Is Military History Passé?

As one who grew up reading (make that devouring) military history books, I am concerned over the recent trend in military historiography. Books focusing on military campaigns that trace the movements of soldiers across the landscape and descriptions of the battles themselves have somewhat become passé as there has become a strong push into studying other additional sidebars related to wars rather than battles themselves. These include such topics as the home front and the role of civilians, especially women. I am pleased that historians are taking a broader approach to learning and interpreting these important historical events, but I feel this has come with a price.

First of all, I wonder if this surge to delving into other aspects of war studies has not in some cases lessened the understanding of the paramount military role of soldiers who took part in these conflicts. Placing so much emphasis on such topics as the home front and women’s daily lives seems to almost demean the efforts of vast majority of soldiers themselves. Equating the unimaginable horrors faced by men in the military as they went through combat and the difficulties in fighting a stubborn foe with the efforts of those at home is not possible and by placing so much emphasis in military studies on these extraneous issues lessens the overall main purpose of military histories. Devoting page after page discussing food rationing and the changed gender roles of women cheapens the sacrifice made by thousands who shed blood so these side issues could even be discussed in the first place.

Secondly, I understand that “old fashioned” military studies have been done to death on the Civil War, World War II, etc. and the knowledge gained by studying other aspects of these conflicts paints a more complete picture, but emphasis on these ancillary issues has gotten out of proportion with the main purpose of military studies themselves, which I thought was to relate the movements and clashes of armies. It seems that any historian who publishes something concerning a military campaign is criticized severely for not including ample coverage of things outside the military realm. It seems clear to me, although not to hardly anyone else in our field, that the military campaigns and the lives of the soldiers and generals, along with decisions made by high-level political leaders, is what has driven the course of history in the first place. Overemphasis on these other side issues has skewed our understanding of the relevance and overall general history of the conflicts and we have simply lost “the forest for the trees.”

CPW