what is military history?

[stingerist]

can someone explain this for me?
1)what is it diffrent from "regular" history, in which you learn about a war?
2)how do you study military history?
3)is it posibale do study on your own (not in college)?
4)how do start studying it? what are the basics? is there anywhere i can
study them?
5)what intrests you in military history?

[CountZero]

regarding 1) i think that unlike normal history , military history goes into more detail regarding tactics in battles, armament used and other intricacies

[von_Moo142]

is it posibale do study on your own (not in college)?

Sure. You can study whatever you want independantly, and history is better suited to this type of learning than science (for example).

You will find that formal history courses would help you learn useful skills and habits, but you can learn these independantly too.

If you want to eventually conduct your own historical research*, then you will need to be able to at least read the relevant languages. If you're a US citizen interested in the US civil war then this is not such a problem. If you are that serious then university is the way to go, IMO, if only to pick up the language.


how do start studying it? what are the basics? is there anywhere i can
study them?

Like every other field, this depends where your interests lie.

As for the basics, you learn by doing. Doing in this case means reading, or listening.

Most people with an interest in history will prefer a region and/or time period. Many people are even more specialised in their interests. For example, see this thread:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=27415

It's a fifty five page thread about German second world war fortifications. This thread show how some people with a fairly specialised interest in military history do their stuff.


For study, you can't beat books. Sure there's a bunch of info on the internet, but if you are serious about learning about some part of history then you will need books. Most libraries have reasonable history sections, IME. Use websites like amazon to get book reviews.

There are many specialised internet sites, like the forum I linked to above, which you may find useful.

Also, if you live near a university you can check out the public lectures that they offer. Most reasonable sized uni's will host a couple of public lectures from history authors every academic year. You might get lucky and find someone who's speaking near you about something you're interested in.


* i.e. writing articles/books/papers with original content.

[Laconian]

can someone explain this for me?
1)what is it diffrent from "regular" history, in which you learn about a war?
2)how do you study military history?
3)is it posibale do study on your own (not in college)?
4)how do start studying it? what are the basics? is there anywhere i can
study them?
5)what intrests you in military history?

IMHO, military history is just the study of events from a military perspective. For example, the study of the American military in the interwar years (1919-1941) could include studies of a military in peacetime or a military involved in low-intensity conflicts, as both were occurring during this time frame. But the study would still be focused on the military during this time period, but not necessarily on the Great Depression. Is it different than history in which you learn about wars? Possibly. A study of 19th century America would include the mention of the American Civil War, but might not necessarily include the studies of the development of the repeating rifle, formations in different engagements, generalship, etc.

Certainly it is possible to study it outside of college. Since I graduated (as a mil history concentrator), I have kept up my study because it interested me. There are several general magazines devoted to it, as well as sections of any library or book store. Additionally, if you find a specific type or era, there is probably a society or magazine already devoted to it. How do you start? Figure out what aspect or era intersests you and start reading. The more in-depth you wish to become, you can. Certainly, a dictionary of military terms and definitions would aid someone starting the study, as would a basic knowledge in the Principles of War (The term "mass" means one thing to a scientist, but another to a military historian). These can be found in a library, a bookstore or on the net as well.

What interests me in military history? To read/study a major engagement on a macroscale (Patton's 3rd Army Campaign in Europe, 1944-45) and then compare it to a microversion of the same campaign (a squad leader/platoon leader/ company commander's memoir from the same campaign) or the opposing force's account of the same campaign...

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

[HardThunder]

Ok. Some nice answers.

IMOHO

The easiest way to explain it is in terms of other kinds of history.

General history is what you call Regular history. It is general. A picture of a time in the past, with limited explanations, and limited details.

Financial History. Looking at those items that only pertain to Finance. You can go this with a spreadsheet, or go into details.

Cultural history. People, art, daily lives, and how outside things affected them.

Military History: Military events, and outside influences that effected them. (Politics, engineering, and other advances).

History can be viewed pertaining to any subject area, and from any view. BUT military history is part of military science. Unlike other histories it deal with facts, or the understanding of facts. Little room for additives, and preservatives because the outcome is known, and how that outcome came about is generally known (some errors, and misperceptions about some things, but the key elements are present. The actual weight of them is sometimes in conflict).

Case in point about histories, and things in conflict. What was the first computer? Who developed Radar? Who made the first Jet? Who made the first Tank (battle tank)? All of those topics have been debated, and argued over the years, and many countries have laid clamed to all of them, and will despite the facts of history.

Another would be Like the motivation behind why the US went to war in Iraq, and our motive for staying. Many say it is for oil, and “To claim Iraq". This despite the fact that the US has kept nothing it has taken in well over 100 years, has tried to ride ourselves of the last ones we inherited over 100 years ago, and has not charged anyone with Reparations to the US..

[stingerist]

thanks for all the answers!
but i still have a few questions...
1)do you start studying a field by a time period? an event? a war? or what?
2) lets take as an example the vietnam war. where do you begin? what are the basic issues you need to understand?
or in other words, lets say youre intersed in the vietnam war, what is the first isuue you will study? with what will you continue after that?

[HardThunder]

thanks for all the answers!
but i still have a few questions...
1)do you start studying a field by a time period? an event? a war? or what?
2) lets take as an example the vietnam war. where do you begin? what are the basic issues you need to understand?
or in other words, lets say youre intersed in the vietnam war, what is the first isuue you will study? with what will you continue after that?

Well I hope that I helped in answering the first part of the first question.
The second part is impossible to answer. No one can learn about war. Alexander the Great probably understood war the best of any commander before, or since, but he did not know all there was, and may not have been that great, just that those he had battle with, and the troops they had where so very bad at the time. Now well over 2,500years later war has become even more political, and complex’s.

How do you study military history? History, and military history as someone already point out is filled with areas you can study. Myself I do so from the perspective of being the son of a military man, and of having been in the Army for many years. If I was going to teach someone about military history I would have to tell them they must live part of it. The sleeping on the ground, going without sleep, and feel that this is something they have to do. If you study anything from the view of an outsider that’s all you will ever be. Re-enactors are very good military historians (as a group, and in general way).

Now how do I. First off, I read almost like a bible “International Military and Defense Encyclopedia”
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=kr4H2H2BDz&isbn=0028810112&itm=9
To go with that, I would strongly recommend for the beginner, and Advanced “Dictionary of Military Terms” by Dupuy. This is something I myself could use for some of the older weapons ( Pre-USA), and formations, peoples.

In the past I would read anything that got my attention, or that I had the feeling would enhance my understanding. I am very good at “Operational Art”, TacTics (Less then BDE size conflicts). After a point I found that many books are garbage, ether written by no military people in order to sell a book, or with an alternative objective (and also non military, but anti military).

2) How do you study military history? Above.
3) Is it possible do study on your own (not in college)? Of course you can study anything. Watching the grass grow you can say is a study of grass growth. Being effective is another thing.
4) How do start studying it? What are the basics? Is there anywhere I can
Study them?
As I said, get the books above. Pick an area, and learn all you can about that area, time, and era. Then after your to tired to look at another thing dealing with that move on. It could be as simple as reading just one book, But by doing so you have made a start. Starting is the hardest part of anything.
5) What interests you in military history?

New or re-asked questions
1) Do you start studying a field by a time period? an event? a war? or what?
A General book on a war is a good start. A campaign would be better, and a battle even better. But few books are made on the last two.
2) lets take as an example the Vietnam war. where do you begin? what are the basic issues you need to understand?
or in other words, lets say you’re interested in the Vietnam war, what is the first issue you will study? with what will you continue after that?

First I would understand a few facts about that time. Communism had overtaken roughly 1/3 of the world, and through force of arms. The War started at the very same time the Korean War started. Unlike Korea, in Vietnam they had two major feelings about the war on the side of the instigators. One was for Communism, and the other the removal of the French, or Independent Nationalism. That was the start. As for the rest, how the US got into it, why did the US leave, and the rest is something you have to ask, and work on.

I hope that this is in some way helpful, and of some use.

[Oxford]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but victors tend to write military history.

[HardThunder]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but victors tend to write military history.

Not to be rude, but That statement is just utter, and complete nonsense (bull). And anyone regurgitating such mindless drivel is incapable of self-cognitive through, or reason.

Ann Frank was not even a survivor, and her words have lasted longer then those that killed her.

It is true that survivors write most of history, but losers also write history. Perspective is the root of everything. But such a nonsensical statement as Winners are the ones that write history is just junk from someone that has not the ability to face the past, and the realties of the real world.

An Army at Dawn is a very nice study of the losers writing history, but unlike most loser history, it says how the losers lost, and the only crying is about the agenda, and politics of the time, and some of the authors.

[Oxford]

Ann Frank was not even a survivor, and her words have lasted longer then those that killed her.

She wrote military history?

[sp2c]

no she wrote the truth

no matter who'd won the war, her diary would've been the same

[Oxford]

no she wrote the truth

no matter who'd won the war, her diary would've been the same

No argument there. The topic is 'military history' and HardThunder cited her as an example proving his point, I would assume, about 'military history'. It was a rhetorical question, but never mind. Nothing worth arguing about.

[HardThunder]

no she wrote the truth

no matter who'd won the war, her diary would've been the same

No argument there. The topic is 'military history' and HardThunder cited her as an example proving his point, I would assume, about 'military history'. It was a rhetorical question, but never mind. Nothing worth arguing about.

I do not find your retort amusing, nor mentally stimulating on any level. But I will try and paint you a bigger picture, in glowing color. Your regurgitated statement was that “Winners write history”. I proved that the statement was not only nonsensical, but backed it up with the fact that not Only losers, but also non-survivors write history. I also pointed out an army at dawn. We also have archeologist, and a number of other sources that help paint a clearer, more accurate, and better picture of history. BTW Her history would have never been told if the west had not won the war, or the Germans would have found her book. Now if you can not relate, then that is a personal issue you have to work out, I am not going to do a logic chart, and post it just for you!

[stingerist]

thanks for all the answers!
you really helped allot!
and btw, ann frank didnt wrote a book. her father, the only survivor of the extermination camps (from ann's family) came back to the hiding place and found ann's diary. he made it into a book.

[Oxford]

Your regurgitated statement was that “Winners write history”. I proved that the statement was not only nonsensical,

Yes you did prove something to me. We were discussing military history and you cited Anne Frank. I obviously stand corrected. Well done old chap.

[Oxford]

thanks for all the answers!
you really helped allot!
and btw, ann frank didnt wrote a book. her father, the only survivor of the extermination camps (from ann's family) came back to the hiding place and found ann's diary. he made it into a book.

Anne wrote a diary. Her father came back to the Netherlands just after the war and spoke with Miep who gave him Anne's diary.

We could discuss this at length in ever greater detail or those that are interested can go to their library and read one of the many excellent books that explain all of this.

[HardThunder]

Your regurgitated statement was that “Winners write history”. I proved that the statement was not only nonsensical,

Yes you did prove something to me. We were discussing military history and you cited Anne Frank. I obviously stand corrected. Well done old chap.

I do not find you conduct amusing, not in lighting on any level. You have yet to provide anything dealing with the question, or subject other then your regurgitated nonsensical comments. I hope you can provide something significance at some point, you personal attacks are not productive, and off topic. One, it would seem you only have contempt for in the first place!

[Para]

Along with Military history goes politics as both are these subjects go hand in hand.

[HardThunder]

Along with Military history goes politics as both are these subjects go hand in hand.

Humm. Yes that is very true.

And I hope I understand your meaning. In the form of External, and external politics with regards to other nations. The military option is the step right after the failure of the political side to reach an acceptable compromise, The Argentines, UK war of not to long ago is a very good example. Ancient Rome was yet another kind of internal politics having a grave effect on not only the structure of the military high achy, and leadership, as is many forming nations. We also have nations even today; in that the military forms a mostly silent third wing of the government, casting its vote only when the other major parties are in conflict (the Death of Stalin was just one case). And then we have the western concept that the military is run from outside by the politicians, and hacks, but predominantly ignored, and neglected (even picked on) until needed, or in use, then used as a whipping dog for opposing party against the controlling government, or member in power. But to study politics to much is to study garbage to much. We have statesmen, and politicians. Two very different people, one does the work of the people, and for the people, the other uses the people. I have no need for the latter.