Military history has almost vanished from academia, especially in ‘elite’ institutions. This is probably related to that strange Bellesiles incident, and the trend toward Kumbaya models of prehistory in archaeology and anthropology. It’s not just that academic historians don’t publish on war – they don’t know anything about it themselves, and they have contempt for anyone who does. A colleague asked John Lynn if military historians wrote in crayon; one head of a history department called military history “of interest only to hormone-driven fraternity boys.”
Pride in ignorance: that’s hard for me to understand. There are subjects that don’t interest me, like baseball stats, where not knowing doesn’t much bother me – still, ignorance of sabermetrics is nothing to be proud of. Putting war in that category strikes me as deeply crazy. Like the bad man says, you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
Unfortunately, some of the remaining military historians try to placate the history establishment by reframing the subject in ways that cater to establishment interests – you know, writing articles like “Dykes at Kursk”, or discussing the role of ‘people of color’ in the wars of the Diadochi. Sucking up to pinheads.