A review of Jeremy Black's rethinking military history.

[ray245]

A review of rethinking military history

It is in Black's view that military history needs a certain level of rethinking, and he provides his audience with strong arguments as to why this is the case. His book covers the military development over the last 500 years all over the globe, as well as problems associated with the study of military history.

The first and perhaps the most important part of his book deals with the over western-centric nature of military history, and people’s tendency to over-generalise the military history of the eastern world.

He highlighted historians’ tendency to over-emphasis on western success during the colonial era and less focus on the military failures of the west during that period. For every victory won by the west against the non-west, there are several instances where the military of the western world failed to defeat the eastern world. Several examples brought forward by him include the Spanish’s failure to take the Algiers in the 18th century, and the British failure to take Egypt in 1807. He also made the point about the need to focus more on the military development in the non-western world, such as the Persian-Afghanistan wars, and the Ottoman-Safavids wars, as those wars are one of the most devastating wars of their time.

The strength in this part of the book does not lies with its ability to provide new information to the academics, but with its ability to provide the general audience with a clearer narrative regarding the wars and problems faced by the players from the 16th century to the 19th century in an effective manner without over-generalising it. However, there is little discussion on the impact those wars have in regards to the success of the western armies.

Another interesting point raised by him is regarding the issue of historians simplifying non-western military thought. He pointed out that there is a need for more in depth study of non-eastern military thoughts, as well as the importance of separating those Asian states. Just like how one cannot lump the western states into one, one cannot lump the military of South Asia and East Asia into one as well.

While the point about the need to focus more the non-western world is well elaborated, one could not help but to feel that the arguments failed to take into consideration the problems associated with conducting research on the non-western world. These problems can range from the language barriers to the limitation of sources.Additionally, there is little discussion on what the historical community in the non-western world is doing, and the problems faced by them. The sources used by Black can be disappointing from time to time, as most of the works he had cited is in English as opposed to a non-western language. If there is to be more research done on the non-western world and a need to understand the non-western world, perhaps it will be crucial to involve the non-western world.

Other points raised by him is also bound to generate a sizeable amount of controversy , such as his assertion that western warfare prior to the fifteen century has received too much attention, and its impact on world history is rather limited, if one is to judge their importance by the population of Europe. The same can be said about his statement regarding the Hellenistic and the Roman world making limited impact on the world.

The second parts of this book deals with the study of military technology and the study on military planning. While many of the concepts discussed in this chapter will not be new to those who are very familiar with modern military history, the book is able to introduce these concepts to the general audience, and demonstrate to them the limitation popular military history. Things like how the invention of trains had a greater historical impact on how wars was conducted than the invention of the machine gun for instance serves to demonstrate this point to the general audience effectively. However, this does not mean that no new insight is brought forward by the book, such as the discussion how a nation with democracy and a democratised society can differ from each other in regards to shaping the military thinking of the nation.
Although this chapter seems to fall into the trap of being Euro-centric once again, as the focus of this discussion deals with western world as opposed to the non-western world. How can the western world attempt to understand the eastern world if there is a lack of understanding on what are the factors that shaped the military thinking of the non-western world?

Its ability to generate interest of the general public, as well as being able to highlight the problems that exist within the study of military history to the general audience will definitely make it an enjoyable read to them. While Academics may not be surprised by the information provided by him, his argument as to how should historians construct their narrative will be able to drive more discussion on the subject.

In conclusion, the strength of this book is not due to its ability to answer questions, but for its ability to raise questions for others to answer and to generate the interest of the general public to find out more about the subject.

Criticism will be greatly appreciated. Especially if there is anything wrong with my Grammar.

[Falkenhayn]

On the face of it, Black is re-hashing his arguments from the Military Revolution debate (and the man publishes frenetically), specifically his support and critiques of Geoffrey Parker and Robert Frost. Generalizations of his case are fine, but have you located his exact thesis?

[ray245]

On the face of it, Black is re-hashing his arguments from the Military Revolution debate (and the man publishes frenetically), specifically his support and critiques of Geoffrey Parker and Robert Frost. Generalizations of his case are fine, but have you located his exact thesis?

Meaning?

[Falkenhayn]

On the face of it, Black is re-hashing his arguments from the Military Revolution debate (and the man publishes frenetically), specifically his support and critiques of Geoffrey Parker and Robert Frost. Generalizations of his case are fine, but have you located his exact thesis?

Meaning?

It enhances your book review to quote Black's thesis and insulates you from the charge of mischaracterizing Black's arguments, and he made a similar case prior to writing this book in a major historical/historiographical debate, which you don't mention.

[ray245]

On the face of it, Black is re-hashing his arguments from the Military Revolution debate (and the man publishes frenetically), specifically his support and critiques of Geoffrey Parker and Robert Frost. Generalizations of his case are fine, but have you located his exact thesis?

Meaning?

It enhances your book review to quote Black's thesis and insulates you from the charge of mischaracterizing Black's arguments, and he made a similar case prior to writing this book in a major historical/historiographical debate, which you don't mention.

Ah I see. I'll get to it ASAP.

[ray245]

I am wondering if anyone will be willing to offer some criticism on my language and grammar. I'm not sure if it is good enough as this is the first real review that I wrote.

[Master_Baerne]

You ought to capitalize the book title in the first line, but that's all that jumped out at me by way of grammar problems.

[phred]

as most of the works he had cited is in English as opposed to a non-western language.
Other points raised by him is also bound to generate a sizable amount of controversy.

Those two 'is' should be 'are'. Other than that, I don't see any major problems.

Then again, I repeatedly failed english in school, so maybe I'm not the best person to judge such things