Historians ignore the role of weapons when studying war, leading to misconceptions, Paul Lockhart, a professor of history at Wright State University, said in a lecture sponsored by the Center for Military History and Strategy Jan. 23.
“Within the realm of military history, I would argue that historians don’t often pay attention to the details of firearms or the difference between theoretical and impractical performance and the difference that they make,” Lockhart said. “Not just in terms of tactics or in the art of war, but also in terms of social and political considerations when we look at war on a much broader scale.”
Lockhart said he came to this conclusion after a conversation with a colleague about a Gadsden flag that had the image of a gun on it in Lockhart’s office.
“It got me reflecting on why it is that historians, and scholars in general, feel uncomfortable, not just thinking about guns in a modern sense, but also incorporating them into their research and into their teaching,” Lockhart said.
While historians often study difficult topics, Lockhart said guns have become one of the most avoided topics in recent years.
“Historians deal with the unpleasant all the time and historians deal with things they don’t necessarily agree on or advocate for,” Lockhart said. “If we have felt we were for everything we talked about, nobody would, hopefully, talk about the Holocaust or the Third Reich. It doesn’t mean embracing gun culture, for example, to talk about them.”
According to Lockhart, the stigma surrounding weapons in the academic community has led to misrepresentations of historical events and the way they are taught in the classroom.
“When we misconstrue or misunderstand the abilities of weapons and the way that weapons work with tactics, are involved with the industrial economy, and the ability of individual states to marshall the resources necessary to manufacture weapons,” Lockhart said. “If we misconstrue those, we can assemble a grand narrative that’s at least wrong in major ways.”
Lockhart also discussed some of the misconceptions that a lack of understanding about weapons has created. He said high casualty numbers are often blamed on new, advanced technology and officers, especially during the Civil War and World War I.
“There is no revolution in technology that causes greater lethality,” Lockhart said. “Why do more men die in the Civil War? Because more men fought in the American Civil War; the battles are bigger.”
Sophomore Leonard Fritz said the lecture covered an area of military history he is interested in.
“I thought it was very insightful, especially his defense of general officers in the First World War, and his discussion about the effect the scale of war has on casualty numbers,” Fritz said.
Sophomore Grace Canlas said Lockhart’s take on firepower is helpful for everyone to avoid misconceptions about history.
“Lessons concerning warfare, such as the evolution of firepower, are not just important and applicable for those studying military history, but any discipline,” Canlas said. “As Dr. Lockhart discussed, weapons have not only shaped the history of warfare, but the history of mankind.”
