"Is the Military History of Frederick the Great and..." Topic

… George Washington still relevant in the 21st Century?.

"In the course of completing my Ph.D, I have the distinct pleasure of teaching the Modern Military History course at West Virginia University. Students always sign up for the class in large numbers, expecting to hear primarily about the Second World War, or even the Vietnam War. They are almost always disappointed to hear that to historians, "Modern" Military History includes much of Military History after 1500.

As I believe that students learn better when their instructor is passionate about the subject under study, I spend approximately two and a half weeks (of a sixteen week course) covering the Kabinettskriege era, with particular reference to the era between the War of Austrian Succession to the American War of Independence. Every semester, I ask students to write a paper, comparing two of the great military leaders of the eighteenth century. (It's not Frederick II and Washington every semester, in fact, I prefer reading essays about Charles XII and Maurice de Saxe). However, students are always surprised that I spend so much time on an era of limited war, where (at least in their mind) tactics and technology were relatively static. As a result, I am writing this post, attempting to defend what I see as an incredibly relevant period in military history for our own time. So, why is the era of Frederick II and George Washington still relevant in the 21st Century?…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Yes, Of course.It happened- deal with it because you can't change it- learn from it.

I have been an avid reader and student of military history for over 40 years and I believe there are lessons to be learned and applied from every era, whether it be in the realm of strategy, tactics, logistics, politics, economics, or leadership.

1. You can't conduct scientific observations with all the variables changing each time. The (relatively) static tactics and technology ought to be a way for them to examine other factors.

2. The students ought not to deceive themselves: insurgencies, wars of national independence and limited wars have been predominant since 1945. Nothing in Vietnam would have been unfamiliar to Nathaniel Greene, and Frederick II would have understood perfectly well why LBJ didn't mine Haiphong Harbor and George H. W. Bush didn't carry the First Gulf War on into Iraq. (I do not say they would have agreed with all the decisions, but the factors the present rulers take into account are ones they were familiar with.)

But courses need to be labelled in language the students understand. Call a course "Military History 1500 to Present" and that's fair enough. Call it "modern" and an undergraduate expects tanks and aircraft.

Allied units in the First Gulf War in 1991 did go into Iraq, notably the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), and operated from there.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

Not to mention the USAF, Brechtel. But I was trying to shorthand the (relative) restraint of the war, not write an essay.

In your 'shorthand' you made an error in fact regarding the ground war. And the information is readily available. The best book on the war itself is by Rick Atkinson – Crusade. It is highly recommended.

link

We did occupy Iraqi territory. We did not go to Baghdad, though there was a contingency plan for that.

That is absolutely correct.