That is one seriously ambitious topic for one semester. Any course called "History of War" could as easily be called just "History". And the whole world will be anxious to learn what you decide is the answer to that question....
That is one seriously ambitious topic for one semester. Any course called "History of War" could as easily be called just "History".
And the whole world will be anxious to learn what you decide is the answer to that question....
Students have to write four papers during the semester.
1. What advantages and disadvantages accrue to a society once they employ a professional army?
2. Did gunpowder revolutionize warfare or was it merely an evolutionary change that required the development of new tactics?
3. Was the American Civil War the last Napoleonic War or the first modern war? (It was, of course, both but I don't let them take that way out. Pick a side and argue your point using evidence and logic).
4. Is the Western style of war with its emphasis on large, well funded militaries a relic of the past or will it dominate the geo-political landscape for the foreseeable future?
In the future, I'm thinking of substituting the Civil War question with the following:
How did Western militaries conquer and occupy roughly 85% of the world's land mass by the end of the 19th century? (I hope that at least the better students will figure out that there are political and economic forces behind this domination rather than simply better armies and navies).
Short term goal: 17:59 5K
Mid term goal: 2:54:59 marathon
Long term goal: To say I've been a runner half my life. (I started running at age 45).
Labrat
Maybe a better one would be:
"Why did the US fail to realize the advantages of asymmetric warfare, when it was found as a nation from the very same ?"
Probably too in depth for most non-post grad students covers social, military and political matters in a very broad way. Asymmetric warfare is nothing new, people should be taught that, and also some of the counters to it.
5K 20:23 (Vdot 48.7) 9/9/17
10K 44:06 (Vdot 46.3) 3/11/17
HM 1:33:48 (Vdot 48.6) 11/11/17
FM 4:13:43 (Vdot 35.4) 3/4/18
Not running today but remembering.
Damaris
As part of the 2024 London Marathon, I am fundraising for VICTA, a charity that helps blind and visually impaired children. My mentor while in law school, Jim K (a blind attorney), has been a huge inspiration and an example of courage and perseverance. Please consider donating.
Fundraising Page
Maybe a better one would be: "Why did the US fail to realize the advantages of asymmetric warfare, when it was found as a nation from the very same ?" Probably too in depth for most non-post grad students covers social, military and political matters in a very broad way. Asymmetric warfare is nothing new, people should be taught that, and also some of the counters to it.
The idea that the Colonial Army was a rag tag band of guerrillas is a popular myth that has very little to do with reality. Beyond that, I try to get the students to think outside the narrow mindset of the United States and think globally.
I'll try van's idea to run 9.11 miles today.
-- Ice, I could ice for hours
I'm teaching a class this semester called: "From Alexander to Osama: A History of War." We trace the history of Western warfare from the incipient development of the infantry among the Ancient Greeks through the War on Terror. We finish the class by asking whether the Western style of warfare with its reliance on well financed, professional militaries will continue to dominate the geo-political landscape for the foreseeable future or whether it has become an anachronism against a foe that is asynchronous and non-hierarchical. Tomorrow is one of our regularly scheduled meetings.
Ever read "Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power" by Victor Davis Hanson? I really enjoyed this book and it offers an interesting perspective regarding the cultural differences of East vs. West and the impact/effectiveness as to how we wage war.
I have not read that but thanks for the recommendation.
LTH:
very interesting stuff you got going there. i've recently started reading a lot more about the civil war, and it's endlessly fascinating. of course, i'm removed from the awful reality of what happened. that's great that your students are asked (made) to think abou this stuff. so much passes with nary a thought nowadays.
marathon pr - 3:16
You Rang?
Funny, I was thinking that "Why did Western militaries conquer and occupy 85% of the world's land mass by the end of the 19th century?" would make a better question than how they did it. Is it fair to characterize students as "better" for answering a question that you did not ask?
Rick
PR: 5k 25:01 (10/15) 10k: 57:44 (7/14) HM: 1:57 (5/15) FM: 4:55 (1/15)
I have a theory for that. My theory is that they occupied it for the same reasons that Athens and Sparta established empires - they had to support professional militaries. The immediate objection to that theory is that countries today don't have empires yet they have professional militaries. The difference is that professional militaries today are supported by capitalist economies and capitalism didn't exist either in Ancient Greece or during the time of the establishment of colonies. Indeed, capitalism didn't become the dominant economic system in the West until maybe the mid-1800's. Here's why that matters.
From whence is wealth generated? In a merchantilist economy the only way new wealth is generated is to take it from someone else. In a capitalist system, wealth is created just because we say it is created. There is nothing backing the dollar or any other currency other than our mutual understanding that a piece of paper has value. In a society in which wealth can be generated by the simply expedient of printing new pieces of paper, the wealth of the society can expand to support a professional military. Hence, colonialism is no longer needed to support those militaries but it was needed until capitalism overtook mercahntilism as the dominant economic theory in the West.