1
Matthew Geczy
Citino, Robert M. "Military Histories Old and New: A Reintroduction."American Historical Review 112, no. 4 (October 2007): 1070-1090.
Military history, as an educated study of the nature of war in the past, has a complicated relationship with the rest of historians. It thrives in the popular consciousness as stories of bravery and tragedy thrill audiences as much as they ever have. In academia, however, some historians are skeptical, if not dismissive of the study of military history. In order to address this attitude, Dr. Robert M. Citino wrote "Military Histories Old and New: A Reintroduction" in 2007.His essay, published in the American Historical Review, outlinesthe merits and styles of current military historians. This is done in order to argue how military history has evolved in merit and complexity, particularly in the decades before 2007,through concise arguments for recent outstanding monographs in the field. Of the scholars who wrote these, there are the old military historians, described as "a grumbling, traditionalist old guard"(2). Following these are the new military historians, more descriptively titled “war and society scholars” (1). These represent the new guard. Beyond this new guard is a group of even more experimentalhistorians applying even newer techniques to their subjects. It is these latter two groups that the essay focuses on.
The new military historiansbegan their movement by studying how war affected society as a whole. Looking at their works and understanding them in a greater academic context presents an important point. Citino argues that these deeper analyses of the effect, nature, and meaning of wars have become an “integral, even dominant part of the parent field” (2).He explores these in a rundown of some of the most popular fields of military history, and how their historiography has evolved in recent years. Some are notable for their integration of society and war, such as Crucible of War(2000), by Fred Anderson. Others are praised for their study of how wars help to upset social orders, as in After the Glory, written by Donald R. Schaffer in 2004. These are important examples of how military history has evolved beyond its roots as a narrow study of battles and generals. History is reliant on context, and to ignore the context is to ignore at least half of a historical event. Therefore, Citino argues for the historians who look not just at the matter of the battles and fighting, but the greater impact and causes of the conflicts.
Citino also looks at the experimental military historians who push even further beyond the present conventions of military history. This group is indicative of the very cutting edge of the military historians and show that the discipline is still evolving. Citino lists these as “the most important development in historical research” in years prior to 2007 (13). The examples he discusses in this section use techniques beyond the traditional research most historians use, such as studying how events are memorialized or how culture and history interact. The conflicts observed in this section, whether remembered or forgotten, occupy a special place in the historical memory. Additionally, studying the cultural impact of conflicts throughout history can give a previously unobserved perspective on how various groups reached their modern position. The examples which Citino reviews, good or ill, attempt to study this, and represent the complex state of a discipline that is always evolving.
Citino’s essay provides an evaluation on the current state of military history and attempts to dispel some misconceptions about the discipline. The essay shows that military history is not merely about battles and generals, but that it has evolved like other areas of study to look at the broader themes and impacts of what is studied.Ultimately, the most important statement from Citino is the challenge to critics of military history to read the material for themselves.
Bibliography
Citino, Robert M. "Military Histories Old and New: A Reintroduction."American Historical Review 112, no. 4 (October 2007): 1070-1090.
I hereby declare upon my word of honor that I have neither given nor received any unauthorized help on this work. As directed, I received consultation from the writing center on campus.
Matthew Geczy