Military history seems the orphan child of Clio. Today, many specialized fields of history are represented in the curricula of our universities--as well they should be. But this is not the case for the courses on the history of war.

If I might be allowed to plead, very subjectively no doubt, for my special interest, then let me first ask: 'what has become of our curricula?' Are our schools teaching what is popular--the academic 'plat du jour', what is 'marketable', or what is important and useful?

Military history is not fashionable. Military history-once one goes beyond the superficial lyricism of a Tennyson poem, or the glibness of a high command communiqué--is not inspiring, nor is it heartwarming. It normally tells of tremendous suffering, tremendous brutality, tremendous stupidity and, just as normally, it tells of tremendous futility. There is nothing pretty about military history--once you push past the outer layer of pageantry and the phallicism of military 'hardware.'

Yet military history IS important--very important. If you want to know why Spanish is spoken in Latin America, why Islam is the dominant religion of North Africa and the Middle East, or why the United States is the world's dominant power (or why, indeed, it may soon surrender that primacy), military history is the discipline to consult. Would any account of the United States during the past sixty years, whether focused on art, urbanism, race, gender, labor, let alone domestic politics or economics even be truly intelligible without consideration of the military/defense dimension? Not only has the defense/military sector absorbed enormous quantities of material and human resources, it has to a very large extent impinged on the internal political discourse in the USA and subsequently shaped the leadership and so the direction and evolution of the nation as a whole. War, along with economics and geography, is a decisive shaper of human destiny, especially with respect to the situation and development of the leading nations of the world which, not unaturally, tend to couple economic and military power. War is the crucible of history. And to consign military history to the province of the antiquarian or the buff is to surrender an essential window of understanding into humanity's past, present, and future.

We may not admire war nor may we glorify it. But should our contemporary values, our distaste, our moral reprehension for brutality and violence largely restrain us from studying this vital phenomenon? Should distaste or a fear of morbidity prevent the scientist from studying fatal disease?

Unequivocally we answer 'No' to these questions. To paraphrase Clemenceau : "War is too important to be left to the generals OR the politicians’

These questions-defense, military balance, threat assessment--are of truly vital import; again and again the crucial calculus of armed force, the furtherance of political/economic goals through might (or, as an inscription found on Louis XIV’s cannon succinctly put it, ‘ultimo ratio regis’ in 1914, 1936 (re-occupation of the Rheinland), 1938 (Munich Crisis), 1939, 1962, 1990, and 2003, has played a determining role in shaping the flow of history.

There also more prosaic grounds for studying the ensemble of military affairs in history. From the feudal days to the age of aristocracy and even after, WAR was the fundamental ‘business’ of kings and governments and was normally also the single biggest item of expense in the national household and, thereby, a great national channel of investment and generator of economic activity. Given the extent to which the moral and material resources of states were absorbed with military questions, this area cannot be ignored.

The study of the war phenomenon--along with its critical but often overlooked economic, political, and technological ramifications--is essential, for absent a rigorous understanding of defense and security, abdicating oversight to ‘specialists’ or agencies more or less divorced from the wider social context, the freedom, indeed the very survival of mankind, are placed in jeopardy.

THIS SITE IS CONCERNED MAINLY WITH THE WIDER CONTEXT OF WAR AND MILITARY AFFAIRS DURING THE 19TH CENTURY. OUR HOPE AND IDEAL IS THE FREE ACCESS, EXCHANGE, AND DISCUSSION OF SCHOLARLY WORK.

MANY OF THE ARTICLES CONCERN FRANCE WHOSE MILITARY INFLUENCE DURING THE FIRST HALF OF THE 19TH CENTURY WAS PREPONDERANT.

WE ENCOURAGE RESEARCHERS TO CONTRIBUTE THEIR ARTICLES TO THE SITE REGARDLESS OF PARTICULAR FOCUS WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF 19TH CENTURY WAR AND SOCIETY. CONTRIBUTOR’S ARTICLES ARE COPYRIGHTED AND RETAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THEIR AUTHORS. PLEASE SUBMIT TO guerre1859@yahoo.com

IN THAT VEIN, WE ARE PLEASED AND HONORED TO WELCOME OUR FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONTRIBUTOR, MONIQUE PEYRIERE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF EVRY, FRANCE, WHOSE ARTICLE, “L’INDUSTRIE DE LA MACHINE À COUDRE EN FRANCE 1830-1914”--from Bergeron Louis (eds), La révolution des aiguilles. Habiller les Français et les Américains, 19°-20°siècles, Editions de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 1996, p 95-114;(‘The Sewing-Machine Industry in France 1830-1914), IS NOW PRESENTED ON DEBELLUM.ORG.