (to the Pope).

Which is why neither religion nor politics have a place on TMP, although we wouldn't have a hobby without them.

And sometimes, listening to some of the screaming evangelists confusing it with nationalism, I am sorely tempted.
--------------------

Ultimately faith is down to the individual and God (speaking as someone who left the 'church' for a long time due to the kind of issues you mention) – you can find individual preachers etc who preach virtually anything you could think of from liberation theology to racist supremacy – doesn't mean they all are right or that have to agree with everything that one individual says(just like at a footballing level I support Liverpool without agreeing with the appalling mess they made of the Suarez comments)

Which is why neither religion nor politics have a place on TMP, although we wouldn't have a hobby without them.

-----------
ok i didn't realise the former was also not allowed!

We're on our way to the Dog house, bow wow wow!

Oh, I do hope not – you have all behaved very well so far. I HAVE sent Bill a message suggesting the whole thread be killed before it attracts Fies though!

Pat

> Not strictly correct at all levels (though if you are a pacifist then I respect that) without getting into a major theological debate about just wars

Just want to point out that, no I am not a pacifist, that just means I am not as good a Christian as I should be. I would never throw the first punch though. But as someone said, you start it and I'll finish it.

Jesus saying to give unto Ceaser and other lessons about authority are also pacifist in nature – a Christian should never rule by force and should not use force to overthrow the government (civil disobediance is fine though – if being told to do something immoral).

But that digresses from the thread – the problem with looking at things through a religous lense (of any faith) is the amount of pruning of facts one needs to do in order to make things fit. Did God really stop the Sun from rotating around the Earth (I'll take that as the Earth stopped rotating, told in the language that someone from the time would understand), if so then a whole lot of other things would have gone wrong – would have been much easier for God to have made the enemy just drop dead. (now some folks will call me a heretic, but so be it)

Now I will be able to play battles of the ONE TRUE FAITH in the ONE TRUE SCALE! All I need now is the Holy Grail of them all, the ONE TRUE RULEBOOK!

Anyway there are books like that!

the ONE TRUE RULEBOOK!

But which, Black Powder or Hail Caesar?

If he can, then it is time for this Christian to renounce his religon. And sometimes, listening to some of the screaming evangelists confusing it with nationalism, I am sorely tempted

Having seen, err, (actually seeing) this sort of alarming thing from the pulpit at MY church, I wonder myself where in the hell have I found myself.? I gotta stop, I gotta stop RIGHT now………………..

ok I cant resist, there is a fine line between, believe what I believe or your going to hell, to believe what I beleive or I am going to kill you and your family……I forget who said that……