Other EMEMH works published in 2011
Hope everyone had/is having a good holiday season. What follows is an end-of-year bibliographic wrap up of EMEMH for 2011.
In addition to the four works previously mentioned here, here, here, and here (or click the Bibliography category), a few other works were released this year. I’ll assume you’ve looked at the EMEMH Titles page, so I won’t repeat those books here (although I did add a few more from this year). Other articles and chapters that appeared this year include:
- Lincoln, Andrew, “The Culture of War and Civil Society in the Reigns of William III and Anne,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 44, no. 4 (2011): 455-474.
Abstract: The essay examines the representation of war in poems and church services during the reigns of William III and Queen Anne. It identifies relations between social discipline and the imaginative participation in violence, and considers how war—described by poets as a test of heroism, and represented by the church as the occasion for spiritual purgation—served the interests of those who wanted to regulate and refine the manners of civil society. It argues that the promotion of gentler manners did not undermine the commitment to military aggression, but worked in the service of it.
- Ó Siochrú, Micheál, “Civil Autonomy and Military Power in Early Modern Ireland,” Journal of Early Modern History 15, no. 1/2 (2011): 31-57.
Abstract: The transformation of Irish towns in the early modern period (from bastions of English loyalism, to centers of Catholic resistance, to stridently Protestant colonial outposts) has received relatively little attention from historians. Instead, scholars have focused on the major land transfers of the seventeenth century, but the change in urban settlement patterns proved even more dramatic and was closely related to the positioning of civic communities in relation to the military struggles of the 1640s and 1650s. The central argument is that the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland marked a crucial and irrevocable transformation in both the possibilities of civic militarism and the nature of urban society and politics more generally. It demonstrates that during the 1640s, the citizens of Ireland’s major provincial cities participated in the troubles through strategic neutralism and the retention (or careful negotiation) of military force, acting with the fortunes of the citizenry in mind. This approach continued a tradition of relative civic autonomy, which was probably more embedded and accentuated in Ireland than either Scotland or England.
- Phillips, Carla. “The Allied Occupation of Madrid in 1710: A Turning Point in the War of the Spanish Succession.” Bulletin for Spanish and Portuguese Historical Studies 35, no. 1 (2011).
Abstract: The War of the Spanish Succession began in 1701, when most of Europe allied to block the accession of the French Bourbon Duke of Anjou to the throne of Spain as Felipe V. The ensuing war lasted until 1714, at enormous cost. Louis XIV of France provided early support to defend his grandson’s throne, but in 1709 he began to seek a separate peace with the anti-Bourbon coalition and to abandon Felipe V and Spanish interests in Europe and the Americas. He re-committed to the war in 1710. Standard histories often argue that the turning point in the war came in 1711, when the Habsburg pretender to the Spanish throne, the Archduke Charles, also became the likely choice for Holy Roman Emperor. Faced with a revival of Habsburg hegemony, the ardor of the anti-Bourbon allies cooled, and the war wound down. Against that standard interpretation, I argue that the turning point came in 1710, centering on the allied occupation of Madrid. This paper explores the events before, during, and after that occupation, including the important role that the Portuguese played—or failed to play—in that historic chain of events
- Lenihan, Pádraig. “Namur Citadel, 1695: A Case Study in Allied Siege Tactics.” War in History 18, no. 3 (2001): 282-303.
Abstract: The alternative to Vauban’s slow and relatively bloodless sapping – ‘efficiency’ – involved the ‘vigour’ of crude but quick attacks over open ground coupled with very heavy artillery fire. Sieges of Mainz, Bonn, and Namur town by members of the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV were, however, neither ‘vigorous’ nor ‘efficient’. Coehoorn’s ‘new method’ at the siege of Namur citadel in 1695 was novel in the concentration of firepower against a small section of defences artfully chosen as part of an assault plan. Perceptions of his success were inflated: ultimately his plan proved too complex to put into practice, and ‘vigour’ took the citadel. [sounds like a familiar topic…]
- Robinson, Gavin. “Equine Battering Rams? A Reassessment of Cavalry Charges in the English Civil War.” Journal of Military History 75, no. 3 (2011): 719-731.
Abstract: According to traditional narratives the tactic of shock charges imported from Sweden replaced the caracole, a maneuver which involved successive ranks of cavalry advancing, firing their pistols, and retreating to reload, during the English Civil War. A successful cavalry charge was supposed to depend on close order and momentum to maximize the shock of impact. But this theory of shock is anachronistic. Physical shock is largely absent from early seventeenth century English drill books and eyewitness accounts of Civil War battles. The laws of physics and evidence from racing accidents show that if close-order shock charges could be achieved they could not give any tactical advantage. There is similarly little evidence for the continued use of the caracole into this period.
- [This just in] Fury, Cheryl A., ed. The Social History of English Seamen, 1485-1649. Boydell and Brewer, 2011.
Abstract: Traditionally, the history of English maritime adventures has focused on the great sea captains and swashbucklers. However, over the past few decades, social historians have begun to examine the less well-known seafarers who were on the dangerous voyages of commerce, exploration, privateering and piracy, as well as naval campaigns. This book brings together some of their findings. There is no comparable work that provides such an overview of our knowledge of English seamen during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and the tumultuous world in which they lived. Subjects covered include trade, piracy, wives, widows and the wider maritime community, health and medicine at sea, religion and shipboard culture, how Tudor and Stuart ships were manned and provisioned, and what has been learned from the important wreck the Mary Rose.
- McJimsey, Robert. “England’s ‘Descent’ on France and the Origins of Blue-water Strategy.” In Arms and the Man: Military History Essays in Honor of Dennis Showalter. Edited by Michael S. Neiberg, 243-258. Leiden, Brill, 2011.
- Lee, Wayne, ed. Empires and Indigenes: Intercultural Alliance, Imperial Expansion, and Warfare in the Early Modern World. New York: NYU Press, 2011. [Mostly colonial and global focus]
- Trim, D.J.B. “The Huguenots and the European wars of religion, c.1560-1697: soldiering in national and transnational context.” In The Huguenots: History and Memory in Transnational Context: Essays in Honour and Memory of Walter C. Utt. Edited by D.J.B. Trim. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
- Onnekink, David, ed. Ideology and Foreign Policy in Early Modern Europe (1650-1750). Ashgate, 2011.
I separated the last four because, as you likely know, book chapters don’t usually have abstracts for individual chapters, and I don’t have copies of #1-#4 (yet). Anybody have access to the Bulletin for Spanish and Portuguese Historical Studies?
Looking at the list, we have a mix of different types of military history, including two tactical histories (sieges – yay!), as well as studies of urban, mercenary, diplomatic, naval and (cross-)cultural subjects, which I think is an indication of a diverse field. But on the other hand, the ‘field’ of EMEMH (if you can call it that), this year saw a total of seven articles, two book chapters, three edited books with multiple chapters germane to the subject, as well as six books published. I’m not sure whether that’s a lot or a little – it seems like a lot, but then this covers almost 300 years of history, across a dozen countries or more, and most people will likely focus on only a subset of these. In that sense, it’s very little. [I’m sure I’m not the only early modernist to be impressed with how active the field of medieval military history is (they usually have more sessions at the Society for Military History conferences than EME, and they even have their own journal!) despite having so many fewer sources to draw upon.]
On the other hand, I’ve only included English-language works here, since that’s the common lingua franca for anyone reading this blog. It therefore excludes foreign language works, although Anglo-American scholars do tend to dominate EMEMH from what I can tell – or maybe it’s primarily Anglophones who are interested in the topic. Additionally, these EMEMH titles don’t include relevant works on a particular period/place/theme that aren’t ‘military history’ in a narrow sense but would be required reading for military historians of a particular country and era – a discussion of economics/politics/social matters for country X in period Y. And, as the book data suggests, the publication rhythm can be ‘clumpy’ for any number of reasons. So when you add all those up (which admittedly I haven’t), that probably ends up being a lot for a single year. Perhaps over time I’ll expand the blog’s database to earlier works to get a sense of broader trends – I have a pretty decent bib database to draw from.
Maybe I’ll even include some foreign-language works, or works relevant to military history, but not military history proper (I’d have to limit it to a field I’m familiar with of course). It’d be interesting to get a sense of exactly how many works we should be reading – that way we have something to feel really guilty about. The need to focus on the literature of a specific country is likely a primary reason why EMEMHians are spun off into distinct period/place orbits, like separation in a centrifuge. How many works do we share in common with our fellow compadres in the EMEMH, vs. how many we share with our period/country domains? Which conferences and journals do we publish in? How do we measure the pull of theme vs. place/period?
What else have I missed?