- This topic has 5 voices and 32 replies.
-
Posts
-
Most of them have been. I should probably change to Military History rather than just history. Studying war is interesting. But then again, you can't study history without studying war.
Studying war is interesting. But then again, you can't study history without studying war.
I have said that for years, I will even go so far as to say most history is the history of warfare because warfare has had such a huige impact on both the shape of states and the viewpoints of people.
I'm more interested in the causes and aftermaths of war, but sometimes the tactics and strategy used are interesting as well. Ancient naval history is cool.
Studying war is interesting. But then again, you can't study history without studying war.
I would disagree with the statement if it's without qualifiers. I think there are plenty of areas of history that people can study that don't involve studying war. I will agree that you can't study macro political history without studying war, but obviously that is only one kind – a very big and important kind, but hardly the only one.
Studying war is interesting. But then again, you can't study history without studying war.
I would disagree with the statement if it's without qualifiers.
What would be some qualifiers that would make this statement more true? It seems most everything in history is either directly or indirectly affected by war or conflict of some sort.
What would be some qualifiers that would make this statement more true?
Well, if I were to look back on a year in your life, say 2009, would it involve war? Not in any relevant way (“war of the sexes” does not count here ;D ). In the same way, if we were to look back on important contributions to history by a figure or group of figures – go back and time and pick any number of people – you can easily discuss their work without getting into “war”. Even if you're going to talk about entire nations, or movements, or whatnot, there are times when you can consider them without regard for war, depending on your focus. Or, if you do bring up war, often times it can be more or less mentioning it for context rather than discussing its intricacies. Now I will say that probably every nation on earth has been impacted by war and/or conquest at some point in time, so I agree that it has a far reach. But it is hardly all-encompassing, and there are simply too many areas of history out there to focus on. Besides, there are any number of bits of history to study in the intervals when nations are not waging war.
It seems most everything in history is either directly or indirectly affected by war or conflict of some sort.
I think you could say that most everything in history is also directly or indirectly affected by the economy in some way. So economic history becomes vital. Then again, everyone wears clothes, and so the history of textiles and fashions affects everyone. Everyone also eats, so gastronomic history is everywhere.So if by “history” we are referring more to macrohistory involving political transitions throughout time, then I can see how war would be an extremely important consideration. I simply don't think that “history” is the realm of one and only one focus.
Ah, but name me one area of history that war has not had a significant impact on. I cant think of any, then again I am a military historian so it kind of stands to reason doesn't it? Even your example of micro history with the personal history of 2009 involves indirect effects from war; there are taxes to pay for the US's wars, the price effects of commodities from other conflicts, the personal choices made about vacation spots that are affected by considerations of security, and perhaps friends or acquaintances who have served or are serving in the war. Name an area and I can tell you how war affects it. War is and has been endemic in human interaction, you could even say that it is probably the only historical constant. Much of the oldest documentary evidence we have deals with war, that and grain stocks.
But that's why I made the point about the history of food, or clothing, or economics; all of these directly or indirectly affect the course history as well. So does something like the history of architecture, since we all live in buildings and spend most of our time in them. Indirectly there are a whole slew of things that affect history to some degree. I'm not belittling an approach which focuses on wars and conquests. Much of history from grade school on to college is taught in that manner, but then again, most of that is history of the macro type – trying to show the movement of civilizations through space and time. Yes, wars are pretty darn significant because they make or break civilizations. Food does not (well, not normally) and so gastronomic history isn't as significant.But I do think there are any number of historical sub-fields/specialties/approaches that can also tell us in great detail how people of the past lived. This is what I meant when I was questioning the assertion that in order to study history you have to study war. This statement can be very true or not so true, depending on the approach one takes.
Well maybe my comment was too much a generalization. But maybe not. Even if talking about the history of food, you can still hit on war and conflict since much of the warfare strategy dealt with food (perhaps more with earlier history than latter). Here's aanother generalization to throw out here too…you can't study the history of Western Civilization without studying Christianity.
Well maybe my comment was too much a generalization. But maybe not. Even if talking about the history of food, you can still hit on war and conflict since much of the warfare strategy dealt with food (perhaps more with earlier history than latter). Here's aanother generalization to throw out here too…you can't study the history of Western Civilization without studying Christianity.
First (and I should have clarified this), by saying “studying war” you're talking first and foremost about knowing who beat who, what lands changed hands, after effects, right?Ok, and secondly, I will agree with a statement like “you can't study the history of civilizations without studying war”. And thirdly, I will also agree that “you can't study the history of Western Civilization without studying Christianity”.
Well maybe my comment was too much a generalization. But maybe not. Even if talking about the history of food, you can still hit on war and conflict since much of the warfare strategy dealt with food (perhaps more with earlier history than latter). Here's aanother generalization to throw out here too…you can't study the history of Western Civilization without studying Christianity.
First (and I should have clarified this), by saying “studying war” you're talking first and foremost about knowing who beat who, what lands changed hands, after effects, right?
Not really. Primarily I'm talking about what was going on that caused the war. And they don't necessarily have to be large scale wars.I should have originally said, you can't study history without studying wars and revolutions.Of course I could be completely wrong, but that's what I've been thinking lately.
We can quibble back and forth about this for weeks. Simply put, there is no crucible for change that has been so significant as war. It has driven societal, scientific, and cultural change for millennia and will likely continue to do so. Yes there are plenty of areas of history to study where you can avoid war, but none that paint a picture about societies, states or even that of provinces or towns. The sad fact is that studying people most often leads you to talking about how wars contemporary to their lives changed them or how they dealt with it.
look at the rise of banking & central bankingThe Dutch Republic and city-states like Venice are good examples, esp. with the Medici where there is much information available about them
Not really. Primarily I'm talking about what was going on that caused the war. And they don't necessarily have to be large scale wars.
And you are right about that. War usually has been connected with social or political processes. Few men went to war only because they liked it.I'd say “You can't study war, without studying its social/political backgroung” 😉
I'd say “You can't study war, without studying its social/political backgroung” 😉
Yeah, that's the thing – it's not necessarily the “wars” themselves, but the the political processes, the transfer of lands between empires/nations, etc. as a result of control, etc.
look at the rise of banking & central bankingThe Dutch Republic and city-states like Venice are good examples, esp. with the Medici where there is much information available about them
I would also agree with you about economics. Scout is right that war is one of the most significant influences on history, but economics is right up there as well.
