"Why Military History is Mostly Useless" Topic

"I thought I'd share an interesting paper that I got sent recently. It's only 17 pages but makes some good points.

Although it is not always evident in a lecture or a textbook, we can never be completely certain—and therefore in agreement—about what actually happened in history. Frederick and Napoleon knew this well. Skeptical both of the historian's motives and of the reliability of his facts, they evinced a healthy skepticism about the ability of the human mind ever to recreate an event as it actually had happened. As soon as the historian begins to impose order on something as chaotic as a battle, he distorts. If his narrative is to mean anything at all to the reader he must simplify and organize the "disjointed mass of reports." He must, for lack of space, omit incidents that did not contribute to the final result. He must resolve controversies, not merely report them, and he must recognize that not every general is candid, every report complete, every description accurate. Orders are not always executed; not every order is even relevant to the situation."

Main page

PDF link

Armand

The same could be said for all history, but I disagree. There is something to learn from history if only we would.

The article mainly considers the value of military history for the development of professional soldiers who have undergone much training in their role.
For hobby wargamers, military history provides a great deal of information we need to raise, organise and use our toy soldiers so that our games at least bear some resemblance to the period of warfare in which they are set. How could we create wargames without it?

Always have a sufficient garrison in your castles.
Nobody appreciates one-knight stands.

recently Nato not reading Small Wars, and History rediscovered the need for tanks, artillery and that Afghan mud houses do resist nicely 81mm and 20mm…something the Brits knew in 1919…
Now I saw some are dismayed by the use of a lot of mines, which strangely complicates the life of attackers. El Alamein for ex. anyone?
And that is just for the 1-1 scale fights. Our little wars benefit endlessly from history otherwise they tend to be fantasy games.

(smile)

Armand

It would seem from the article, that what makes military history 'mostly useless' is how military men convey and attempt to use that history, not the history itself or what we can know from it.

When I was an undergrad I wanted to study military history. My instructors just rolled their eyes. I get that know.

When I was an undergrad I wanted to study military history. My instructors just rolled their eyes. I get that now.

dapeters:

There has been and still is a very real bias against military history in the academic social sciences. In the 1975, this same Jay Luvaas of Allegheny College wrote in an anthology New Dimensions in Military History, his chapter opening with this sentence:

Military history, to echo Alexander Pope's description of women, "at best a contradiction still."

He details how the military, up until 1970s, pushed for military history to be taught in universities, only then to back away from it altogether, considering such curriculum "liberal arts" and not useful. After 1985, your experience wasn't at all unique, dapeters. University history departments, lacking any military men, still influenced by the Vietnam War culture, looked down on it. I know one eastern university academic who, while teaching the ACW put on a wargame on Gettysburg. His academy senate told him he shouldn't--and couldn't--because it was "teaching students to like war" and such battles were an "unimportant and unattractive aspect of history."

By then the Military felt they had wargames and simulations and didn't need to know anything from the past. [These are generalizations of course.]

Wargamers who read military history have this practical view of history: "How and why was it done" and search for 'magic bullets' like the military. I am sure you all have been frustrated to read a narrative of a battle and still have no idea why battlefield decisions were made… they just were.

The outcome of this evolution between the military and academia is: Historians were writing military history knowing little of the military and how they operated and used history, then or now, while military men were writing/using history knowing little about historical methodologies or research.

So, today, what are some of the problems with military history, particularly for wargamers?

1. As Luvaas notes: It is also true that no other field of history is under as much pressure as military history to provide "practical" answers to some current problem. If military history cannot provide such answers, why study it?

Because military men often fail to understand how history is developed or the methodologies, they fail to understand how any 'practical' answers are derived. Wargamers suffer from this lack too. Lavuus points to the possible solutions at the end of the article, but doesn't go far enough, only hinting at them with very one-note examples. Col. Hughes' Firepower is a great example of a military man failing in his historical analysis because of this lack of historical knowledge.

And because academics have this bias and often aren't military men, they fail to provide history that is useful to military men. They often provide a battle or campaign narrative that leaps over the whys and hows of an event because they don't understand what the military is doing.

2. Another current problem is the huge gap in access to sources between the pre and post internet world. Up until 1990, if anyone was going to do research they had to either go to a library or where the source was located or buy it. So did Chandler when he wrote his Napoleon's Campaigns in the 1966. He listed some 200 sources in his Bibliography. I have all those at my fingertips in PDF on my computer, plus hundreds of other primary and secondary sources…free for the most part. This has radically changed the nature of research, not only in the amount of, until now, unavailable sources, but in easy of access and sear volume. That situation makes Chandler's work, not bad or poorly done, but outdated in that much more information than he had is now available.

3. This actually has changed how military history is written or can be written. Unfortunately, like all technology, what it provides often takes a long time to utilize fully. I see that issue on TMP. We are only twenty years into this historical sources bonanza provided by the internet.

Lavuus wrote the article referenced here nearly thirty years ago. Lots have happen in military history over those three decades.

Thanks!

Armand

Tango: I can't claim this is a particularly new analysis. Hugh Black in his 2004 Rethinking Military History outlines this general evolution twenty years ago. I just think it applies to wargaming thinking about history too.
Other great books which touch on this military vs academia/history/magic solution set of syndromes are:

Stephen Morillo What is Military History? 2006 and
Eliot A. Cohen and John Gooch Military Misfortunes: The Anatomy of Failure in War 1991

Not new… but still interesting to read (IMHO)…

Armand

There is nothing wrong with studying military history as long as you come to the conclusion your superior officer wants you to. This is not a uniquely military problem, it is an inherent failure of the human mind, but the military are leading comfortably in falling into the trap.

Agree…

Armand