Post by warblog on Sept 18, 2017 22:06:34 GMT
Interesting article in the Atlantic about military historians.
Modern Wars Are a Nightmare for the Army's Official Historians
link
Interesting that the US Army has military historians, let alone 20 in Siagon alone during the Vietnam war.
I always see warblog as have a large element of military history to it which becomes more apparent when dealing with the obscure wars.
I always knew the Vietnam was was over documented, especially when compared to the Soviets time in Afghanisatn.
For example, the huge Vietnam Order Of Battle book, that alone is an incredible piece with nothing to compare it to outside of the WW1 and WW2 histories.
Also, from other experience, history alone runs the risk of being lost through too much information. Like photos. Do people print all their photos, or do they over time get lost on obsolete storage devices. Who exactly is preserving all the online news stories when no one buys newspapers. The BBC seem to have their archive section managed but a lot of newspapers dont. They simply dont do it. If a news paper goes bust, thats it. It would be good fortune if their databases are saved.
I have often desribed history as the gold rush of tomorrow. Anyone with an inclination can be a historian, you just need some forsite. The news is all right there, just follow it, and record history in the making.
I have also always said that history and archives are the realm of only the most civilised countries. Having historians is a luxury only afforded by countries not beset by failure and war. It might be a bit mean to say, but many countries that are beset with disasters will lack archives for historical purposes.
The fact that the US Army has military historians is an eye opener for me. At the end of the day, its all history.
Modern Wars Are a Nightmare for the Army's Official Historians
link
Interesting that the US Army has military historians, let alone 20 in Siagon alone during the Vietnam war.
I always see warblog as have a large element of military history to it which becomes more apparent when dealing with the obscure wars.
I always knew the Vietnam was was over documented, especially when compared to the Soviets time in Afghanisatn.
For example, the huge Vietnam Order Of Battle book, that alone is an incredible piece with nothing to compare it to outside of the WW1 and WW2 histories.
Also, from other experience, history alone runs the risk of being lost through too much information. Like photos. Do people print all their photos, or do they over time get lost on obsolete storage devices. Who exactly is preserving all the online news stories when no one buys newspapers. The BBC seem to have their archive section managed but a lot of newspapers dont. They simply dont do it. If a news paper goes bust, thats it. It would be good fortune if their databases are saved.
I have often desribed history as the gold rush of tomorrow. Anyone with an inclination can be a historian, you just need some forsite. The news is all right there, just follow it, and record history in the making.
I have also always said that history and archives are the realm of only the most civilised countries. Having historians is a luxury only afforded by countries not beset by failure and war. It might be a bit mean to say, but many countries that are beset with disasters will lack archives for historical purposes.
The fact that the US Army has military historians is an eye opener for me. At the end of the day, its all history.