Arteous Military history and historiography When Hans Delbrck (1848 1!"!

# during the last decades o$ the 1!th century%as it has rightly been said%al&ost single'handedly trans$or&ed the (riting o$ (ar)(ar$are history $ro& *story' telling to a science+, (hat he pri&arily did (as to introduce and -ery e$$ecti-ely use a &ethod (hich he labeled .achkritik ($actual criticis&# as a co&ple&ent to the established &ethod o$ source criticis&/ 0o(, (hat did Delbrck &ean by the concept o$ .achkritik1 Described -ery si&ply, it &eans that all historical *$acts+ (data#, e-en i$ they ha-e passed the &ost rigorous test o$ source criticis&, &ust %in order to be scienti$ically acceptable%be tested as (ell against *reality+, that is in relation to the 2uestions3 is it possible, and at the sa&e ti&e credible that a certain $act has actually occurred, or that it really could ha-e been such as it is rendered by the sources1 4he correcti-es a-ailable in this process are pro-ided by (1# the *la(s+ (condensed historical e5perience# o$ the theory o$ (ar (6riegstheorie)th7orie de la guerre#, by ("# historically unchanged topo'geographic conditions, and by (8# (hat (e kno( is physiologically or technically possible/ 9lause(it: (1;8< 1881# and Antoine'Henri =o&ini (1;;! 18>!# '''''''' Delbrck 4he historical (as distinct $ro& the theoretical# (ritings o$ 9lause(it: and =o&ini introduced a ne( &odel $or the (riting o$ (ar history3 that the causal and $unctional e5plaining o$ (hat occurred on the battle$ields and in the operational theatres should al(ays be guided as &uch as possible by the general kno(ledge accu&ulated in the theory o$ (ar/ 4he period 18!< 1!14 '''' golden age o$ (ar history and (ar$are "<th century ''''' has seen the publishing o$ hecato&bs o$ good narrati-e history'(riting on (ar and (ar$are a$ter *4he ?olden Age+ 4he *War$are, @cono&y, and 4echnology+ Aroble&ati2ue 4his particular co&ple5 o$ proble&s $or go-ern&ents and societies has, o$ course, a long historical e5istence, but it (as the e5perience o$ the Birst World War, the $irst *total+ (ar that &ade it a central and &uch culti-ated $ield o$ historical research/ 4he nearly total &obilisation and organising o$ the industrial, $inancial, and labour resources o$ the (ar'(aging states called $or post'(ar studies in order to be $ully &apped, co&prehended, and e-aluated/ 4he .econd World War enhanced the i&portance o$ this research $ield, (hich no( gradually started to $lourish (ith e5cellent scholarship, as e5e&pli$ied by Alan ./ Mil(ard+s War, @cono&y, and .ociety, 1!8! 1!4C (1!;;#D the studies by Brit: Eedlich (1!>4 1!>C# and =an ?lete (1!!8# o$ the *(ar$are, econo&y, and technology+ proble&ati2ue as it could present itsel$ in -arious pre'industrial conte5tsD and Willia& Mc0eill+s atte&pt at a historical synthesis o$ the proble&ati2ue (1!88#/

.tudies on 4he &ilitary syste& 4hings (Arte$acts# (eapons and other technical e2uip&ent, $orti$ications, barracks, -essels, -ehicles, aircra$t, and clothing/ 4he Fodies 4he *bodies+ (institutions or organisational units# o$ &ilitary li$e ha-e interested historians $ar &ore, probably because o$ Ways 4he *(ays+ (custo&s, rites, and beha-ioural patterns, and nor&s and -alues# o$ &ilitary li$e ha-e $or centuries $ascinated

interest o$ historians proper in this research $ield has ne-er been -ery great/ Gt has rather been culti-ated by &useu& sta$$s, by archaeologists and historians o$ art, architecture or technology, and by *a&ateurs+ ((ho &ight be highly co&petent in their speciality#/

their great i&portance in do&estic and international politics/4he research &ade in this $ield is, to be sure, o$ -ery une-en 2uality but it has produced &uch solid and detailed kno(ledge o$ so&e &ilitary bodies, like e/g/ the Eo&an Ar&y, 0apoleon+s ar&y, the Fritish Ar&y and 0a-y, and the ?er&an ?eneral .ta$$/

nu&erous people outside the ar&ed pro$ession/ 4hey ha-e also captured the i&agination o$ &any no-elists (Al$red de Higny, =oseph Eoth, =a&es =ones, =ohn Masters, .-en Delblanc, and others#/ Gt is, ho(e-er, only co&parati-ely recently that this prospecti-e $ield o$ research has been *disco-ered+ by the scholarly (orld/ And it is not historians ((ith so&e $e( e5ceptions# (ho ha-e taken the lead in e5ploring the ne( research $ield, but rather anthropologists, ethnologists, and sociologists/

The Military and Society Problematique 4his proble&ati2ue beca&e a &aIor obIect o$ research $or historians, sociologists, and political scientists a$ter the .econd World War, but it has intrigued historians long be$ore that, like, $or instance, those (riting o$ the late Eo&an republic, or the 9ro&(ell regi&e, or the 0apoleonic @&pire/ 4he (a-e o$ scholarly interest in the proble&ati2ue rising in the 1!C<+s and 1!><+s see&s to ha-e been inspired &ainly by the &ilitari:ation o$ Arussian, later ?er&an society $ro& the 1;th century on%a process (ith $ate$ul global conse2uences%and by the then current &ilitary take' o-ers in A$rica, Asia, and Jatin A&erica/ Arussia)?er&any and the states o$ the so'called 4hird World naturally beca&e the pri&e obIects (cases# o$ study, but the interest soon spilled o-er to other *cases+3 the K. o$ the 1!C<+s, the .o-iet Knion, and early &odern Den&ark, Brance, Eussia, and .(eden/

Bour di&ension o$ the concept social &ilitari:ation @cono&ic 4he econo&ic &ilitari:ation o$ society (the ar&ed $orces getting the lion+s share o$ the resources also in peaceti&e# has not been studied &uch, e5cept in .candina-ia (.-en A/ 0ilsson and his 0ordic *school+#D and here the inspiration did not co&e $ro& Arussian)?er&an Aolitic 4he study o$ &ilitari:ation in politics (&ilitary rule or per-asi-e &ilitary in$luence# has al(ays attracted scholars, and ne-er so &uch as during the last hal$'century/ Here, ho(e-er, a di-iding line is discernible bet(een the acade&ic disciplines engaged/ 4he .ocial Ji$e ) Mentality Eesearch on historical processes and structures o$ social and &ental &ilitari:ation (the e5altation o$ the pro$ession o$ ar&s and the &ilitary -alues in social li$e and in the &inds o$ people# is a co&parati-ely recent acti-ity/ 4he pioneer (as Al$red Hagts (ith his (ork A History o$ Militaris& in 1!8;/ 4he book e5erted little in$luence until the 1!C<+s (ne( ed/ 1!C!#, ho(e-erD and -aluable as it (as and is, it (as &ore Iournalistic than scholarly incharacter/ .tudies in depth by pro$essional historians or

history or 4hird World de-elop&ents, but $ro& the challenge o$ the &any unkno(ns in the do&estic history o$ i&perial .(eden and in the dyna&ic history o$ 1;th century Den&ark

sociologists and political scientists (.a&uel A/ Huntington, Morris =ano(it:, .a&uel @/ Biner, and others# ha-e concentrated al&ost e5clusi-ely on the conte&porary (orld, and there &ainly on the K. and the de-eloping states/ 4he historians, on their side, ha-e been &ore interested in @urope and, o$ course, older periodsD and one o$ the& (?ordon A/ 9raig# has produced the beaconing (ork on the &ilitary in politics3 4he Aolitics o$ the Arussian Ar&y (1!CC#/

sociologists (ere late in co&ing3 t(o on Arussia)?er&any by Ltto Fsch and 6arl De&eter, respecti-ely, appeared in the 1!><+sD one by Andr7 9or-isier on early &ode& @urope, particularly Brance, in 1!;>D and one on 18th century .(eden by ?unnar Art7us in 1!8"/ 4he i&portance o$ this research $ield has no( beco&e (idely recognised, ho(e-er, and is &ani$ested, e/g/ by so&e ne( Iournals and in the recently published series o$ books on War and .ociety, edited by ?eo$$rey Fest and authored by so&e o$ the &ost pro&inent Fritish historians/