Concept of Decisive Battles
History, Mon-Wed-Fri
1) What big change(s) did the article discuss?
The author aims to argue about why the concept of decisive battles was found so useful by historians from ancient times up until a few decades ago, also why the concept had been abandoned. He also aims to evaluate whether or not this concept could still be of any use to historians as well as to the writing of world history. In some opinion it is said that medieval war was not controlled by battles but in fact that war was dominated by sieges, raids, skirmishes and ambushes. The change being argued in this article was the fact that “Battles” were no longer the main focus of historical writing and that battles were beginning to no longer act as the main focus for new historical writers.
2) What caused this change?
This change has come from the writing of new military historians, rather than surveying and the explaining of battle tactics historians had begun to focus on things such as recruitment, administration, supply systems, society at war and the culture of war. All of which would need more information to accurately write about. Battles were more so two military powers lining up and just having at one another. Some argue that battles had no decisive impact on history due to their lack of strategy, political and operational factors. Another reason for this change was the fact that world historians had become fond of explaining historical developments through long term structural factors which battles had lacked. Decisive battles have fallen due to three key reasons. There are currently no more battles on land, battles that have happened recently can no longer provide historians with simple writing. Finally with battles lasting months rather than hours they lose their ability to change the balance of power.
3) What were important consequences of this change? The way that historical books would now be written had changed due to the views most now had on the term Decisive battles. Although it is proven battles had their moments of glory and had caused major historical changes there was just no complexity behind them. Battles had somewhat lost their throne in history and had been taken over by the idea that battles could not truly be decisive. Battles had been proven to be the least representative of historical events. However some battles such as the one of Antioch were capable of changing history they more so allowed for historical windows to open allowing weaker militaries to overcome stronger opponents.
I felt that the author did a great job backing up his argument and explaining why the concept of decisive battles had begun to diminish over the years. There was great detail involved and I liked how he had stuck to one primary battle to explain his argument rather than jumping around and using too many events. While using the battle of Antioch to explain his argument he made very valid points, explain