Professor Evans Adventures: April 2016

The Changing Methodology of Military History

Ryan Evans

November 30th, 2007

War has been an ongoing human endeavor tracing back to the beginnings of time. The process of recording and analyzing military history dates back to the days of Herodotus and Thucydides. The methodology of military history has significantly been altered through time due to the changing shape of warfare itself. There are many influential historians who have established theories and methods. Carl Von Clausewitz in the 19th century focused on the study of tactics, events, and the necessity of warfare to push forth political policies and gains through using warfare as an extension of politics. A more contemporary approach takes in a social and cultural perspective in a way that adapts to the new face of total warfare since World War I. This change has been expedited not only by the technological advancement of warfare throughout the years but also the impact of values and ethics attached to it by the evolving societies. War moved from an acceptable means of accomplishing political gain in the 19th century to an all encompassing total warfare where ethical, cultural, and societal values cannot be ignored for their vast effects. The current state of academic military history is divided into three categories: material and operational military history, the newer forms of war and society that deal with a wide range of interconnected factors including social, economic, political, and civil relations to the war, and the cultural lens of war through commemorative traditions. These three approaches are the primary focus of current military history, yet there is a new infringing account that is popular military history. This includes a narrative aimed at general audiences that is not as academically sound as the three focused academic areas.

Total warfare, as it has developed since World War I, doesn’t fit the model of Clausewitz’s reserved view of warfare as a means towards accomplishing limited political and economic goals. Total war brings destruction on such a vast scale that it affects not just political but also socio-economical factors. The shards of heroics and chivalry have died away due to the highly mechanized form of combat. These changes have forced historians to grasp a much wider focus on warfare to include the impact of how societies and ethical and cultural factors were at work during war. After 1945, wars were usually avoided if possible by the major military powers, but the study of them analyzes not only their tactics but the effects on the economy and the lives of the people that were affected.

During the Napoleonic wars of the 19th century, Carl von Clausewitz studied historical history in an attempt to generate general theories on warfare. Carl von Clausewitz was a Prussian officer serving on campaigns during the Napoleonic wars in 1814 and afterwards served as the Berlin Military Academy’s director.1 He thought that civilian, political, and economic factors could not change the outcome of the battles. He saw that each war consisted of interacting elements.2 Clausewitz’s book, On War that came out in 1812, points out that theory must be put in context in the following citation:

“Modern theory, he [Clausewitz] argues has explicitly to recognize its own historical implication-its methods and principles must necessarily be historicist. Since each period has had its own peculiar forms of War, so each period would, therefore, also keep its own theory of War”3

In other words, it is important to keep each war in its own context and the methods of analyzing it should include the theories applied to that context. Clausewitz’s context on how the political arena is connected to warfare worked during the Napoleonic War but doesn’t apply in the same way towards warfare today. This requires new methods to study modern warfare. Wayne E. Lee compared Clausewitz’s analysis of the role of war and politics to today’s new outlook on war under the new methods of studying military history through the lens of culture and the relations with war and society. He wrote that Carl von Clausewitz believed that: “war is an extension of politics, saying that the formula implies the existence of the states, of the state interests and of rational calculation about how they may be achieved.”4 There is an almost direct relationship between state and military. Clausewitz stated that: “War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of policy carried out by other means. War, admittedly has its own grammar, but not its own logic.”5 According to this, political states have control over the act of war and in a sense war is just an extension of the political state. This is no longer the case with modern warfare. Modern historians have to tackle this issue differently. John Keegan believes that war is separate from the state and is a cultural phenomenon. He points out that war has been around before the modern creation of the nation state, pointing out the need to study it through the lens of culture and society. Wayne E. Lee believes that this new focus opens up an entirely different study of war separate from pairing it with the state. The armed forces are placed into the cultural arena bringing up questions such as the creation, organization and use of armed force as its own entity and how it interacts with society and affects the individuals involved.6

Hans Delbruck in 1881 also contributed to the study of military history during the same relative time frame. He saw that war was an extension of political agendas and the subject should not be a task only for the military itself to record. It should be studied and analyzed by scholars.7 He approached evidence differently by drawing from documentary sources and historical accounts to gather data compare this to direct evidence of the events to find confirmation or conflicts between the two.8 Paret mentioned that examples of the kinds of data that Delbruck included were: “the nature of the battlefield, the technological characteristics of the time-and the social and institutional context.”9Using this method, modern historians can use evidence interchangeably and have a deeper understanding of the event from both directions of focus. Using this very method, Delbruck found inaccuracies in both record modern military history and ancient military history. He found that an infantry man laden with gear in the 1890’s could not physically bear the burden of more than 150 yards, so this indirectly proves that the Herodotus account of Athenian warriors who ran 1640 yards with the same load is exaggerated and inaccurate.10 “With pragmatic arguments of this kind, backed by close reading of texts, Delbruck radically changed the picture of war from antiquity to the early modern period.”11 While this method brings out very interesting results, it runs into problems of anachronism and context. While it makes sense that such a comparison can be made, the distribution of the weight of the gear and the physical conditioning of the men between the two time periods could be very different. This difference could be enough to falsify the context of Delbruck’s claim. This is not saying, however, that his approach of looking at an event from multiple angles is not an effective method. It may not carry enough weight to be applied to compare events separated by vast time difference and different contexts. Delbruck also played a leading role in source criticism in military history. He came to the realization that not all records or accounts are necessarily completely accurate.

“I venture to say that hardly ever in any previous period has so much of a distorted and confusing nature been published in the field of military organization and the military art through unmethodical and dilettantish scholarship as precisely in this last decade…And so not only have there been developed and published false interpretations of the sources, concerning which there can and always will be different opinions, but also constructions that are objectively and physically impossible, and they have greatly obscured the clear historical events.”12

Hans Delbruck’s early recognition of the need for source criticism in the field of military history inspired future scholars to look critically at the sources and compare evidence with additional sources to verify the validity of the accounts.

The works of both Carl von Clausewitz and Hans Delbruck were very beneficial in the realm of military history, however the face of war changed completely into total warfare. This new reality was highly mechanized and spread strain and destruction in all aspects of society. With the advent of aerial bombing and urban warfare, the civilian population were put at risk and totally affected by warfare. Peter Paret, in his book, Understanding War Essays on Clausewitz and the History of Military Power, explores the depths of military history through the German historian that lies at the crux of the beginning of military history theory and methods. In his introduction, Paret spells out two important approaches to military history. The first is to use a narrow focus to spell out what happened in each battle using evidence. The other is when historians connect the events on the battlefield and tie their connections to the political variables that caused the battles and events and their effect on them.13 The study of the second approach, which Paret favors, includes a wide range of coverage including the exploration of social factors to the factors of resource management and the economy that played a part in the outcome of the war and battles.14 He feels that this more complete approach adds more insight to the war as a whole and adds a deeper understanding of the battle with the additional background information. It is logical that it is important to know the political and social factors that caused the battle or war in order to know the motives and drive behind the battle itself. This shift in taking the old ideas and theories of Clausewitz and expanding them to fit the constructs of the contemporary military have been very useful in the realm of modern military history methodology.

“In recent years the view has become widespread in this country and in much of the world Clausewitz’s theories are relevant to modern war. The exact nature of their relevance is not always clear; too often his ideas are cited as though they constitute a doctrine, a set of laws, instead of the analytic sometimes speculative observations Clausewitz meant them to be.”15

The changing face of warfare required the methods of study to evolve in order to understand the shifted underpinnings of warfare itself which now directly affects all aspects of culture and society.

The content of military history has changed from holding the heroics of armies and commanders in celebration to a convoluted sense of honor under total warfare. In some cases, elevating heroic accomplishments to glorify and honor the soldier within the historical narrative has now been replaced with a more focused and straight-forward analysis of the events that unfolded, according to Von Moltake. He writes that this shift occurred during the time and movement of Rankian Historiography - the methodology of telling history as it essentially happened rather than twisting or glorifying it. 16During the Napoleonic Wars there was a major shift to the methods of historical inquiry in the field of military history. The move away from heroizing war and narrating the wonder and heroic features of the leaders changed to the Rankian methods of rigors applying evidence and research to the field of military history in order to accumulate and analyze the events that unfolded. The focus on inspiring deeds of individuals is hard to find in a mechanized war and the facts and events are told as a whole. The next rift in the study of military history occurred after the Second World War in which a new trend of applying historical historiography and expanding the study of warfare become all inclusive. This new change involved looking at the dynamics of the individual soldier and also the cultural and societal connective histories in conjunction with the study of the events of battle. The new forms of military history have moved towards a cultural approach.17 Peter Paret agrees with historian Jeremy Black that there has been a shift of focus from tactical modern military history to a concentration on the interaction of war within the context and frameworks of society. This societal framework includes war’s effects within culture, politics, economics, and the civilian society.18

The methods of conducting and reflecting on military history have changed from the history of modern war in the 19th century to today because societal factors and the ethical view of war had changed. This moves the study of warfare from an extension of the state affairs and the mechanics of war to a more cultural approach which deals with other factors. Total war affects all areas of society including materials production, transportation of men, material and logistics, to public reactions and ideologies of the war. Wars have many effects on society such as the decline of available male workers, the need for the public to ration materials, and the role of the media and propaganda to convey the war effort to public audience. All these elements are interconnected and give background insight in how total warfare is fought. The effects of total warfare expands beyond the battlefield. In an essay on war and society entitled ,“The First World War and American Democracy”, George E. Mowry came to the conclusion that the presence of violence during wars helps keep local problems under control. He stated that in wartime there is a tendency for the government to interfere with personal liberties to conform the public to the common cause of supporting the war effort. This system of rallying the public for one goal decreased domestic crime. “In fact by almost every societal index the American appetite for violence seemed to be greater in the years immediately succeeding than in the war years.”19 Explorations of the societal effects of warfare give valuable information about what happens to specific societies and how that translated to the war effort.

The same new methods of looking at military history through the aspects of the societal and culture approach can also be used and applied to past wars to add new insight and perspective. Exciting studies on the American Civil War through a racial cultural lens has uncovered new perspectives that were overlooked by the standard tactical study of the timeframe. An example of this is Steven J. Ramold’s Slaves, Sailors, and Citizen’s: African Americans in the Union Navy (2002) which was reviewed by Robert Citino. The cultural perspective approach was used to determine the treatment and freedoms of African American sailors in the Union Navy during the American Civil War.20 Cultural studies can be very helpful in illuminating an area of military history that has often been neglected. In this case, the approach was very constructive for it showed that not all African Americans were harshly segregated in the military in the Civil War. Steven Ramold found reports that African Americans in the Union Navy received in some instances “equal pay, living accommodations, and benefits.”21 However, he found that after 1865 less African Americans were in the Navy and segregation spread while treatment worsened. Even though the cultural approach gives a new perspective on military history it also has some inherent problems as well.

The cultural approach to military history provides interesting areas of studies and questions that cover unique aspects of the field. Focusing too much on a cultural perspective however, can be dangerous for the concentration still needs to be rooted in the events related to warfare. Robert M. Citino criticized the cultural centered historical method used in John A Lynn’s book Battle: A History of Combat and Culture saying that while there was some encouraging work in analyzing the cultural aspects of war, Lynn carried the cultural lens too far. This can cause losing sight of the subject. It is wrong to focus only on culturally constructed ideals without root in evidence and backdrop of the war and events. “The truth is, as deeply as they probe the culture of way, they will still want to ground themselves in the event itself, as opposed to its later interpretation, its memory, or it’s instrumentalization.”22 This example shows that the cultural prospective can be taken too far, for it still needs to be rooted in accounts and evidence pertaining to the subject and events within the realm of the military or the events of war. In some cases, the subject becomes detached from warfare altogether and becomes an anthropological inquiry on pure culture.

The structure around the study of gender and the military is an interesting cultural approach, for warfare has been predominantly a male endeavor. More and more, the impact of women in warfare has made the topic of gender and war more apparent. During World War 2, women played multiple roles from nurses to airplane ferry pilots. On the home front, women making shells, bombs, tanks and airplanes was a vastly important aspect of the production of the war effort and is worthy of the cultural study in military history. On the Eastern front, the Russians allowed women to pilot fighter planes in combat and their heroics have been recorded in detail.23 The study of women in context to military history would have been unheard of in earlier times, but that has changed.

Military history can be approached from varying methods and points of view that produce very different realms of information. “The new military history asserts that the history of war is about much more than people killing each other, that it should look beyond the actual realization, the putting into practice, of man’s organized inhumanity to man.” 24 We must be careful when making valued judgments about the necessity of violence and the contingencies that allowed for such violence because the two times differ immensely. It is important not to try and connect our understanding of war using the values of today to the justifications of the past. The political and social values of the two time periods differ entirely and it’s easy to fall into the fallacy of anachronism.

The fact that history’s method of creating falsified or exaggerated accounts of the national heroism of military history is a symptom of national propaganda and the image it wants to place on its military. The factual, rigorous evidence-laden studies about the accounts and events of the nation’s military gets scrapped or modified in order to fit the propaganda or to put the nation of origin in a good light.25 “Politics and personalities affected the way that the national war records were created and the public and private pressures that were faced by the official historians as they attempted to create a foundation for future scholars.”26 The projected status or narrative told to the public during a crisis is aimed for varying reasons to gain public support of the conflict and also for recruitment.

Another method that is abundantly used today is the use of memory and oral history in the realm of military history. Some care must be taken when dealing with memoirs and biographies. Jeremy Black simply stated that: “Memoirs and biographies are frequently uncritical, if not downright eulogies.”27 The sources of personal accounts have a vast range including oral history, memoirs, diaries, letters, and autobiographies. All of these sources give a view of the events through the conscious mind of a specific individual including their reactions and interpretations. The problem with oral accounts however, is that that person’s recollections may be told differently due to outside factors or their understanding and feelings towards the subject may change. When years pass after a conflict, a veteran has time to reflect and his opinions and feelings about certain actions or events may change due to this personal reflection or newly discovered information. A current trend today has been to gather up stories and memories from aging veterans about their experiences in the war. The number of World War II veterans still alive is dwindling and in the last decade an effort to capture the memories and oral history from those individuals has intensified. Memory however can be a flawed source for it can be broken, or altered by events that occurred afterwards. WW2 veterans have learned a lot more about the circumstances surrounding the war and this new knowledge has the potential of tainting or even modifying their memories of their involvement in the war. A problem with oral history is that it can only give a fragmented view of an event or war and lacks the cohesion of the big picture. It also is limited to the clarity it is remembered and delivered.

Military history expands well beyond the academic realm. An interest in past wars and battles has been kept alive during demonstrations at battlefields and reenactments. Movies whether accurate or not continue to be produced in the genre of war. Some take great lengths to ensure accuracy while others invest in the realm of excitement and appeal to the general public. The advent of television historical documentaries has been increasing. After the incorporation of the History Channel, more and more programs documenting and focusing on war have been spawned. The images and stories are compelling but not always accurate. “One of the major flaws in much television history, however, is the poor choice of imagery together with frequently inaccurate commentary. Events, devices and even people in contemporary footage are used indiscriminately because the image is appealing rather than accurate.”28 The problem with television documentaries is that they tend to oversimplify things and events in order to reach broad audiences. This oversimplification can destroy the complex context of the war or battle. There are many factors and variables in a certain event or battle and shows tend to condense them, show one side, and oversimplify. Documentaries still have their place though, for they inform the public and spark the interest into the realm of military history.

Social military history looks at military history through a social context such as observing the feelings and actions through the perspective of an individual common soldier. This is done in a number of ways such as looking at the social indoctrinated situations that were placed upon the soldiers through training and tradition of the structured military. Social and cultural history goes beyond these set anthropological cultural conditions and looks at how the individual reacts and is affected by the set parameters.29 “Military behavior is strongly patterned by culture, but leaves room for improvisation.”30 Wartime behavior differs from normal cultural studies in that cultures are pressed under extreme conditions and constraints that alter their normal tendencies. Wayne E. Lee discussed the methods of military historian John A Lynn: “His key method is to analyze a society’s discourse on war and to compare it with the army’s practice of war. This almost unavoidable disconnect between the values found in the discourse and the actual experience of war is in turn likely to produce a new discourse.”31 This method is very useful to find the difference between culture at home and that on the battlefield. Ideals and their interplay among soldiers, such as courage, can be studied at a new level for the ideal may very well have two different meanings and applications. The concept of courage among people and generals back home may have expectations that do not match the lost ideal of courage to the ordinary soldier who is at constant risk of death each day and may see nothing courageous about his comrades being slaughtered. A development of the cultural studies of warfare has been to inquire on the root of malicious behavior of troops such as the actions of the Nazi SS and the atrocities committed.

Warfare after the Second World War has become more and more complex. The majority of modern conflicts involve the Third World countries instead of the prominent Western powers and they deal with deeply complex ethnic struggles.

“The United States and its Western allies have used military force 220 times since World War II. About 80 of those uses have involved low level conflict, while 15 have involved major task forces or extended and fairly intense conflict, and all 15 have occurred in the Third World. At the same time, the West has become steadily more dependent on imports of oil, minerals, and raw materials from Third World states, and it has encountered a growing military challenge from radical Third World states.”32

Tribal relations and deeply rooted racial hatred are extremely hard to match up with the current methods of analyzing military history. More research on anthropological and ideological factors traced back from a large time-span is usually required to study the roots of these modern Third World conflicts. The fact that they have occurred outside the involvement of Western powers also means that many go unnoticed or dealt little attention from the Western powers.33”Since 1989, it has become evident that wars, in former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union as well as in Africa, concern complex ethnic, religious, and other social divisions as well as the rivalries of political and military elites. The relationship between war and genocide has once more come to the forefront”34 These wars are so engulfed in deeply rooted cultural factors that they are very difficult to study in the same way conventional Western conflicts are studied. Other modern conflicts are intense religious feuds, such as the constant conflict between Israel and Pakistan. The powder keg of the Middle East is vastly misunderstood by Western powers for the instability of that area has a vast and bloody history. Genocide has popped up as a shadow throughout the history of human violent conflict and is in itself an entirely separate category from conventional military history. The current war that America is fighting now with Iraq and Afghanistan is also an entirely different style of warfare. America is dealing with the war of insurgency where it is not fighting the army of the state but instead small groups of insurgents. Instead of tactical attacks against a visible army, the soldiers are up against random car bombs and suicide bombers and attacks within. This new style of warfare is very different from total warfare and provides a challenge to military historians to create new methods to make sense of the conflict. It does however connect to the events of military history. The systematic annihilation of a race of people due to race or ethnicity has occurred on more occasions since the Holocaust. Rwanda and Bosnia are other current examples of mass murder that plagues the human race.

The development of military history has opened up a wealth of entry points and perspectives into the events of war. Military history has grown to include much more than just tactical history but has expanded to look at war within the context of society, culture, and memory. Despite these exciting advancements in the field of military history, it remains a marginalized field of historical study. While military history is a very popular genre in the public realm, in the realm of academia it has been marginalized. Its courses in major universities have been vanishing replaced by other areas of history.35Conversely, it has been vastly popular in the public realm for many shows and documentaries have been airing on the history channel, while countless books and magazines continue to capture the attention of the public. Armchair General, a very popular publication, reviews tactical and historical moves by prominent generals and sets up military scenarios for the reader.36 The new areas of military history offer promising new areas of inquiry that not only benefit understanding of warfare, but also expand knowledge about societies, economies, and cultures under dire circumstances. Military historians continue to find more ways to explore the factors that surround the complex and violent topic of warfare.

Works Cited

Asbjorn Eide and Marek Thee. Problems of Contemporary Militarism. St. Martins Press New York. 1980.

Anthony H. Cordesman and Abraham R. Wagner. The Lessons of Modern War Volume I: The Arab-Israeli Conflicts, 1973-1989. San Francisco: Westview Press, 1990.

Black, Jeremy. Rethinking Military History. New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group London 2004.

Citino, Robert M. “Military Histories Old and New: A Reintroduction” The American Historical Review October 2007. 1071-1091

Chapnick, Adam Tim cook “Clio’s Warriors: Historians and the Writing of the World Wars.” American Review of Canadian Studies 36.4 (Winter 2006):p662.

Howard, Michael. War and the Liberal Conscience, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Pres, 1978

Hans Delbruck, History of the Art of War: Within the Framework of Political History Antiquity. Wesport: Greenwood Press, 1975.

Gat, Azar. A History of Military Thought From the Enlightenment to The Cold War. London: Oxford University Press, 2001.

John A. Vasquez "Disciplinary Views of War" The Oxford Companion to American Military History. John Whiteclay Chambers II, ed., Oxford University Press 1999. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Washington Libraries Database, 17 November 2007.

Klus Jurgen Gantzel and Torsten Schwinghammer. Warfare Since the Second World War. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2000.

Lee Wayne E. “Mind over Matter-Cultural Analysis in American Military History: A look at the State of the Field” The Journal of American History Vol. 93 No.4 March 2007.

Lloyd Kramer and Sarah Maza, Companion to Western Historical Thought. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2002.

Matloff, Maurice American Military History Volume 1:1775-1902 Pennsylvania: Combined Books 1996.

Martin Shaw “Diciplinary Views Of War: Political Science and International Relations”. The Oxford Companion to American Military History London: Oxford University Press. 1999.

Mary Wechsler Segal “Women’s Military Roles Cross Nationality: Past, Present and Future” Gender and Society Vol. 9 No. 6 December 1995.

Mowry, George E. “The First World War and American Democracy” War as a Social Institution The Historians Perspective. Ed. Jesse D Clarkson and Thomas C Cochran. New York: AMS Press Inc., 1966.

Moyar, Mark. “The Current State of Military History.” The Historical Journal 50.1 March 2007 250-258.

Paret, Peter. Understanding War Essays on Clausewitz and the History of Military Power. Princeton New Jersey, 1992.

Paret, Peter. “The History of Armed Power,” A Companion to Western Historical Thought ed. Lloyd Kramer and Sarah Maza Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006, 243-261.

Pick, Daniel . War Machine The Rationalisation of Slaughter in the modern Age. Yale University Press New Haven 1993.

Tim Cook. Clio's Warriors: Historians and the Writing of the World Wars. Vancouver and Toronto: UBC Press, 2006.

Wright, Quincy. A Study of War. Chicago Press Chicago 1965.

Whiteclay John “Military History" The Oxford Companion to American Military History. John Whiteclay Chambers II, ed., Oxford University Press 1999. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Washington. http://www.oxfordreference.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t126.e0566z accessed November 17, 2007

Michael Howard "Disciplinary Views of War" The Oxford Companion to American Military History. John Whiteclay Chambers II, ed., Oxford University Press 1999. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Washington. 17 http://www.oxfordreference.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t126.e0264-s0008 (accessed November 17, 2007)

1 Pick Daniel . War Machine the Rationalization of Slaughter in the modern Age. (New Haven: University Press 1993.) 28-29

2 Maza 249

3 Pick Daniel. 28-29

4 Lee, Wayne E. “Mind Over Matter-Cultural Analysis in American Military History: A look at the State of the Field” The Journal Of American History Vol. 93 No.4 March 2007

5 Matloff, Maurice American Military History Volume 1:1775-1902 (Pennsylvania: Combined Books 1996.) 13.

6 Lee Wayne E. “Mind Over Matter-Cultural Analysis in American Military History: A look at the State of the Field” The Journal Of American History Vol. 93 No.4 March 2007

7 Black, Jeremy. Rethinking Military History. (London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group 2004.)

187-188

8 Paret, Peter. “The History Of Armed Power,” in A Companion To Western Historical Thought ed. Lloyd Kramer and Sarah Maza (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 251-252

9 Paret,251-252

10 Paret ,252

11 Paret ,252

12 Hans Delbruck, History of the Art of War: Within the Framework of Political History Antiquity. (Wesport: Greenwood Press, 1975) 19

13 Peter Paret, Understanding War Essays on Clausewitz and the History of Military Power. (New Jersey: Princeton, 1992.) 1

14 Paret, 1-2

15 Paret, 1

16 Howard Michael “Disciplinary Views Of War” The Oxford Companion to American Military History. John Whiteclay Chambers II, ed. Oxford University Press 1999. Oxford Reference Online, Oxford University Press. University Of Washington 17 November 2007

17 Black, Jeremy. Rethinking Military History. (London: Routledge and Taylor and Francis Group, 2004.)

18 Peter Paret, Understanding War Essays on Clausewitz and the History of Military Power. (New Jersey: Princeton, 1992.) 220

19 George E. Mowry. “The First World War and American Democracy,” in War as a Social Institution The Historians Perspective, ed Jesse D Clarkson and Thomas C. Cochran (New York: AMS Press Inc. 1966), 179

20 Citino, Robert M. “Military Histories Old and New: A Reintroduction” The American Historical Review October 2007. 1073-1074

21 Citino,.1074

22 Citino, Robert M. “Military Histories Old and New: A Reintroduction” The American Historical Review October 2007. 1087

23 Mardy Wechsler Segal “Women’s Military Roles Cross Nationality: Past, Present and Future” in (Gender and Society Vol. 9 No.6 Dec1995) 757-775.

24 Peter Paret, Understanding War Essays on Clausewitz and the History of Military Power. (New Jersey: Princeton University Pres, 1992.) 220

25 Tim Cook. Clio's Warriors: Historians and the Writing of the World Wars. Vancouver and Toronto: UBC Press, 2006.

26Chapnick Adam “Clio’s Warriors: Historians and the Writing of the World Wars.” in American Review of Canadian Studies 36.4 (Winter 2006), 662.

27 Black, Jeremy. Rethinking Military History. (London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group 2004). 43

28 Black, Jeremy. Rethinking Military History. (London: Rutledge Taylor and Francis Group 2004.) 34-35.

29 Lee, Wayne E. “Mind Over Matter-Cultural Analysis in American Military History: A look at the State of the Field” in The Journal Of American History Vol. 93 No.4 March 2007

30 Lee

31 Lee

32 Anthony H. Cordesman and Abraham R. Wagner. The Lessons of Modern War Volume I: The Arab-Israeli Conflicts, 1973-1989. (San Francisco: Westview Press, 1990)1-2

33 Martin Shaw “Disciplinary Views Of War: Political Science and International Relations” in The Oxford Companion to American Military History ed. Neil Whitehead. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).

34 Shaw

35 Citino, Robert M. “Military Histories Old and New: A Reintroduction” The American Historical Review October 2007. 1071

36 Weider, Eric publisher Armchair General Thousand Oaks California.Nov 2007.

Professor Evans Adventures

Search This Blog

Friday, April 29, 2016

Civil Air Patrol

Sicily Part 2

Rome Italy

Sicily

Strange Brews Hockey

Ryan Evans Penguin Art

Eye to the Sky: A History of the Development of Aviation Mass Spectacles

The Changing Methodology of Military History

Class descriptions

The Changing Methodology of Military History

Professor Evans Adventures