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

(+) Yeah! (+)

relevant: https://i.imgur.com/zqvXDDU.jpg

---

What a weirdly specific thing to hate

---

Hardcore History is great, don't knock it

TheDreadedWave posted...

What a weirdly specific thing to hate

I can actually imagine this type of person pretty easily lol

---

Military history is by far the most interesting

Military history is, like, the least interesting part of history outside of art history.

---

Garioshi posted...

Military history is, like, the least interesting part of history outside of art history.

the fuck are you smoking lol

nothing wrong with a low key disdain of Islam

Garioshi posted...

art history least interesting

smh

---

Also lol at "gender history" being on there

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

---

I've seen a very similar but slightly better version of that post that called out wehraboos as well.

---

Man and his conquests are fun to read about. War is in men's blood. /edgy

---

DevsChum posted...

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

Its always either WW2 or Roman history
---

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.

---

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

---

It's not really uncommon to focus on one particular part of an overall field that interests you.

---

Doe posted...

nothing wrong with a low key disdain of Islam

---

That pic reeks of gatekeeping as well

the deus vult guys are the worst

---

Conflict is the driving force for most of history. LOL at gatekeeping it as "not real history".

Imagine saying you like history but not being an expert on the religious and social movements during the time period from the Dark Ages to the Renaissance. I mean seriously just fucking imagine.

Fuck the Holy Roman Empire, its all about the dumb shit everyday people were doing after it collapsed.

To be clear, Im 100% sincere in this. Anthropological history is far more insightful and important in my opinion.

---

Also, what is a "real" history book lol

So much wrong with that image.

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.

coh posted...

Also, what is a "real" history book lol

So much wrong with that image.

pop history vs. more academic history
---

This is an odd discourse. So imma just park myself and read

There should probably be more focus on anthropology, to be honest. The study of history tells us a lot about how political leaders and warmongers fucked shit up, but there's far too little focus on how people actually lived. Which, obviously, has far more relevance and even usefulness to most people, because they're not politicians and shouldn't strive to be.

---

PleaseClap posted...

pop history vs. more academic history

What makes him and others "pop" history? What is pop history?

This seems reminiscent to people hate guys like Niel Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye. It sounds like gatekeeping stuff. It's like when metal dorks hate on people for liking Metallica or other more popular bands for being "basic" or "entry level".

---

these are the sort of people who complain about historical inaccuracy in games when a woman is given a prominent role LOL

lol the right wing dudes melting down itt

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.


---

I don't particularly mind people who only care about military history, but it is a sure-fire way to lose sight of other, equally more important parts of the human experience. I would certainly receive their opinions or analysis on any given topic with much more caution.

---

"i am slightly agitated at the existence of people that do this thing"

---

Vita_Aeterna posted...

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.

Fair enough.

And for anybody who cares, I'm not asking these questions in a smart allec way. I'm legit interested. I just like DM's that I've read and it didn't seem light or cheap on the history.

Malfunction posted...

lol the right wing dudes melting down itt

I hope that's not directed at me, because I'm probably one of the more left leaning people here.

---

i meant coh mostly but no, your post wasn't particularly meltdown-y in any case i would say

Malfunction posted...

lol the right wing dudes melting down itt

You have an odd definition of melting down

---

What do you call the people who mostly only care about the parts where something really big explodes?

---

Malfunction posted...

i meant coh mostly but no, your post wasn't particularly meltdown-y in any case i would say

Gotcha.

---

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

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:

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.

---

Also likely to buy into the "Clean Wehrmacht" myth.

Southernfatman posted...

What makes him and others "pop" history? What is pop history?

This seems reminiscent to people hate guys like Niel Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye. It sounds like gatekeeping stuff. It's like when metal dorks hate on people for liking Metallica or other more popular bands for being "basic" or "entry level".

You can kinda look at it in through that lens, Im just going to copy what Wikipedia says.

Popular history is a broad and somewhat ill-defined genre of historiography that takes a popular approach, aims at a wide readership, and usually emphasizes narrative, personality and vivid detail over scholarly analysis.

Pop history is probably going to be written by people who arent historians or academics. They might not use the best sources or critically evaluate their sources, and they might not be informed about the historiography of the field that theyre writing about. its important to realize that some authors are more concerned with telling an engaging story as opposed to providing an in-depth analysis of the topic at hand.

Pop history can be fun though, it doesnt have to be a terrible, awful thing that nobody should ever read
---

Southernfatman posted...

What makes him and others "pop" history? What is pop history?

My understanding is that pop history generally (and simply) explores the "whahappun?" without delving too deep into the "whyhappun?" which then results in a lack of context and a substantial lack of academic value. What a lot of people generally don't understand about history as an academic subject is that the historian's purported "why" is more valuable than the regurgitation of facts, yet most people think of history (as a subject) to be about the regurgitation of facts.

---

Weird history is better

---

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Also likely to buy into the "Clean Wehrmacht" myth.

When they laud Manstein's Lost Victories as one of their favorite books, you know you've run into a problem.
---

i'm not sure i understand the issue with "linear process"

the thing that happens in 55 AD happened before the stuff that happens in 60 AD. that's a linear process.
it can't go the other way around.

please explain

---

There's nothing inherently wrong with pop history or pop science or anything, but if that's the extent of your history/science knowledge, you're missing out on a lot.

---

What a whiny ass op.

---

WW1 and WW2 shaped the world as we know it today

what other history is there honestly

the problem here is that you're expecting academic level research from casual enthusiasts.
it's fine to expect that from professional historians, but random Joe Schmo who just likes a bit of narrative now and then can't be held to that.

i'm just a history enthusiast, and i basically just like reading/hearing a good story, i don't know if that's even possible with Art and Linguistic history in the way that rise and fall of nations and conflicts can.

---

I only care about the history of parades in Albania in July. Everything else is too mainstream.

ROBANN_88 posted...

i'm just a history enthusiast, and i basically just like reading/hearing a good story, i don't know if that's even possible with Art and Linguistic history in the way that rise and fall of nations and conflicts can.

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

---

I mean, the winners write history, so why not start at the beginning

---