LogFAQs > #931631826

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	"history buffs" who only know about military history are the worst
Vita_Aeterna 12/15/19 6:30:43 PM #29:	PleaseClap posted... Its always either WW2 or Roman history WW2, Roman, maybe Greek history, and something about the samurais is the most common one. specialkid8 posted... Conflict is the driving force for most of history. LOL at gatekeeping it as "not real history". That's not the problem. We frequently study about wars, but we don't obsess over tactics and strategy. We leave that to staff college officers/academics. Southernfatman posted... What's wrong with David McCullough? And at least these types know something than being completely ignorant. I don't see what's the big deal about this. Because "history buff" makes it sound like you know a lot about history, when all you really know is a narrow perspective of history. Also, most military historians and so-called buffs don't embrace the way scholars and academics do history. It's full of pitfalls and problems. Today's historians are extremely well rounded and have a very solid grasp of subjects outside of their specialization. It allows their arguments to stand the test of scrutiny. --- "Death is so terribly final, while life is full of possibilities." <cite>Vita_Aeterna posted [p:931631826] in "hist... [t:78257577]...</cite> <quote>PleaseClap posted... </cite> <quote>Its always either WW2 or Roman history</quote>WW2, Roman, maybe Greek history, and something about the samurais is the most common one. specialkid8 posted... </cite> <quote>Conflict is the driving force for most of history. LOL at gatekeeping it as "not real history".</quote>That's not the problem. We frequently study about wars, but we don't obsess over tactics and strategy. We leave that to staff college officers/academics. Southernfatman posted... </cite> <quote>What's wrong with David McCullough? And at least these types know something than being completely ignorant. I don't see what's the big deal about this.</quote>Because "history buff" makes it sound like you know a lot about history, when all you really know is a narrow perspective of history. Also, most military historians and so-called buffs don't embrace the way scholars and academics do history. It's full of pitfalls and problems. Today's historians are extremely well rounded and have a very solid grasp of subjects outside of their specialization. It allows their arguments to stand the test of scrutiny. --- "Death is so terribly final, while life is full of possibilities."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1