Ask an actual military historian anything.
How does it feel knowing that your sub-branch of history is looked down upon by other historians? I minored in History and specifically chose classes run by one particular lecturer, who focused on twentieth century history. One class was called 'The Experience of Modern War,' which looked at the human cost of conflicts such as WWI, WWII and Vietnam. He spent an entire lecture saying that military history is seen as a joke by actual scholars.
>>11777
what time period/region do you specialize in/has your preference ?
>>11777
Who was better, Patton or Rommel?
>>11777
Is that an actual occupation? Like, does it appear in your job description?
>>11777
Pic related
>military historian
Did you specialize in an era or are you worthless generalized shit
Exactly why is this field viewed as being juvenile by other historians?
>>11906
its because they have high estrogen levels and want to read about the history of knitting and shit
>>11906
I wouldn't say that other professional historians look down on military historians its just that recently other sub branches of history have been more-emphasized and a sort of over-correction has occurred. You will always have the tumblr-type who don't want to talk about any war. I will say though that people who ONLY do Military History, while not a joke, are often hurting for employment and credibility, so if you want to do Military History it should be in an interdisciplinary context. I personally specialize in the economics and logistics of war (I double majored in Economics and History before I want to graduate school)
>>11924
My specialty lies in the economics and state organizations behind war. My greatest areas of expertise are the 20th century from 1905 onwards and the late (Western and Eastern) Roman Empires from the Crisis of the Third Century until the Muslim Invasions.
>>11944
Rommel
>>12048
Yes, I have employed by the Association of the United States Army and have written briefs for them in the past.
>>12093
Already answered. As for actual proof I don't have anything I could timestamp but I guess you faggots can just keep asking questions and if I give retarded answers, argue the point. Only the unqualified try to make a special claim of irrefutable knowledge based on academic qualifications.
>>11777
Thinking about doing something related with Military history for college. Can you recommend anything?
in your opinion what was the best underdog battle?
>>11777
When will I get to ride a horse into battle again?
>>11777
How much of a baller was Nelson, really?
>>11906
And those other historians are so completely ignorant of actual military matters it's embarrassing. Seriously, looking at published histories outside of specialized works, when they ever try to describe a battle or a military operation in anything but the vaguest terms it's hilarious.
Neat. I got a quest for you.
Why did America get involved during WW2? I mean yeah, there was the lusitania and all that, but I find it hard to believe that this was the actual pure reason for putting boots on the ground.
>>11777
What's your favorite battle and war?
Also, which types of battle typically result in the most combat deaths?
was the french defeat in WW2 due to a lack of a good army, a competent commanding or political willingness to win ?
t. frog
>>12151
To add on to what I have said before, I think it's an oversimplification to blame the decline of military studies based solely on tumblr-type political correctness. In a somewhat zero sum game that is academic publishing military history has declined in real terms because other areas have risen. IE Political Economy in a Historical context is, despite being a blatantly obvious field, fairly new in historical (and economics) studies because it is such an uncommon economic hybrid, and certainly not the realm of tumblr types (since it involves math and facts).
Wars present a clearly defined change to a status quo with somewhat concrete courses of action, causes, and effects. Academic history has gotten more nuanced, and I think on balance that is a good thing even if you get charlatans washing in.
>>12250
Whatever you do, tie it in with something else. IE do Military History AND a regional study, or another field like economics or social history. It makes you more employable and a better historian overall.
>>12193
Do you believe, professionally, that bureaucracies grew in size over time to acquire the revenues to wage war more effectively?
>>12346
You mean ww1?
Zimmerman telegram.
>>12413
-Poor army doctrine and lower echelon military doctrine. French tanks actually slightly outnumbered and outperformed (minus the lack of a radio) German tanks. The problem was that said tanks were distributed widely as infantry support mechanisms rather than self-actualized units.
-Political willingness is often overblown and became a scapegoat after the war. "If only X political actor didn't back down we could have won". It's a more shameful and obvious version of what happened in Germany after WWI; many things went wrong before Petain and Vichy came about.
>>12362
Chalons and the Wars of the late Western Roman Empire.
Usually pitches battles where for strategic reasons one side or another can't retreat, both have ample manpower reserves (and thus see a battle of position rather than attrition as more important) and thus in result throw more into the meat grinder.
>>12326
This is true to an extent in that they lack specialized knowledge, but having worked on the editing side of things as a type of consultant its often because, for the purposes of same paper, the explanation needs to be simplistic.
>>12269
Statistically speaking charging into battle on one is very unlikely. However many third world militaries still use them as part of ad-hoc logistics chains.
>>12413
Not OP, but it's mostly due to the fact that france got utterly rekt during WW1 and hadn't yet fully recovered. Remember that the entire western front took place in france.
That said, I still like to just blame it on frogs being a bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys
>>12416
Thanks for the advice Anon
>>12463
Yeah, I meant WW1. And oh shit, I forgot about the zimmerman telegram. Still strikes me as odd that germany would want to have yet another player entangled in their botched war though.
>>12453
Absolutely. Not only did we see this in the enlightenment era with the mass centralization in France, Britain, Russia, etc... but we actually saw this before (to a lesser extent but still on the same trajectory) in the ancient world. IE the wars of the Diadochi, the various Greek city states, and on local levels as the military responsibilities for the various subdivisions of the Roman Republic / Empire changes (ie Praetorian Prefects, Princeps, etc...)
This isn't to say its the only reason bureaucracies ever grow, or that the desire to wage war necessarily results in this, but it is a very solid paradigm with few outliers.
>>12794
How did war evolve from conflicts in which one king would get tribute from the other king to wars of outright conquest?
>>12784
The Zimmerman telegram wasn't pre-emptive, it was worded so that in the event Germany and the USA were ALREADY at war, THEN Mexico would hop in.
As for why The USA was involved in WW1 :
The Zimmerman Telegram was a public relations disaster. Not only that, but it made the educated members of the foreign policy establishment livid because Germany actually used Western Union, made available despite British insistence, on the condition that Germany used it to put out peace offers. Instead Germany used this American offered service to engage in conspiracy and espionage, which made Germany look like it wasn't acting in good faith.
The (renewal) of unrestricted Submarine Warfare was a big issue. Lusitania itself was one of many incidents and its unfortunate it has become the dominant footnote in our history because...
1- Lusitania was carrying guns, the Germans told many this, and actually had consul officers at the ship's entrance when it was leaving harbor telling the passengers it was carrying guns, and it would likely be sunk. The dominant attitude in the USA after the Lusitania (which happened in 1915, not right before we went to war) was far more level and divided than high school textbooks make it out to be.
Lastly the fact there was legitimate feelings that the world did need to be made "safe for democracy", and not just democracy, but free trade. One can look at the American Open Door Policy in China for example to see American views. Plus going to war for a "progressive" cause by joining the Entente (which was far easier after Tsarist Russia peaced out at Brest-Litosk) helped various activists and political actors at home.
>>12949
This is rather simplistic. There has never been an "era" where one type of war prevailed over another in a universal context. You might have localized situations like within the Holy Roman Empire, or amongst the Greek City States, which makes the choice for one type of war more rational, but it is by no means certain. Insofar as there is any relationship it is that the stronger the state, the easier it is to digest new conquests and thus engage in wars of conquest. However that is such a loose rule with tons of exceptions its almost not a rule at all.
>>13805
I have this mostly from tribal kingdoms in india, but anyway I thought that annexation of a state wasn't as logical for or thought of by ancient people as one might expect
>>13034
Very interesting words. Maybe things have changed, but when when I was in school, I learned about the zimmerman telegraph and the lusitania and all that. And we did indeed learn that it actually was carrying guns and they knew an attack was likely.
So do you think we sent the ship in to get sunk knowing full well that it would give us excuse to enter the war?
>>14032
The Lusitania was a British Ship and the US government told people to stay away. It's unlikely that it was a false flag.
>>11777
Why are you here
>>13034
>mfw world history teacher tried telling me that the us government made up the zimmerman telegram as an excuse to go to war
>>14110
Oh, I did not know that it was a british ship.
Thoughts on the Emu war?
>>11777
please explain the filename of the image of the post, i mean alexandr suvorov
>>13034
Actually there was a second telegram that was pre-emptive: it dropped the line about waiting for the US to actually declare war on Germany before the ambassador started making deals with Mexico.
This telegram was never made public until years later because there wasn't a convenient made up explanation of how exactly the British had acquired it, but the American government was shown it.
>>14858
yes i only know hat suvorov is based for being one of the few great generals who never lost a battle
I am going to see Richard Starky live in a week.
If he does a Q&A afterwards, what should I ask him to see less like a fucking idiot?
