O artigo é interessante, mas o mais curioso (e, talvez, inesperado para os mais desprevenidos dessas coisas da interdisciplinariedade) é o que sublinhei a bold:
Historians Reassess Battle of Agincourt - NYTimes.com
"[...]The work, which has received both glowing praise and sharp criticism from other historians in the United States and Europe, is the most striking of the revisionist accounts to emerge from a new science of military history. The new accounts tend to be not only more quantitative but also more attuned to political, cultural and technological factors, and focus more on the experience of the common soldier than on grand strategies and heroic deeds.
The approach has drastically changed views on everything from Roman battles with Germanic tribes, to Napoleon’s disastrous occupation of Spain, to the Tet offensive in the Vietnam War. But the most telling gauge of the respect being given to the new historians and their penchant for tearing down established wisdom is that it has now become almost routine for American commanders to call on them for advice on strategy and tactics in Afghanistan, Iraq and other present-day conflicts. [...]"
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário