Nierman Citino Rewrite

Citino, Robert M. “Military Histories Old and New: A Reintroduction.” The American Historical Review 112, no. 4 (2007): 1070-090.
In his 2007 review essay Military Histories Old and New: A Reintroduction Robert M. Citino argues that obsessing over the shrinking knowledge of military history in academia does not further the field of study.
Citino points out that military history has essentially been put on the backburner of the study of history as a whole. By shifting the concentration in military history to War and Society, Citino argues that this would bring about “new military history. (1071)” According to Citino, “It has been a generation since new military history rode into town promising to save military history from itself. (1071)” Citino claims that “new military history” is the only way to reinvigorate the subject matter.
Using the book The Crucible of War (2000), Citino brings forth the point that military history often is centered on “war and society (1072)”. Citino remarks at the accomplishment of simply compelling the “ordinary reader (1072)” to stay captivated along with the scholar. By stating this, Citino is showing how the trend or study of history will go on.
In addition, Citino is arguing that what history there is already on the topic of military history, does neither the topic nor the study of history justice. By ignoring the non-military portions of history historians ignore the entire scope of history. The importance of why an event happened as well as how it happened is just as important as who was involved.
Military History is linked to conflict. If conflict ceases to exist from society, the study of military history will disappear for good. This presents an argument that conflict is an inevitable subject matter of history that will always remain present. To say that all world conflicts will eventually be nonexistent is an overly simplistic view of society. This simplistic view on society been catered to in an effort to please the general opinions of the public and mainstream media.
Along with presentations of new military history come presentations of war’s impact on society and culture. Citino attributes a new archetype of a historian called “operational military historians. (1081)” Operational Historians place an emphasis on the “history of memory (1082).” The history of memory itself is a collective memory that evolves over time. Furthermore, the history of memory brings more attention to oral history than professional works.
One expands the field of military history and history itself by reading history. In addition to arguing his point, Citino included with proper documentation, case studies which further his point that one should not neglect the non-military side of history. Traditional military history has overshadowed most of the undiscovered or new history.
Modern historians struggle to reconstruct the true versions of history due to the fact that the end result was actually not what they were envisioned. The struggle for the truth and intertwining that with the process that the historian took to arrive at the truth is just as crucial to the history that was discovered. By saying that military historians are doing “good work (1090)” means that the cultural demand is satisfied with what they are being told about the past. This is also a double standard as Citino could be prompting his fellow professionals to take another look at the subject. By doing this they further the study of history in the grand scope. There is more information to be found that is just what is already been studied. This is why Citino uses his sources in his review.