For History 290:
Friday, May 13, 10:10-12:10 in the same classroom.
For History 493:
Monay, May 9, 1:00-3:00 pm in the same classroom.
You need to be on-campus to access this link. If you can't be on campus, email me.
[A comment in response to the question posed by Professor Mark Grimsley of Ohio State University]
I suspect that that's part of the question that Dr. Grimsley is getting at: is there a common body of knowledge that all those who study military history should share, regardless of specialization or interest?
I noted the dichotomy in Dr. Grimsley's question between texts and wars/conflicts. It seems to me that there are really two questions here. Are there certain works that every military historian should read and be familiar with (Clausewitz seems the example of choice), and is there a certain body of knowledge that every military historian should have? (i.e. know about the World Wars).
This is all in service of the larger question of what is a military historian? H-War's diverse subscriber group certainly illustrates the wide range of places that those interested in military history can be located--from academia, to the services, to the private sector. Even within those are more subtle gradations: academic military historians at institutions of higher education or, as our own Book Review Editor Janet Valentine is, at the Army Center for Military History. Given that, is there more or less need for some sort of defined unifying body of texts/knowledge?
My answer to that would be yes, to one aspect, and maybe to another. I do think that military historians should share a common historiographical background of certain works. Such works would serve as a foundation for analysis and discussion. Without such a common background, such historical discussions seem to become much more difficult than they would otherwise. A historian who has not read Clausewitz or Sun Tzu or Keegan is going to have a hard time participating in the larger historical discussion. I'm not sure how one would come up with a definitive list of these, or what merits inclusion, but I note that even deeply flawed works are likely part of it. John Keegan's _Face of Battle_ is (as one medievalist has already pointed out) problematic in many ways. But I still think that it is required reading for anyone who wants to engage military history fully. My other idea is that such a canon should be enormously broad, contain lots of books, and within the limits allowed by 24 hour days, families, eating, and the need for occasional sleep, be as inclusive as possible.
I'm not sure that there is a common body of _knowledge_ that a military historian should be required to have. Should a historian of ancient Chinese military history be required to know about World War II? Should a historian of World War II be required to know about ancient Chinese military history? My instinctive reaction is no, but perhaps someone would care to make an argument in favor?
Of course, one attempt at this can be found off H-War's home page: Duke University's reading list to prepare grad students for the preliminary exam in military history: http://www.h-net.org/~war/Hot100/
Countries are:
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Rumania
Bulgaria
Albania
Turkey
Greece
Montenegro
Serbia
Croatia
Doctrines and Groups:
Amphibious Landing
Nicole Stitzer
Chad Grimley
Candace Leeck
Mike Esterly
Chris Hale
Warren Blayney
Blitzkrieg
Jessica Clevenstine
Ryan Karch
Scott Messner
Joey Stock
William Stevens
Mike Houshour
Strategic Bombing
Sean Dugan
Kerrie Nye
Micheal Yurcic
Jeff Kiesel
Josh Tavenner
Chad Webb
Deep Penetration
Megan Mills
Randy Sassaman
Tim Brandle
Doug McConnell
Guerilla Warfare
Grant Speicher
Greg Amoroso
Linh Tran
Joshua Merritt
Air Land Battle
Elizabeth Velcheck
Anthony Kipe
Amy Hinkle
Danielle Stahl
History 121.01 (9 AM)
James I, A Speech to Parliament:
James I, the King of England, took over after the death of Queen Elizabeth of England in 1603. James I had been King of Scotland before 1603 and was the heir to the English throne because he was the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, Elizabeth's cousin. James had been a good King of Scotland. He was not to prove a good King of England. He had ruled Scotland absolutely, without outside council. In England, where both Henry VIII and Elizabeth had set the precedent of allowing Parliament to influence the running of the country, this absolutism went over badly. [Silbey Lecture, 3/21/05]
It took some time for James and Parliament to get to know each other. The plot by Guy Fawkes and a ring of English Catholics to kill James temporarily made him popular. But James' ruling style was simply too aggressive, and, in addition, his flamboyant homosexuality and the increasing political influence of his boyfriends bothered the English court.
In 1610, the situation broke out into the open when James gave an assertive speech to Parliament. He said flatly that as King he was "truly parens patriae (parent of the country)" and "even by God himself [I am] called god[s]." Nobody, especially Parliament, was allowed to tell him what to do or question what he did. That was "blasphemy." James made it clear to Parliament that it should not "meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft."
In my opinion, Parliament would have reacted badly to James' speech. The words of the speech were aggressive, Parliament was not a calm place at the best of times, and they were used to a more interactive monarch.
History 121.02 (10 AM):
James I, Speech to Parliament (1610):
When Queen Elizabeth of England died in 1603, James VI of Scotland became James I of England, because he was the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, Elizabeth's cousin, and thus heir to the English throne. James had ruled Scotland as an absolute monarch, without input or influence from anyone else. In England, monarchs such as Henry VIII and Elizabeth had traditionally taken input from Parliament. When James attempted to rule as an absolute monarch in England, Parliament objected.
James had a brief period of popularity at the start of his reign. When Guy Fawkes and his Catholic band of brothers attempted to blow up the House of Parliament in 1605, James enjoyed a moment of acceptance. In addition, James' son Henry played a major role in soothing the feathers ruffled by James' aggressiveness. However the good times were not destined to last, because James continued to believe in his own absolute power and his continued insistence on throwing wild parties for his French boyfriend Philip annoyed the English. [Silbey Lecture, 3/21/05]
In 1610, James gave an aggressive speech to Parliament. He argued that he, the King, was divine. He was "the supremest thing upon earth…even by God himself [a King is] called god[s]" [James I, Speech to Parliament, 1610]. Therefore, he has absolute power, and Parliament has no right to impugn his authority or have any input into the running of government. James believed that Parliament should not "meddle" with his authority. That was his "craft." [James I, speech to Parliament, 1610].