[心得] 軍事史與戰爭的歷史(三)

[jonathan836 (魏奇˙安提利斯)]

As for the Renaissance, the late John Hale was already reminding us in his
work how intrinsic a part warfare played in the molding of its entire
culture. Only for three centuries of European history at the most, between
the sixteenth to the nineteenth, was it possible to regard warfare as an
intermittent activity, conducted by a class of specialists, that could be
studied in isolation, before in the twentieth there dawned what has been
called “The Age of Total War”; war not only total but global. In that
century, war – preparing for it, waging it, deterring – became a dimension
of human history that no historian can neglect. As Trotsky is alleged to have
put it, “You may not be interested in war, but war is very interested in you.
” The military historian can no longer write about it without understanding
that “military history” is only one dimension of the history of war that is
of little value if not studied in its social and political context. Today,
even the most unregenerate of military historian feels uneasy unless his or
her work is legitimized by the rubric “War and Society.”

正如同文藝復興史學家John Hale*在他作品中提醒我們的一樣：戰爭在我們文化的形塑過
程中扮演了本質性的角色。除了16-19世紀這三百年歐洲斷斷續續發生的戰爭可被視作由
職業軍人所負責的行為、因而可被單獨研究以外，之後的戰爭型態就已經演變成為所謂的
全面戰爭（Total War），全面指的不僅是影響到社會各個層面的人，還包括了其全球性
的規模。至此，沒有任何一個歷史學家能夠否認，準備戰爭、進行戰爭或避免戰爭已經變
成了人類歷史中的一個重要面向。正如俄國革命家托洛斯基宣稱的那樣：｢你可能對戰爭
沒興趣，但戰爭卻對你非常有興趣。｣

今日的軍事史學者必須理解，"軍事史"只是戰爭的歷史中一個面向，倘若在寫作時不能
同時考慮到社會和政治的背景，那麼這樣的研究將不再有多大的價值。即使是那些最頑固
的軍事史學者也必須要在作品中加上"戰爭與社會"這般的字樣來正當化其論述。

*John Rigby Hale（1923-1999），研究文藝復興時期戰爭的英國史學家，著名作品包括
”The Art of War and Renaissance England”與”Renaissance War Studies”。


The concept “War and Society” is as significant in its way as “War Studies.
” If “War Studies” represented an attempt by military historians to extend
their territory to cover the nonmilitary aspects of warfare, “War and Society
” was the enterprise of social historians exploring the impact of war on the
whole structure, initially on industrial and postindustrial society, but
eventually on social development throughout the ages. Something of the kind
had been pioneered in the early twentieth century by a few German historians
like Werner Sombart and Hans Delbruck, but otherwise it had been widely
neglected. It had no didactic value for military historians, while the first
generation of British social historians was temperamentally hostile to the
whole idea that war could have anything but a negative impact on the
development of mankind. The overlap between these two approaches has been
vast and immensely fruitful; but, for “War and Society” in particular, the
catalytic moment was probably the fiftieth anniversary of the outbreak of the
First World War in 1964 and the celebrations of that event in the media.

這種"戰爭與社會"概念的形塑與戰爭研究的出現其實有異曲同工之妙。如果說戰爭研究
是軍事史學者試圖延展他們的研究範疇到那些與戰爭有關的非軍事領域的話，那麼"戰爭
與社會"便是社會史學者在探索戰爭對整個架構影響下的產物。最初只是討論工業與後工
業革命的社會，亦即現代戰爭對社會的影響，但最終演變成對不同時期整個社會發展脈絡
的關注。這個領域在二十世紀初由幾位德國歷史學者，如Werner Sombart*和Hans
Delbruck**開其先聲，但在當時並沒有受到太多的重視。因為對軍事史家來說，這種看法
並不具有教導意義，而第一代英國社會史學者又多半對戰爭這個｢對人類發展只有負面影
響｣的議題抱持著敵意。

"戰爭與社會"與"戰爭研究"這兩種研究取向毫無疑問地有很多重疊之處，而對於前者
而言，1964年時媒體隊一戰終戰五十周年的紀念可能是催生此一研究取向的來源。

*Werner Sombart（1863-1941），德國經濟與社會史家，其在探討資本主義與社會主義的
過程中，將奢侈品、流行與戰爭皆視作為一種經濟典範。

**Hans Delbruck（1848-1929），德國軍事史家，亦常被認為是第一位現代軍事史家，將
軍事史成為歷史學中一個獨立的學門，詳情可見MRZ大在精華區中的軍事史史觀理論系列
。


“Celebrations” is perhaps not the right word to describe the remorseless
emphasis given at the time, and ever since, to the worst ordeals suffered by
the British Army on the Western Front. In the eyes of the general public, the
experience of the “Great War” is encapsulated in two words, “Somme” and “
Passchendaele.” The reasons for fighting the war, and the fact that we
actually won it, passed almost unnoticed. A suggestion that I made a few
years later that the victorious “Battle of a Hundred Days***” in 1918 was
at least as deserving of national celebrations as the ordeals of the Somme
sank like the proverbial stone. Perhaps this was not to be regretted.
Anything that diminished the mindless glorification of war was certainly to
be encouraged, although I have observed very little of such glorification in
my own lifetime.

｢紀念｣兩字也許並不是那麼地洽當，特別是這樣的經歷對西線的英國軍隊來說簡直就是
一場最痛苦的折磨。對一般大眾而言，一次大戰的經驗可以被簡化成"索姆河戰役*"與
"帕斯尚爾戰役**"。至於當時為何參戰，以及他們實際上打贏了這場戰爭的事實則被選
擇性的忽視了。我於數年前曾建議，也許我們並不需要後悔這些事，但1918年的"百日戰
役"和索姆河戰役一樣都應該被當作一種眾所皆知的慘痛回憶來紀念。任何能夠減少對戰
爭進行歌頌的愚蠢行為都應該要被鼓勵，雖然我這輩子裡面並沒有看到太多。

*索姆河戰役（Battle of Somme），發生於1916年7-11月，是一次大戰中規模最大的一場
戰役，協約國軍隊為了將德軍陣線推回邊境而發起的大規模進攻。現代的坦克車也濫觴於
此役。該役英軍約有40萬人傷亡。

**帕斯尚爾戰役（Battle of Passchendaele），發生於1917年7-11月，協約國陣營為了
奪取法蘭德斯境內的Passchendaele高地而發起的大規模攻勢，最後英軍成功攻克該地，
然而卻付出了二十幾萬傷亡的代價。英國首相勞合．喬治曾在回憶錄稱此役為｢一次大戰
中最大的慘劇之一。｣

***百日攻勢（Hundred Days Offensive），1918年8-11月，協約國（含美軍在內）部隊
於此役中成功地將德軍推回興登堡防線，但卻付出了一百萬傷亡的慘痛代價，其中英軍就
佔了四成的傷亡。


But what needed to be recalled was not so much the operational events of the
war, whether triumphant or disastrous, as the social mobilization of the
entire community; the massive and willing national participation in the war
effort; and the birth, if only through an accumulation of individual
tragedies across barriers of class and wealth, of a new sense of popular
self-consciousness that transformed British, and indeed, European society.
The proliferation of work published during the past forty years, in this
country and in Germany, in particular, has shown how successfully the concept
of “War and Society” has extended its sway in the academic, if not yet the
popular, mind.

但"戰爭與社會"取向所要探討的並不是這些戰役的成敗，以一戰來說，重點是那些在戰爭
中被動員的社會群體、整個國家有大量的人自願投入戰爭的努力、以及在英國與歐洲社會
逐漸流行的一種自覺，藉由那些不同階層的悲劇所堆積而成。從英國與德國近四十年來大
量增加的此類作品當中，雖然尚未給社會大眾帶來影響，但我們已不難看出"戰爭與社會"
這樣的概念是多麼成功的對學術研究造成了廣泛的影響。

I discovered this – if I may again be self-referential – when I was
commissioned by the Oxford University Press to contribute a volume on the
First World War in their series of “very short introductions” to such
enormous subjects as philosophy, religion, or art. I was asked to submit a
synopsis to be sent to anonymous referees, and their comments were revealing.
What, they asked, was I going to say about civil-military relations? About
the changing role of women in belligerent societies? About the historiography
of the war and its reflection of national bias? About the function of war in
catalyzing revolution? About the memorialization of the war? About the
development of mass media and its influences on public opinion? All this was
very helpful but a little bewildering, given that I had only 40,000 words to
play with. Fortunately, cutting through this clamor of advice, I seemed to
hear the voice of Charles Webster thundering “Its’ a book about war, isn’t
it? So write about the War!” So I did.

這邊我得再用一個自身的經驗當作例子，當時我正受牛津大學出版社的委任對一本介紹一
次大戰的書進行編篡，該書屬於"Very Short Introductions"系列叢書的其中一本，對
各個領域如哲學、宗教與藝術等皆有簡單扼要的介紹。

而當我被要求提出一份大綱給匿名審查委員時，他們的回應令我印象深刻。他們說：｢你
在關於軍人與平民的關係這點要寫些甚麼？交戰國中女性地位的變動呢？戰爭所用的史料
和它所反映的國家偏見呢？戰爭在催化革命的過程中扮演了甚麼角色？人們如何回憶和紀
念戰爭呢？大眾媒體的發展又產生了甚麼樣的影響呢？｣

我相信這些都是非常有助於深入了解戰爭的題材，但由於我只有四萬字的篇幅，這樣子的
要求就有些令人困擾了。幸運的是，我聽從了查爾斯．韋伯斯特爵士一針見血的建議，我
彷彿還可以聽見他如雷貫耳的叫道：｢反正這本書和戰爭有關對吧？那就寫點戰爭！｣

於是我照做了。

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 118.166.1.40
推 Swallow43:推薦一個
推 dennis99:推
推 Zsanou:推!!!
推 hsnuest:推！但是挑一個小錯誤：1964年時媒體對一戰爆發五十週年..
→ jonathan836:啊，是五十周年XDDD感謝你
※ 編輯: jonathan836     來自: 118.166.1.40         (03/14 22:05)
推 darkdog0430:nice~~
推 KoujikiOuji: