Scrolling through historical job postings is always an instructive experience. I’ve noticed a lot of openings for “military/diplomatic” historians, and this combination of disciplines puzzles me. Why would military and diplomatic history go together?
Perhaps it’s a holdover from the days when strategies, campaigns, and defense policy made up the basic building blocks of military history. War, in that sense, is basically a nation’s attempt to secure political ends—diplomacy through organized violence.
The fact is, though, that much of the academic military history being written these days has little to do with war as an instrument of national policy. The “new (now decades-old) military history” often takes its cues from social and cultural history, not political science. A freshly-minted Ph.D. in military history today is as likely to be conversant with scholarship on race and gender as international relations.
Indeed, many of today’s military historians could be considered military/social or military/cultural historians. Take, for instance, Joseph Glatthaar’s examination of the relationship between white officers and black soldiers in the Civil War, a military approach to studying the history of race relations. Or take Leisa Meyer’s book on the Women’s Army Corps during WWII, which looks at military history through the lens of gender.
When, though, was the last time you saw a job posting for a military/race historian, or a military/women’s studies historian? The job descriptions haven’t caught up to what many scholars are actually out there doing. I suspect the reason may be that academia is still not entirely comfortable with military history, because many academics don’t realize how vibrant, diverse, and inter-disciplinary the field has become.