New College of the Humanities

Military History Today

Jeremy Black calls for a more wide-ranging, inclusive approach to the history of warfare.

‘Drums and trumpets’ history, offering a narrative account of battles and campaigns, much of it written for a general readership, is flourishing. While much of this popular work – Andrew Gordon on Jutland, for example, or Rory Muir on Salamanca – is thoughtful and first-rate, all too often it has a narrow focus and is somewhat familiar. Thus, in the Reader’s Guide to Military History , one of the most commercially successful of recent works, Antony Beevor’s Stalingrad (1998), is described as offering ‘nothing in the way of new insights or analysis’.

Popular work also tends to concentrate on the famous campaigns of Western military history. To  range further afield, we are forced to turn to a less extensive literature that often looks at long-term trends rather than individual campaigns. Many historians writing in this mode, however, tend to deal in metanarratives, paradigms and mono-causal explanations, offering a whole explanatory culture of long-term military history, as in W.H. McNeill’s The Pursuit of Power (1983). Instead, I believe it is important to emphasise diversity and be cautious of explanations that adduce characteristics supposedly inherent in particular military cultures and systems.

To read this article in full you need to be either a print + archive subscriber, or else have purchased access to the online archive.

If you are already a subscriber, please ensure you are logged in. 

Buy Subscription | Buy Online Access | Log In

Get Miscellanies, our free weekly long read, in your inbox every week

The world's finest history magazine 3 for £5