Current Events > "history buffs" who only know about military history are the worst

(+) Yeah! (+)

averagejoel posted...

... are you saying you've never heard a good story that didn't involve a war

that is not at all what i said
but how do you make a narrative out of "there's a painting, and here's another painting, this one has blue in it"?

---

PleaseClap posted...

Its always either WW2 or Roman history

Just like guitar players.

"Music" = guitar
"Instrument" = guitar

---

ROBANN_88 posted...

i'm just a history enthusiast, and i basically just like reading/hearing a good story

See, that's part of the problem, though. Pop historians tend to sacrifice accuracy and objectivity by picking and choosing facts to suit the narratives you want to see.
---

ROBANN_88 posted...

but how do you make a narrative out of "there's a painting, and here's another painting, this one has blue in it"?

lol you're not even trying

---

averagejoel posted...

lol you're not even trying

fair enough.
that one was a bit low effort.
in my defense, it's like 2 in the morning right now

---

Anyone who thinks Classical Sparta was a warrior culture hasn't read up on contemporary scholarship on them.

---

ROBANN_88 posted...

that is not at all what i said
but how do you make a narrative out of "there's a painting, and here's another painting, this one has blue in it"?

Youve made a lot of awful posts but this may be the worst

---

come on, i've definitely made worse posts than that.
you too, probably

---

Whats wrong with Lindybeige?
---

I will say that I'm mostly interested in Classical Greek military history, I have read some of the latest academic books on the subject with the latest being Classical Greek Tactics by Dr. Roel Konijnendijk along with free papers plublished at academia.edu. The image in the OP I assume is targeting mostly people who get their history from wikipedia and entry level sources. People who, in what I find interesting, would buy into the whole "Spartan mirage" or unironically buy into the stereotype of the Persians as being this faceless, Oriental horde who couldn't stand up to the free men of Greece and found themselves outmatched by a "western way of war" in which the Eastern way of war was one of trickery and deception. It wouldn't surprise me if it's the same kind of people who buy into Nazi propaganda that still poisons contemporary pop culture with their depictions of the Russians as this poorly armed mob who threw themselves at the Germans due to their numbers.

---

coh posted...

WW1 and WW2 shaped the world as we know it today

what other history is there honestly

Ah, but if we're talking about WW1, well, that involves nationalist movements in the Balkans, the Franco-Prussian War, the collapse of Bismarck's "Three Emperors" pact, Serbian intelligence operations, the First and Second Balkan Wars, the Entente's belief in the frailty of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, the belief of Germany and Britain that Russia was a rapidly growing threat, the erratic and alienating behavior of Kaiser Wilhelm II, the Russian royal family's relationship to a random mystic, the Russo-Japanese War, everyone's dreams of empire, the feeling that a general European war was inevitable, the feeling that fighting a general European war in 1914 was advantageous(felt simultaneously by both sides), etc. etc. etc.
That's all before any shots are fired.

I mean...there's history buffs, regular people, and then there's certain Rogan fans (ie. knowing a broad amount about many things). Same as any single thing that has a big following. Most people are fine but sometimes things get tainted by extremist weirdos. Who gives a s***.

I guess if I like comic books, that must mean I have to love manga too. No thanks. Most Japanese stuff gives me the creeps. You can keep your schoolgirl skirts.

---

TC blows

Kensaimage posted...

TC blows

Or just his career

---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

War in general is a special combination of awful, stupid and boring in just about any context.

Boring as opposed to what? The history of crop rotation in human agriculture vs the native American method of packing a bunch of different crops together for mutual benefit? The politics of the Roman Senate or King Charles' court? That shit is boring to read about. If war is boring, than all of history is thrice so. Shit happens in war.
---

I'm gonna post this again, FUCKING READ IT PEOPLE:

On the topic of military history...from historian Peter Paret who himself is an incredible historian specializing in politics, warfare, and strategy succinctly described the problem with people who only focus on military history:

Is there another field of historical research (military history) whose practitioners are equally parochial, are as poorly informed on the work of their foreign colleagues...and show as little concern about the theoretical innovations and disputes that today are transforming the study and writing of history?"The events of a battle tell us nothing more than what happened, but never why. It serves to highlight an event but fails to place it in the contextual framework of the time. The decisions of one man on the battlefield tells us even less. It shines nothing on the society from whence the army came from, nor its enemy, and this is an important point. A military institution, its leaders, and its culture do not exist outside of the society it represents but is in fact informed and supported by it. To understand military actions, armies, soldiers, civilian contractors, writers, politicians and war we as historians must look past the drums and bugles of the national masculine rhetoric of organised state violence and great leaders, and instead focus on the societal constructs that made such actions successful. Conflict an integral part of social history is part of society and is, if we believe Clausewitz, an extension of a groups enforced cultural and political will over another. The generals, and the military institution they are a part of exercise that will and are influenced by it. Yet, they do not create it.
Thus, to understand the actions of armies and generals, we look to understand its military culture. This is where theories on the history of emotions, social militarisation, strategic culture, lieu de memoir, groupism, and ways of war (though these are somewhat infantile in their approach), as well as economic, cultural and social histories, enable us to explore the rationalisation and organisation of state killing.

---

Bottom line is military history is cool as shit. It's no different than finding dinosaurs more interesting than cows or whatever

Vita_Aeterna posted...

I'm gonna post this again, FUCKING READ IT PEOPLE:

On the topic of military history...from historian Peter Paret who himself is an incredible historian specializing in politics, warfare, and strategy succinctly describes the problem with people who only focus on military history:

tl;dr
---

DevsChum posted...

There's a subset of this, even, who only knows WW2.

whats wrong with knowing about WW2?

People so desperate to flex any kind of ego they can because they have nothing else, they'll think knowing a lot of history makes them superior. Let the kids enjoy their war stuff.

---

Vita_Aeterna posted...

I'm gonna post this again, FUCKING READ IT PEOPLE:

It seems like he's just talking about chest beating, boots on the ground stories, not war history in general. If I know a lot about WWII vs knowing a little about WWII, renassaince art, the founding of Ireland, and ancient Egyptian politics I have no less of an interest in history. Also pop history shouldn't be a dirty word.

specialkid8 posted...

Also pop history shouldn't be a dirty word.

Absolutely should be. Knowing little factoids should not be put on the same pedestal as understanding the ways and the reasons events played out as they did.

---

Only the one that only ever talk about European conflicts are boring. The other ones are fairly interesting.

---

im obsessed with religious history
am i bad

---

Piplup_Sniper posted...

Or just his career

Pretty sure TC is like 20-22 at most.

Certainly sounds like a college kid that took a few courses and now thinks he's better than everyone.

---

Vita_Aeterna posted...

Pop history:
-doesn't have footnotes/endnotes
-isn't published by a university press
-is not critical of his/her own sources because the point is to sell a narrative

It's worth noting that there are very good works of history that are written by academics and aren't published by a university press.
---

How do you even study military history without studying the whys and hows? Would be weird to somehow just study military history.

---

What a pretentious thread

PleaseClap posted...

It's worth noting that there are very good works of history that are written by academics and aren't published by a university press.

Agreed, but often than not a monograph is going to be published by a university press.

DocDelicious posted...

Pretty sure TC is like 20-22 at most.

Certainly sounds like a college kid that took a few courses and now thinks he's better than everyone.

It's my major, and I actually attend one of the best universities in the world. Some of the professors in the derpartment are world renowned historians, holding PhDs from Harvard and other Ivy Leagues.


---

Vita_Aeterna posted...

It's my major, and I actually attend one of the best universities in the world. Some of the professors in the derpartment are world renowned historians, holding PhDs from Harvard and other Ivy Leagues.

So I was right.

Go about your business people, nothing to see here.

---

Shablagoo posted...

How do you even study military history without studying the whys and hows? Would be weird to somehow just study military history.

A military historian would study tactics and strategy, things like that. It's a perfectly cromulent field.
---

Vita_Aeterna posted...

Agreed, but often than not a monograph is going to be published by a university press.

It's my major, and I actually attend one of the best universities in the world. Some of the professors in the derpartment are world renowned historians, holding PhDs from Harvard and other Ivy Leagues.

Lmfao

---

wittymillennial posted...

whats wrong with knowing about WW2?

Everything

People who know about WW2 are the worst

---

I don't mind military history nerds. My problem is when they start playing dumb. The types that can tell you the names, dates and types of artillery used in the Civil War, but they won't say that the "state's right" was slavery.

Some get fuzzy in areas that make them uncomfortable, which is why I encourage everybody to do their own research once they've heard enough names and info to look up. People will take advantage of every thing you DON'T know.

---

85 posts in 5 hours. People have definitely gotten triggered ITT.


---

I guess it's possible that 'militaristic history' is perhaps a little too common due to WW2, but honestly for myself, the period of time between 1860-1913 fascinates me to no end, mostly due to the building tension across most of Germany and Europe, and due to the musical scene at that time being really weird and full of extremely creative people.

---

FeltMarker22 posted...

I guess it's possible that 'militaristic history' is perhaps a little too common due to WW2, but honestly for myself, the period of time between 1860-1913 fascinates me to no end, mostly due to the building tension across most of Germany and Europe, and due to the musical scene at that time being really weird and full of extremely creative people.

It's not bad to be interested in it, but it's kind of like only knowing fun and exciting concepts of quantum physics but not even being able to do basic high school physics, and then calling yourself a "physics buff"


---

Vita_Aeterna posted...

It's not bad to be interested in it, but it's kind of like only knowing fun and exciting concepts of quantum physics but not even being able to do basic high school physics, and then calling yourself a "physics buff"

Idk, it's a tough one. Like I'd agree that clearly there's a line, but I'm not sure where it is. My girlfriend is not an astronomer, but she can explain the intricacies of telescopes to you, is a huge telescope and astronomy nerd, and absolutely knows more about the subject than 99% of other laymen. Is she an astronomy buff? I'd say absolutely.

---

The issue isn't one of specificity or scope, it's the savoring and glorification of structured violence and atrocity.

---

Vita_Aeterna posted...

It's not bad to be interested in it, but it's kind of like only knowing fun and exciting concepts of quantum physics but not even being able to do basic high school physics, and then calling yourself a "physics buff"

That's honestly a good point. I guess it's also true that when I say I'm interested in the musical scene during that time, I'm also coming from the perspective of an actual musician that's studied and created music for many years and understands how to orchestrate similar kinds of music.

It would be different if I only knew about the history of music but didn't have any clue on how to make anything myself, but it's possibly a slippery slope that could go either way since there are people out there who know way more musical history than I ever will but never made a melody to their name /shrug.

Edit: I realize this is mostly about specifically military history but I tried to use my experiences as a parallel to the discussion, rather than to go off on a tangent.

---

Economic history

Got me. Literally the only history class I've taken since AP World.

---

Malfunction posted...

lol the right wing dudes melting down itt

lol this, dudes with polandball and anime avatars getting mad because the picture describes them perfectly

"what's wrong with hating islam and liking WWII????"

regular islam is very shitty for destroying so much historical artifacts in the name of ending polytheism but i like sufism

---

Shablagoo posted...

How do you even study military history without studying the whys and hows? Would be weird to somehow just study military history.

You study the battles and tactics of the time. Like, I can give you a basic overview of how a Roman Legion fought, but can't tell you fuck all about why they went to war beyond "Fuck Carthage" and "MOAR LAND"
---

Ryuko_Chan posted...

regular islam is very shitty for destroying so much historical artifacts in the name of ending polytheism but i like sufism

You say that like it isn't true of literally every other random group of humans.

"Math buffs" who only know about accounting are the worst.

FeltMarker22 posted...

That's honestly a good point. I guess it's also true that when I say I'm interested in the musical scene during that time, I'm also coming from the perspective of an actual musician that's studied and created music for many years and understands how to orchestrate similar kinds of music.

It would be different if I only knew about the history of music but didn't have any clue on how to make anything myself, but it's possibly a slippery slope that could go either way since there are people out there who know way more musical history than I ever will but never made a melody to their name /shrug.

Edit: I realize this is mostly about specifically military history but I tried to use my experiences as a parallel to the discussion, rather than to go off on a tangent.

Doe is right one thing, that one of the problems with military history buffs is that they glorify warrior culture, and violence without critically thinking about it. For them it's "the Spartans were stronger than other Greeks because x, y, and z." That tells us nothing significant about the Spartans. How about why, and what led them to be that way? How did their economic and ideological environment foster a military ethos unfounded in other parts of Greece? What does that tell us about other city states? Why were they different? How does their utilization of violence serve as an instrument of state policy? You can go as deep and broad as you like, ultimately you will have a question that will be an impetus for your research.

Your interests are alright. I mean certainly an interest in musical history is rare, and I'd encourage you to keep reading. If you read a pop history book, fine, but hopefully you're curious enough to want to read further and get a more in-depth understanding of the subject, and hopefully formulate your own argument about these subjects. Historians spend a lot of time debating with each other. That's really what they mostly do.

I mean some people will never have the time to do this, which is okay--fine. But don't tell me you're a history buff.
rolls eyes.


---

Crazyman93 posted...

You study the battles and tactics of the time. Like, I can give you a basic overview of how a Roman Legion fought, but can't tell you fuck all about why they went to war beyond "Fuck Carthage" and "MOAR LAND"

My read is that something about being occupied by Brennus and his tribe broke something in their psyche. Like, even Roman sources admit the Romans wronged Brennus and his people and that they comported themselves with honor in their (temporary) occupation of Rome, but the Romans were just utterly terrified at the idea of it happening again. Perhaps because they were violent jerks and couldn't imagine other people weren't just as massive dicks as they were.

Most other histories are inherently tied to military history. History itself is the story of people and the ideas they represent rising and coming into conflict with one another. Sometimes these conflicts were violent, with the victor leveraging a major change relatively rapidly compared to the slow process of cultural drift.

What I find particularly interesting is economic history, the study of money and capital and how it has changed over the years. If culture sets the stage and military acts the play, it is economics that writes the script.

---

Vita_Aeterna posted...

Doe is right one thing, that one of the problems with military history buffs is that they glorify warrior culture, and violence without critically thinking about it. For them it's "the Spartans were stronger than other Greeks because x, y, and z." That tells us nothing significant about the Spartans. How about why, and what led them to be that way? How did their economic and ideological environment foster a military ethos unfounded in other parts of Greece? What does that tell us about other city states? Why were they different? How does their utilization of violence serve as an instrument of state policy? You can go as deep and broad as you like, ultimately you will have a question that will be an impetus for your research.

Your interests are alright. I mean certainly an interest in musical history is rare, and I'd encourage you to keep reading. If you read a pop history book, fine, but hopefully you're curious enough to want to read further and get a more in-depth understanding of the subject, and hopefully formulate your own argument about these subjects. Historians spend a lot of time debating with each other. That's really what they mostly do.

I mean some people will never have the time to do this, which is okay--fine. But don't tell me you're a history buff.
rolls eyes.

The first mistake is thinking the Spartans were a military or a warrior society at all. There's a lot of modern work by the likes of Stephen Hodkinson that have moved away from the idea that Sparta was this hardcore warrior society. Instead when looked upon a critical eye the Spartans really weren't any better than any of the other Greeks, it's all possible that they weren't all that much different than the rest of the Greeks either. They turned a disaster at thermopylae into a huge propaganda victory that still echoes to this day. I'd recommend giving this a read since it gives out a basic overview on modern scholarship's view of Sparta:

http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/32475/2/Hodkinson.%20Transforming%20Sparta%20Ancient%20History%20Resources%20for%20Teachers%2041-44%202011-2014.pdf

I know it's a bit off for a response but I'll take the opportunity to object over that statement.

---