I don't read all that much military history but I do find it interesting when I do. I think it has some attractions that don't require a particular liking for war:
1. That it has an inherent drama to it, in that the people in a war (or supporting it at home, in the era of total war) are at risk for losing their lives, their homes, everything; and that it has (usually) a finite end of some kind or another--one side wins, one side loses, both sides call it a draw.
2. For microhistorians, the intellectual attraction of war is that contingency and agency are unusually visible and tangible in military conflicts, particularly in battles--particular decisions get made that have consequences, the difference between soldiers holding a position and soldiers scattering in disarray is visible, etc.; the added tension is that soldiers also often feel they have little to no agency, even their commanders--that circumstance, environment, etc. force decisions they'd rather not make. (Arguably that's the role of strategy: to force an enemy into a situation where all the decisions are bad ones.)
3. War also seems to me to be an unusual case of coordinated collective action--well, unusual and typical in terms of its frequency--that tells us some interesting things about what societies might be capable of in other directions. (Hence the popular use of "war on....X" as a political metaphor.) When I read about wars I'm often struck by that, even when they're small-scale and very limited.
I think you're right. Men at war have the ultimate camaraderie (at least how it's depicted in books, movies, TV shows). It's like the perfect [insert sport here] team being thrown into a life-and-death fight against evil. Although I am just a level one Dad History mage... Better up my game.
Many thanks for recommending Branislav Slatchev’s first-rate piece. I do wish his message could be engraved on a chip that gets activated in Macron’s brain every time he’s tempted to launch into another “Atlantic to the Urals” fantasy
Good read. I assume you've read O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin novels. I love the precise descriptions in them, but a fictional 20-volume treatment of a friendship between two men at war together is really the thing.
The (female) character Tony in Margaret Atwood's novel The Robber Bride is a military historian. It's been a century since I read it. "She used to think that her work was accepted or rejected on its own merits, but she’s begun to suspect that the goodness of her lectures is somehow not the point. The point is her dress. She will be patted on the head, praised, fed a few élite dog biscuits, and dismissed, while the boys in the back room get down to the real issue, which is which one of them will be the next society president."
I don't read all that much military history but I do find it interesting when I do. I think it has some attractions that don't require a particular liking for war:
1. That it has an inherent drama to it, in that the people in a war (or supporting it at home, in the era of total war) are at risk for losing their lives, their homes, everything; and that it has (usually) a finite end of some kind or another--one side wins, one side loses, both sides call it a draw.
2. For microhistorians, the intellectual attraction of war is that contingency and agency are unusually visible and tangible in military conflicts, particularly in battles--particular decisions get made that have consequences, the difference between soldiers holding a position and soldiers scattering in disarray is visible, etc.; the added tension is that soldiers also often feel they have little to no agency, even their commanders--that circumstance, environment, etc. force decisions they'd rather not make. (Arguably that's the role of strategy: to force an enemy into a situation where all the decisions are bad ones.)
3. War also seems to me to be an unusual case of coordinated collective action--well, unusual and typical in terms of its frequency--that tells us some interesting things about what societies might be capable of in other directions. (Hence the popular use of "war on....X" as a political metaphor.) When I read about wars I'm often struck by that, even when they're small-scale and very limited.
I think you're right. Men at war have the ultimate camaraderie (at least how it's depicted in books, movies, TV shows). It's like the perfect [insert sport here] team being thrown into a life-and-death fight against evil. Although I am just a level one Dad History mage... Better up my game.
"I don’t think that there’s a lot of English buffs of the American Civil War"
possibly because the leadership in England was pretty much rooting/collaborating with the wrong side.
Many thanks for recommending Branislav Slatchev’s first-rate piece. I do wish his message could be engraved on a chip that gets activated in Macron’s brain every time he’s tempted to launch into another “Atlantic to the Urals” fantasy
Good read. I assume you've read O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin novels. I love the precise descriptions in them, but a fictional 20-volume treatment of a friendship between two men at war together is really the thing.
The (female) character Tony in Margaret Atwood's novel The Robber Bride is a military historian. It's been a century since I read it. "She used to think that her work was accepted or rejected on its own merits, but she’s begun to suspect that the goodness of her lectures is somehow not the point. The point is her dress. She will be patted on the head, praised, fed a few élite dog biscuits, and dismissed, while the boys in the back room get down to the real issue, which is which one of them will be the next society president."