1.

Military art and science provides intellectual and theoretical depth to the military profession and
its practitioners. Thus, a large proportion of research in the field of military art and science is
done to address practical problems faced by practitioners. Purely academic research, however, is
also an integral part of the field and is essential to ensure its continued intellectual vitality. The
results of scholarship and research in the field may be of interest and may be helpful to political
leaders and policymakers, military officers, as well as to scholars and the interested public.

Military art generally deals with the human dimensions of war and military operations. Military
art is generally subject to qualitative rather than quantitative investigation, although it does not
exclude the use of quantitative methods when appropriate. It includes such areas as psychology,
leadership, individual and collective behavior, culture, ethics, and problem-solving. History
provides the context and depth for the study of military art. Military art also includes such
specifically military subjects as strategy, operational art, and tactics. Research in Military art
requires a degree of expertise in the use of logic and critical thinking.

Military science generally deals with the technical dimensions of war and military operations.
Military art is generally subject to quantitative rather than qualitative investigation, although
qualitative methodologies are used when appropriate. It includes such areas as the technological
military applications and equipment made possible by the physical sciences, various engineering
disciplines, industrial management, logistics, electronic simulations, communications
technologies, and transportation technologies. Mathematics is an important tool in the practice of
military science and associated disciplines. Specific military applications include gunnery and
ballistics, materials science technology for soldier protection, transportation technologies, and
communications technologies. Research in military science requires a degree of expertise in the
use of logic and critical thinking; and normally it also requires technical expertise in at least one
of its associated disciplines.

The interdisciplinary field of military art and science may be pictured as a "big umbrella" which
encompasses other academic disciplines and fields of professional practice. At the core of
military art and science, however, lie strategy, operational art, and tactics. These are inherently
military fields of theory and practice.

2.why is important to studying military thought

…Military history is a humanities discipline within the scope of general historical recording of
armed conflict in the history of humanity, and its impact on the societies, cultures and economies
thereof, as well as the resulting changes to local and international relationships.

Professional historians normally focus on military affairs that had a major impact on the societies
involved as well as the aftermath of conflicts, while amateur historians and hobbyists often take a
larger interest in the details of battles, equipment and uniforms in use.
The essential subjects of military history study are the causes of war, the social and cultural
foundations, military doctrine on each side, the logistics, leadership, technology, strategy, and
tactics used, and how these changed over time. On the other hand, Just War Theory explores the
moral dimensions of warfare, and to better limit the destructive reality caused by war, seeks to
establish a doctrine of military ethics.

As an applied field, military history has been studied at academies and service schools because
the military command seeks to not repeat past mistakes, and improve upon its current
performance by instilling an ability in commanders to perceive historical parallels during a
battle, so as to capitalize on the lessons learned from the past. When certifying military history
instructors[1] the Combat Studies Institute deemphasizes rote detail memorization and focuses on
themes and context in relation to current and future conflict, using the motto "Past is Prologue."[2]

The discipline of military history is dynamic, changing with development as much of the subject
area as the societies and organisations that make use of it.[3] The dynamic nature of the discipline
of military history is largely related to the rapidity of change the military forces, and the art and
science of managing them, as well as the frenetic pace of technological development that had
taken place during the period known as the Industrial Revolution, and more recently in the
nuclear and information ages. An important recent concept is the Revolution in Military Affairs
(RMA) which attempts to explain how warfare has been shaped by emerging technologies, such
as gunpowder. It highlights the short outbursts of rapid change followed by periods of relative
stability.

///////

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF MILITARY HISTORY M. M. MACOMB,

BRIGADIER GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY In a certain sense all men are historians. - Carflyle 1. It is with some
misgivings that I venture to address such an audience upon the study of military history, because I feel
that there are many present much more competent to deal with this subject. I venture to do so only
because it is really a question of national moment at this time, and even the humblest efforts to point
a way to better methods of instruction in this branch of historical science, hitherto rather neglected in our
educational institutions, may prove of value. We are just beginning to realize that a proper military policy
can not be evolved without a scientific study of the history of all our wars, and that we have in the past
fallen far short of our duty in this respect. The principal object of this paper is to invite attention to
what the graduate schools of the Anny are now doing to remedy this defect and to show what should be
done in the future in our universities, colleges and secondary schools to estab- lish the correct teaching of
military history. OPINIONS OF GREAT SOLDIERS 2. Great soldiers of many lands have realized the
importance of the study of military history. Suvorov1, the old Russian hero, eminently a practical
soldier, writing in his quaint style toward the close of the eighteenth century, advises "unceasing
study by reading first the regulations, next the course of Mars and then old Vigetius for the six orders
of battle. Descriptions of Russian i Author of the Russian saying "Pulya dura, shtik molodetz"- The bulleťs a
booby, the bayonet's a brick.This content downloaded from 197.156.115.170 on Sun, 12 Jan 2020 08:21:46 UTCAll use subject
to https://about.jstor.org/terms
92 NEW YORK STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION wars are few, but there are some of the old and recent
Turkish wars with a voluminous repetition of evolutions, the older battles haphazard. Montecuccoli is
very old and many changes are need- ed to adapt his rules to present wars with the Turks. As to
Charles of Lorraine, Condé, Turenne, Marshal Saxe, Villars, there are some translations. More
ancient works arousing mili- tary ardor are: The Trojan War, Caesar's Commentaries and
Quintus Curtius. Finally for elevation of the soul - old Rollin. ' ' Rough old soldier and leader of men as
he was, Suvorov was never- theless a great reader and had studied military history intensively with the
aid of maps from his boyhood. Napoleon advised all of- ficers who hoped "to know their maneuvers"
to read and reread the campaigns of Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustavus Adolphus,
Turenne, Prince Eugene and Frederick the Great. 3. The studies of Suvorov and Napoleon gave
them not only ideas as to strategy and tactics but also a goodj knowledge of the terrain of their theaters
of operations. Both were military geo- graphers and topographers as well as strategists and
tacticians and so is every great general. These men knew instinctively how to study military history and
how to draw lessons from it. The average officer has not the inspiration, application, or perseverance to
study history as they did unaided, nor would he be able to draw correct conclusions until shown the
way which genius finds of itself. He is liable to make a wrong application of methods deduced froin
experiences in a terrain or under conditions quite different from those confronting him. 4. Coming now
to our own people, Grant was not a great student but had a natural head for country and knew how to
estimate a situation and use a map. He tells us he did not believe in working out everything by rule,
like some of our generals who knew what Frederick did at one place and Napoleon did at an- other,
and thought about what these masters would do, instead of what their actual opponents might attempt.
Grant said, " I don't underrate the value of military knowledge, but if men make war in slavish
observation of rules they will fail. No rules will apply to conditions of war as different as those which
exist in Europe and America. ... To that extent I consider remembrances of old campaigns a
disadvantage. ' 'This content downloaded from 197.156.115.170 on Sun, 12 Jan 2020 08:21:46 UTCAll use subject to
https://about.jstor.org/terms

SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF MILITARY HISTORY 93 5. General Grant was right in a way. Operations suited to one
region would not be to another entirely dissimilar and for that reason he emphasized the necessity for
close study of the local terrain. He said, ť ' The only eyes a general can trust are his own. He must be
able to see and know the country, the streams, the passes, the hills.' ' Every European general knows
the terrain in which he is operating because in time of peace he has made the most minute study of it.
Military history and military geography are co-relative studies. The influence of topography upon the
movements of troops in a campaign is vast. A man without a good topographical head, a correct eye for
country, in addition to quick- ness, force and endurance, can not be a great general. Nor can
military history be studied scientifically without the constant use of maps. 6. It is///////

oday's Army leaders should follow Washington's example of self study. History does not provide
a blueprint or a roadmap, but it provides a context that helps equip an agile mind to make
informed decisions. History provides context as maneuver leaders reflect on personal experience
in training and combat. The study of history should be, as Clausewitz suggested, "meant to
educate the mind of the future commander, or, more accurately, to guide him in his self-
education, not to accompany him to the battlefield; just as a wise teacher guides and stimulates a
young man's intellectual development, but is careful not to lead him by the hand for the rest of
his life." Although there are clear practical applications of the study of war and warfare, such as
understanding the fundamentals of combined arms operations, the purpose of studying war
through the lens of history would be as Sir Michael Howard observed, not to, "make us cleverer
for the next time," but instead to help make maneuver leaders "wise forever."

Studying past battles helps leaders understand their responsibilities. In particular they will
appreciate the importance of discipline and the need to build confident, cohesive teams that are
resilient to the debilitating effects of combat trauma and the corrosive effects of persistent
danger. It is difficult to improve upon John Keegan's observation that:

What battles have in common is human: the behaviour of men struggling to reconcile their
instinct for self-preservation, their sense of honour and the achievement of some aim over which
other men are ready to kill them. The study of battle is therefore always a study of fear and
usually of courage; always of leadership, usually of obedience; always of compulsion, sometimes
of insubordination; always of anxiety, sometimes of elation or catharsis; always of uncertainty
and doubt, misinformation and misapprehension, usually also of faith and sometimes of vision;
always of violence, sometimes also of cruelty, self-sacrifice, compassion; above all, it is always a
study of solidarity and usually also of disintegration – for it is toward the disintegration of human
groups that battle is directed."[1]

Maneuver leaders must steel their soldiers and units against "disintegration" and how they
prepare their soldiers and units for battle will depend, in large measure, on their own vision of
future combat, a vision that Keegan argued requires a "long historical perspective." If leaders are
not able to think about and understand war and warfare, they will be less effective at the tactical
as well as the strategic levels.

3. why is while studying military thought the political nature of war must be considered

4. Discuss the basic features of military thought

5. discuss the development and futures of military thought in the case of Ethiopian military