Military history

youtube.com/watch?v=25HHVDOaGeE

>military history
>boring

Wtf. What kind of man dislikes military history?

>correctly typing board names means you are steadfast lurker and defender of that board
i don't even know what john green has to do with /pol/, i just know Veeky Forums shitposts about him all the time

No, but it's true that it attracts a lot of retards and simplists. Same for political history (although both are often difficult to distinguish). But its's because they're more popular and plebs gonna pleb. It's also the same reason that makes pseudo-contrarians like John Green speak against it. I'm actually surprized that Veeky Forums didn't adopt this posture as well but I guess this site has been counter-contrarian since it became fashionable to pretend to be a rebel.

funny, all i see is your shitposting

well congratulations on your eyesight

John Green can't efficiently swing his anti-Eurocentrism with military history

/pol/ hardly ever mentions him, except for mocking him due to that idiotic cheerios theory of his.

Couldn't he do that while talking about the rise of the Ottomans?

I guess what he's going against is dry campaign histories that consist of "x army arrived here on 20 June, y general ordered this attack on 20:15"
But there's plenty of military history, especially recently, that incorporate social and economic aspects on micro and macro levels, something he probably didn't know when he implied that military historians don't care about cause and effect.

this video pretty much encapsulates why i can't stand him
smug attitude with little knowledge to back up anything he says
i wouldn't mind crash course if they could just admit their material is more suitable for middle schoolers and anyone with a desire to actually learn anything should use other resources

There's two ways to make serious academic military history.

First one is the good ol' analyzing battles and wars in order to understand the strategies and tactics used and thus bring out patterns or point out technological and strategic advancements for future use. Basicaly history applied to political and military science.

Or you can approach military history from a humanities point of view, studying the military as an institution with very specific inner workings and traditions. While separated from civilians, armies are still part of society. Which raises a number of questions like "To what extent do the Roman legions mirror Roman society in social and hierarchical structure, traditions, romanization process/internalization of barbarian customs?"

Both approaches are fascinating to me.

Military history is the most interesting part of history, because military action is what makes, or breaks, entire civilizations

Prove me wrong cunts

That would make white supremacists win by portraying POCs as violent. He prefers to talk about how Venice and the Ottomans were best buddies because the sultan was like super progressive.

He kind of does talk about that, but it's obvious the dosen't really give a shit about it and would rather talk about governance and philosophy and literally anything but the military

How would that be interesting?

The interesting parts in military history are tactics, strategies, weapons, personalities and why the generals acted like they did.

No, the humanities part is more interesting.

It's why the Cold War is so fascinating, despite very few battles

In their defense, isn't crash course literally for middle schoolers? I thought that was what made people so butthurt, that this guy was shown at schools

Because some people also find it interesting how the war was financed and supplied, and how the general populace and mass of enlisted men behaved during it.

>that this guy was shown at schools
he's shown in high schools, teachers actually use his videos to "prepare" kids for the AP test (either the test has changed considerably or they aren't learning shit)
i know for a fact that my friends who are in the humanities have watched his videos in their undergrad courses

How so? Economic history is one of the most boring disciplines ever devised by man.

A teachers/historians job is to focus on and explain cause and effect, not get stuck talking about manouvers and tactics, hence why most courses avoid battles unless it has a segnificant impact.

Also military historians has a habit of gloryfying generals, armies and nations.
And teaching tactics outside west point is useless knowlage.

Dunno about you but observing the economic and social point of view is very interesting and important as well. These 2 can give you a very good representation on why the Russian Empire screwed up so hard during WW1. It was more than just "shit tactics", it explains why the tactics were shit, why they were undersupplied, how much they spent etc.

Wouldn't that be mostly economic history rather than military history?

>Cold war was about economics

Communism was a spook

>knowlage.

Just saying X won Y battle in Z year isn't teaching anyone anything about cause or effect either, there's plenty of things he could have gone over about how the results of those battles shaped internal and foreign policy but he chose not to

>Also military historians has a habit of gloryfying generals, armies and nations

There is nothing wrong with that and it is much more fun than studying about the corn laws in England.

Sorry, I got confused by the anglo/american/brit/whatever designations of education grades. Highschool is were teenagers go before university and middle school is for kids from 6-12 (or something similar) right?

Studying an economy at war is very different from studying one at peacetime.
It's a mix of both.

This is not very interesting for most people. How many threads on Veeky Forums deal with this?

He hates it because it is the most solid form of history. Dates times and numbers. He can't his pseudo intellectualism behind wispy "cause and effect"

I didn't say this. I said economic history is completely boring.

Only soyboys and women dislike military history

Yeah I see what you mean, shame because it gives you so much information on why things were for a specific army. I might have to make a thread since I rarely get the chance to contribute on things like Economic military and whatnot.

>the american civil war
Of course it's boring

It is called the dismal science, but it's pretty essential in order to understand how a war was sustained. Goods and materials don't magically pop out of nowhere during wartime.
Similarly, military logistics is also seen as dull (probably the "dismal science" of military history), but the big arrows and bold plans on a campaign map couldn't be realized without it.

has strawmaning gone too far?

I didn't say material conditions don't matter, user... I said studying economic history is a kind of torture.

>guy makes a joke
>WAAAAH, HE SAID THAT MILITARY HISTORIANS ARE A JOKE

All history is irrelevant
Cause and effect doesn't exist.

Well to you maybe, but those factors can be a draw for others.

>guy makes a joke
>its his entire channel

Honestly, I also dislike military history and find it mostly boring, except for the really exceptional strategies and ploys, like Caesar building those two walls around himself at Alesia. What really tickles my pickle is the political and diplomatic stuff that's happening during wartime.

t. smug internet historian with little knowledge to back up anything he says

The fact that john green is on the same intellectual level as the average Veeky Forums poster says everything that needs to be said about him.

If you unironically watch John Green's history videos, you should kill yourself.

Yes but not in the way he thinks. Military historians generally assign too much responsibility to commanders when there are sometimes more decisive factors at play.

He's not wrong at all. Military history is for LARPing queers

he's wrong about that and everything else

>Highschool is were teenagers go before university and middle school is for kids from 6-12 (or something similar) right?
basically, it varies a little depending on the school

Middle school is for kids 12 to 14 or 15, elementary school is 6 to 12. Some districts are different, or have elementary and middle school or middle school and high school in one building, or house more or less grades, but in general this is the structure.

History isn't a humanity, it's a social science.
I've never once watched a dick in cheerios video.

for:

>a dick in cheerios video.
a what?

Newfag

sorry i don't spend my free time obsessing over john green

>Tactics, strategies, weapons, and why generals acted like they did
So, all things that are explained primarily by the economic and social situation in which the war was fought?

You'd be a terrible military historian if you focused solely on the military itself.

>History isn't a humanity, it's a social science.

Yes it is and those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

They are mutually exclusive.

Not even slightly.

No, they aren't. Humanities just refers to the study of human society.

>this is what anthrocucks actually believe

I'm a history graduate.

No, it's literally the definition, you Mongoloid retard. History has been around before the scientific method even existed.

Then high school is 14-15 to 18? Pretty weird to me. Here it's 6 to 12, 12 to 16 and (optionally) 16-18 for those who want to prepare to do superior studies.
How is this fucking allowed? Or do you guys mean it depends on the country?

And?
>This is what anthrocucks actually believe.
It's grade 9 to 12, which is about 14-15 to 17-18. Some districts do grades 10-12 which is basically your system. Some do 8 to 12 because kids start getting really uppity in grade 8, and being around 'adult' students makes them a bit less stupid. An issue with this is statutory rape.

It's allowed because education is provincialized into municipalities. These municipalities must follow the provincial standards, and to a degree national standards, but generally have full structural control beyond basic core courses, which are standardized for the sake of university admissions.

some schools do kindergarten to fourth grade as elementary schools. some schools don't have kindergarten. some schools end elementary school at fifth, even sixth grade.
some schools start middle school at fifth or sixth grade. some schools end middle school at seventh, eighth, sometimes even ninth.
some schools do high school starting at ninth grade. some schools split high school into ninth and tenth and then they move to a different campus for eleventh and twelfth grade.
this all varies by how each state runs their public schooling system. so one state might have a standard public school system for the whole state, while other states let the individual school districts in each county decide how they want to run their schools.
the stuff you learn is still the same

What I did in the past? I was young and naïve and brainwashed by leddit and their schmaltz.

Take it as you will but his videos are pretty much perfect for the AP test. I have younger friends that took the test this year who spent who whole year more or less memorizing his videos. Think this speaks more about how shit the AP is than how good his videos are.

He's pretty much right. Military history that focuses on who won what and how awesome was someone's weapon is entertainment for military otaku.

Military history isnt just about battles

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longue_durée

According to certain historical schools such events don't matter and may as well be pop history.

I kinda understand where he's coming from, but if you don't know at least SOME basic military history, then how would you even be able to answer simple questions like "Why did Germany lose WW1"? Would you be forced to conclude that he lost only because he killed himself? I understand how questions focusing on minutia like "Which is better, Sherman or Tiger?" tend to get extremely tedious very quickly, but higher level questions, like "Why did the Schlieffen plan fail?" can be the basis for very interesting discussions.

>Gloryfying
>There is nothing wrong with that
Yes it is, it's why eastern European and Chinese history is filled with fucking super humans and age long grevenses.

>Is he right?
If his entire argument is "it does not matter and is for idiots" then obviously, no, he's not.

>man
well there's your first mistake

slack jawed faggots

>tfw in my university level history course in HS they showed this. And the teachers acted like it was the funniest and best material

>tfw they showed his brothers videos on Genetics to in Biology class too.

TBF, every actual published historian I had a class under thought that military history was the most pleb one to study too.

Whether or not he is, he's a cunt and you shouldn't pay attention to him.

John Keegan wouldn't think so.

>Also military historians has a habit of gloryfying generals, armies and nations.
Those who set out to do great things and succeed are worth glorifying.

>What kind of man dislikes military history?
>man
Well there's your problem, John Green is not a man.

Unless it's a guy you don't like, and you do everything in your power to make him/her yo look like an asshole.

military history/historians are looked down on because plebs and non-academics love to speak on it and read into it; a lot of people who like history like only the military crap and battles. that being said, every historian likes a good war and they are very interesting.

your prof was probably right and had to deal with idiots taking the class and wanting to learn about viking warriors and samurai or some crap. same shit happened with me in my medieval courses

I don't think it's irrelevant, or military historians are necessarily idiots, but it does attract idiots.

>Anecdote time

About a year ago, I was browsing Veeky Forums, and someone made a thread about the maneuvering leading up to the battle of Hastings. He pointed out that William did not seem to be in any particular hurry to seek out Harold's forces, and was instead apparently fortifying some place called Pevensey. I don't remember it all that great, but OP brought out a lot of sources and figures, and was asking why William, who didn't have the same kind of long term resources Harold did, wasn't trying to force a decision sooner, and then did when Harold had gotten to a great piece of defensive terrain.

Didn't get huge, only had about 20-30 responses, and all of them were /int/ tier ENGLAND STRONK, or FRENCH STRONK. I'm sure you run the risk with almost any field of history, but military history seems especially vulnerable to it.

Nothing is uninteresting for a historian. Some spend their time analysing the budget of a monastery in France, other will analyse in depth how a battle happened. Both are interesting.

No,he has no right ot Claim that.
Wars are what bring so much development and progress to humans,a Scenario,little marry loses her father and her brother as soldiers,but her Country has conquered Gold mines,they get paid off for that,her mother inherits a Piece of land and the fallen father and son are considered heroes.
Also,war makes Empires able to expand and kills their enemies,the weaker,which decides who will play a role further in history or not.

>Tactics and strategy are unimportant to me
John Green is not a Military historian,so he can't know that logistics actually are most important.

Ask yourself,what if Germany was recruiting more Ostsoldiers and accepted Jews into the army in WW2,what if they managed to invade Britain or actually create infrastructure in occupied Russia?
Military history is not just combat,but everything around it,from the breadbaker and te woman giving birth to a future soldier.

What if the Romans reformed their Military and genocided the Germans,after killing the inferior internal rivals with increased maneuverability and strength of their foot-soldiers and cavalry?
What if the Greeks managed to mass-produce chemical and biological weapons in acncient times?
What if Serbia in WW1 exploited all Austro-Hungarian flaws and caused a rebellion along all the People in their Empire?
What if the Ottomans won at Vienna 1529/1683 by using better assault tactics?
Bet Martin Luther would not have managed to establish Protestantism that fast.

WHAT IF ONE GUY MAKES HIS JOB RIGHT AND DOESN'T GET INTERCEPTED BY US TROOPS SO HE CAN BRING HIS MESSAGE TO ROBERT E. LEE,WHO WITH SUPERIOR TALENT WOULD HAVE ANNIHILATED THE YANKS AT PHILADELPHIA,BET YER DIPLOMA IN PHYSICS WOULD HELP PREVENTING THAT!

John Green is a spook.

Kill yourself. Nothing pisses me off more than the people who spout the importance of LOGISTICS in military history/strategy while clearly having no idea what it is. Alternate strategy and policy towards occupied peoples is not logistics. The complete lack of a Kriegsmarine's ability to project power against a rOyal Navy that vastly outclassed it contains logistical elements but is not a question of logistics. Romans deciding to genocide Germans post-Germanicus's campaigns is not a question of logistics, and neither is alternate history about weapons