Joan of Arc monument in Philadelphia
Delbruck

Is Hans Delbrück worthy of this praise?

Delbruck

Why should military historians care about Hans Delbrück? Like it or not, the legacy of Delbrück as a military historian is still strong even 85 years after his death.

Before we get into that, consider some of the praise heaped upon him by other military historians, dubbing him as

There are more, but it starts to get redundant. As for Delbrück’s work, historians believe it

  • was “a bold first step in the direction of a more sophisticated and scholarly brand of military history” ((John E. Jessup, Jr. and Robert W. Coakley, A Guide to the Study of Military History (Washington: Center of Military History, 1988), 78.))
  • is “the classic work” in the study of war ((Theodore Ropp, War in the Modern World (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), 11.))
  • “revolutionized the study of ancient and medieval warfare” ((Stephen Morillo and Michael F. Pavkovic, What is Military History?, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Polity, 2013), 35.))
  • “should be required reading for all military historians” ((Brian Todd Carey, e-mail message, October 23, 2013.))

Any historian may be content with his peers using “great” and “first” to describe his legacy, but in this case, the names behind the praise include prominent figures such as Michael Howard, the late John Keegan, and Victor Davis Hanson.

If that is not impressive enough, in 2012 West Point listed Delbrück alongside Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, and Thucydides in its Top Ten Military Classics, making him the only twentieth-century historian to receive such a recognition.

Yet with all this appreciation, understanding and quantifying Delbrück’s influence on the military history field becomes difficult, as most historians are content simply to heap on lofty praise and then move onto the next topic.

For now, we will do the same and provide a deeper look at Delbrück’s influence on current military historiography in the next article.

Notes


Posted

in

by