Talk:Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

"Military history is composed of the events in the history of humanity that fall within the category of conflict."

I would encourage a discussion about this definition. The purpose of a military is not only to participate in "conflict" but to deter war simply through it's presence. While most of the attention is payed to battles fought, perhaps it is time to recognize the possibly catastrophic conflicts avoided though shows of strength. PrometheusAvV (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this page is in need of some cleanup; the capitalization, sentence structure, and style (particularly in the section on warfare in the Ancient World) is pretty bad.--69.247.109.215 14:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)fourmajorman

Cruise Missiles invented by the USA in 1982? The linked article clarifies this, though.

Conscription has been one of the fundamentals of many political organisation (think of the Athenian 'Pyle', the Roman farmer-soldier, the Saxon 'Fyrd', etc. Josh will probably know some better examples) Please correct me, but conscription is more ancient than the professional soldiery, which, if I remember correctly, was introduced in Rome by Marius in the second (or first?) century B.C. -- Mathijs

maybe not so much conscription as the EXPECTATION of universal service for those eligible. That seems to be true of hoplite warfare. The Romans practiced conscription in the Punic wars, though I don't know if we know how they handled it. --MichaelTinkler

Feb 26 2002: wondering if the list of generals should be elsewhere, or at least classified by conflicts. --Christopher mahan

I can see a problem with classifying by conflict -- lots of duplicate links...Just think of Kitchener, Gordon, Patton, Custer.... JHK
Hum, I've been seeing plural entries beginning to pop up here and there that are just lists of links. I'm not sure if I really like the practice, but I do see the utility of such a scheme. Would an article named Famous generals be out of line? --maveric149

Feb 27 2002: I think that if there is an article for famous generals (or Famous military commanders) there needs to be a minimal summary for each, such as conflicts involved in and life defining events. --Christopher Mahan

Sounds good to me. --maveric149

Some "purposes" for military history are given in this article. Would the "discouragement of war" be considered another reason to study military history? That's the key reason I like reading military history. Or is military history a bit too jingoistic to properly support pacifism? EmRick

It could be a reason, but are there more besides yourself? There could be all kinds of reasons to study it, but we only want to list the ones with significant numbers of people. H.G. Wells perhaps? Stan 07:31, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] "Roman Cavalry"

[quote] In 54 BCE the Roman triumvir Marcus Licinius Crassus took the offensive against the Parthian Empire in the east. In a decisive battle at Carrhae Romans were defeated and the golden Aquila (legionary battle standards) was taken as trophy to Ctesiphon. The result was one of the worst defeats suffered by the Roman Republic in its entire history. Romans after this defeat learnt the importance of cavalry from Iranians and introduced it into their army, just as nearly a thousand year earlier the first Iranian to reached the Iranian Plateau introduced the Assyrians to a similar reform.[1] [/quote]

Of course roman armies had cavalry before Carrhae! While a typical legion`s cavalry consisted of just about 300 men, most of the successful roman generals used larger contigents of mercenary cavalry. In fact, Crassus used some parts of Caesar`s ubian cavalry at Carrhae. Truth is, romans relied mostly on heavy infantry, but one must not say the roman learned to use horsemen from the parthians.82.83.186.134 20:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


Yep. The Roman cavalry wasn't up to standards as other militaries until the 2nd and 3rd century during Trajan's conquest of Dacia. Intranetusa (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


It can't be right to have fictional battles in this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Coruscant

Are there any references that there were no "no social roles or divisions of labor (with the exception of age or sex differences)"? That seems like an awfully strong claim.


[edit] "Probably"????

In that same paragraph, there is the line "Probably, during periods of famine, hunters started to massively attack...". That is the worst Wikipedia statement I have ever heard. With total disregard to sociology and the like, the author of this paragraph makes useless the research of theories of, for example, people acquiring resources and using them to gain power over others, in effect becoming the first leaders. Wikipedia articles are not based on "probably"! If they were, any person's opinion or argument, no matter how uninformed, uneducated, or simply inadequately pondered upon, would be made equal with a well thought out idea. This is unacceptable. I hope that "probably guy" is reading this...

ps. Since I believe in the example listed, it is very frustrating to see such "misinformation" being spread via Wikipedia, intentionally or not... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.14.35 (talk) 07:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

pps. I have changed the paragraph to my own "probably". The original author may argue for their sources, if they exist, but since they have not been listed, I believe that I am justified in stating the "probably" that I have been taught in Socio 101, since I also have a source (which I will also not list).

[edit] Some developments of this period

Is this really necessary here given it is not used in other periods?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reordering suggestion

May I suggest that the Encyclopedia of Military History periodisation by R. Ernest Dupuy and Trevor N.Dupuy are used? I know its an old work, but it seems to me to provide a far better treatment in military history development then the current five periods.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Industrial warfare

There is no such thing as "Industrial warfare" in military history. Industrial warfare is the conflict between or within industrial sectors as part of economic, trade or commercial competition.

What the period really is attempting to say is that as the production became industrialised, that is massed, it became possible to equip large number of conscripted population, producing large armies. The quality of the firearms and artillery became superior to those made by artisan craft workshops (or even large workshops that became known as factories) requiring less soldier training to achieve proficiency, making truly national wars possible for the first time in history. Although the Industrial Revolution did begin in the late 18th century, the military forces of even the Crimean War were relatively similar to those of the 18th century in terms of equipment, tactics, an strategy used. Even the American Civil War Armies at their onset were still organised, led and used in ways reminiscent of the wars fought a century before. Only warfare in Europe around the time the Franco-Prussian War of 1871 can really be called a product of the Industrial Revolution since the earlier American Civil War was conducted in a state which was not yet a major industrial producer (in fact a major industrial net importer).

Conscription was not a result of the development of industries, but as a direct political necessity of the French Revolution that left France with inadequate forces to defend itself. Similarly the response to threats of the invasion of England resulted in close to 300,000 volunteers, something that had nothing to do with either industry, or politics, or the military which had insufficient firearms for this unexpected public enthusiasm for military service.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, after some searching I did find two modern military historians, one quite well known, who use the term, however only in the context of the Industrial revolution, and dating it to late 19th and early 20th centuries, and not the start of the Industrial revolution as it took the militaries a century to catch up with the benefits of the innovations in production methods.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Added more info

Added more info in China section regarding the Han Dynasty and conflict and expansion into Vietnam, Korea, and steppe civilizations of Central Asia, and the downfall of the Sui Dynasty. Added more info in the Roman section regarding numerous Roman civil wars, such as Marius, Sulla, Caesar, and Caesar's successors. Intranetusa (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)