- This topic has 6 voices and 8 replies.
-
Posts
-
Of course, no need to be an astronaut or a centurion to be allowed to talk or study about those fields. The military might seem special but it's still a part of the society 😉
I agree with Aetheling. While working in a similar field in which you research may provide some good insights, I don't think it is necessary. You don't need to be a cook in order to be a culinary historian, you don't need to be a minority to do research on slavery issues, you don't need to be promiscuous to talk about the history of prostitution, you don't need to be a political scientist in order to talk about the politics of Greece c. 400 B.C……you get the point.
With tenacious research and the ability to write, one may be an historian of the military or any other area of History.
I agree and all points are valid. However maybe it's my own bias. Whenever I read military history by someone who has no military experience (such as Victor Davis Hanson) and then read the same topic by a historian who does have military experience, I know I shouldn't but I tend to place more validity on the latter because I feel he knows what it's like than the other guy with no experience.
I tend to say yes with caveats. The caveat is that to me it is the ultimate in hubris for someone with no combat experience to try and describe what the individual experience of someone personally trying to kill you feels like. Sorry, that is something that only those who have been there are competent to describe. Non-military historians are perfectly competent to discuss tactics, strategy, operations, etc; it is only when they try to actually describe the experience that they fall woefully short.
I agree and all points are valid. However maybe it's my own bias. Whenever I read military history by someone who has no military experience (such as Victor Davis Hanson) and then read the same topic by a historian who does have military experience, I know I shouldn't but I tend to place more validity on the latter because I feel he knows what it's like than the other guy with no experience.
Would you better trust a historian who has served in the army but has no battle experience, or a journalist who has been an embedded and in the line of fire but did not serve? Naturally, the historian with military experience will bring a certain perspective to the table, and the one without such experience will bring a different perspective. I think it all depends on which perspective you want in what you are reading.
I think it all depends on which perspective you want in what you are reading.
That's kind of what I'm thinking. It depends on what you want to do. If trying to convey what it's like to write a letter home in the middle of battle, I would say the historian scout is a more credible source than I would be. But if writing/discussing the politics of military history, military experience may not needed.Still though, if there are two historians, equal in quality, credentials, and education but only one has actual military experience, I would go with the one with experience.
Equality in credentials and quality…. There's the rub.Military or combat experience will not make one historian superior to another - it is the quality of their research and analysis - and the quality of their writing (and editors). I have read many military historians with military and combat experience who wrote poor history - likewise I have read gripping narrative accounts from journalists and veterans that, while authentic and well written, weren't subjected to the historical process, and therefore wouldn't really qualify as history. Likewise, extensive academic immersion and rigorous checking of various sources, "mastering the literature," and anal-retentive analysis doesn't necessary make a military history work any more or less valid. One could ask if it is a matter of historical bias - is the combat veteran more biased in his analysis and interpretation of events?By extension of the corallary that one must have military or combat experience to truly write valid military history, could we also state that in order to accurately write about ancient military history one must have experienced battle in the phalanx? Dodging RPGs, IEDs and small arms fire has its own challenges and horrors, but does it compare to close combat with edged weapons? I think that military or combat experience lends a unique perspective to a historian who focuses on military matters, but I don't think that it is a qualifier or requirement -- nor do I think that the lack of this experience is a disqualifier. I think that the differentiator between a good military historian and one who is not good is the quality of their work.
You may not have been in a phalanx, but you know more than I do what it's like to serve next to your brother-in-arms. That's not something that has changed with technology.
One could ask if it is a matter of historical bias - is the combat veteran more biased in his analysis and interpretation of events?
That's a valid concern. The veteran might have more a tendency to insert his opinion rather than historical fact. Would a former naval commander turned historian know the motives and feelings of Alcibiades better than someone with no military training? In this case, I lean towards saying no.Maybe with modern wars those with experience are more credible than those without. maybe.
