Military History Class Brainstorm

[TheCommandTent]

This fall school semester I was "given the opportunity" to teach an elective.  It will meet one day a week for about 80 mins.  The good news is I am able to come up with a topic/class that I would like to teach.  Due to interest from several students and my own interests :) I would like to teach a class focusing on military history. 

This is where you come in.  I know how broad of a topic military history is and so I want to brainstorm possible ideas for the class.  I won't have tests or much if any homework for the class so most of what I do needs to be able to be completed in class. 

Here are some ideas or thoughts I have so far:

I would love to work in some sort of simulation or wargame experience.
WWI with the 100 year anniversary of its start this year.
Each class cover a different famous battle in history.
Study famous military leaders.
Cover major battles in ACW, AWI, WW2 etc


Let me know your thoughts and I'll use this thread to get feedback on the class as I develop it and teach it.

[bayonetbrant]

A couple of ideas

1.  Use "A Country Made By War" from Perret as the textbook.  Best overview of US military history I've seen yet

2.  Contact Jim Werbaneth for some ideas, since he actaully, y'know - teaches milary history.  He's a lurker here: http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=259

3.  Contact James Sterrett - who will probably gravitate to this like a moth to a flame anyway.  If you're lucky, you'll get Rex swing by and offer some thoughts too.

4.  I would turn the "wargame" classes into "how could the other guy have won at XYZ battle?" and push counters around a map w/o necessarily rolling all the dice the first time or two.  Just let them get a sense of where things are and how they moved before you start introducing CRTs and dice.

[MetalDog]

Go back to what got you in to military history.  For me, battles were the most exciting thing about history.  And I was always looking for maps about the battles.  Where they took place, the terrain, the disposition of forces, etc.  The great figures of history were almost always the battle leaders, too.  Alexander.  Caesar.  Napoleon.  Patton.  And finding out about others who were just as big and important always brought a sense of, 'How cool is THAT?!'

[twitter3]

Great opportunity. I like the lists so far. I would add how the major battles you plan to study affected the "current" landscape in terms of borders, what the participants gained or lost. In other words how that battle changed the world at the time. That always fascinates me.

[GDS_Starfury]

when I registered for my classes as SAIC I saw this class called US Military History.  OMG it was 2 semesters of argument.  the rest of the class may have well not existed.

[TheCommandTent]

Some good ideas so far guys, thanks!  I am leaning strongly towards covering a battle per class or even taking two classes and using the second one to push counters around maps for what ifs. 

Keep the ideas and comments coming!

[MetalDog]

Is the class for a quarter, a half, or a whole year?

[TheCommandTent]

Is the class for a quarter, a half, or a whole year?

Right now it is looking like just half the year.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Great opportunity. I like the lists so far. I would add how the major battles you plan to study affected the "current" landscape in terms of borders, what the participants gained or lost. In other words how that battle changed the world at the time. That always fascinates me.

I agree. That is what will be the most useful for them long term unless they join the military in which case they will get other training.

It seems to me that military history is valuable as the outcome vastly changes the futures of the participants. Their control of regions change. They may adopt new methods. They may bring back bounty that funds further initiatives, not always further war skills.

Look at a few questions:
What are the most common reasons for historical battles?
What happens to the winner, the loser, in general terms?
Does their civilization progress faster or slower than without conflict?
What is more important, the general's tactics in the battle or the general's prior training of the men?
How does a civilization organize an army?  As in going from nothing to having a modern force?

Can they 'prove' their theories with simulation?

[MetalDog]

Is the class for a quarter, a half, or a whole year?

Right now it is looking like just half the year.

So that gives you, what, 12 weeks?  I like where Biggs and t3 were going.  Take thoser and make your classes self contained and episodic, explaining one concept or outcome?  Or present themes and concepts at the outset and weave them through each class, building to your conclusions?

[Barthheart]

This will raise some eyebrows but use the game Diplomacy to teach some of the overall effects of WWI. You don't necessarily need to play the game out but it is a really god tool to show how and where all the major participants were fighting and what their main goals were.

If you do play it as a game then set up teams of players as each country - Head of State, Head of Military, and Diplomat. Only Diplomats can talk with other countries Diplomats. Heads of State decide what your war aims are and the Military Heads write the orders.

[James Sterrett]

The moth was held back be being on vacation and away from the Internet.  :)

A few thoughts:

1) Choose what you want the students to learn, then find games whose decisions will help drive the learning.

2) KISS on the game front.  Whatever game you use, make sure the relevant decisions are front and center, and the mechanics of the game are simple or handled by you.

3) Consider melding the methods of staff rides and free Kriegsspiel (see below).  Player-Students learn about the prior situation and their named role in the battle; Umpire-Students learn about the overall situation.  You umpire the game.  The post-game discussion expects to focus on what they did, what their historical counterparts did, and why they think the counterparts made the decisions they did.  The Umpire-Students help by providing the wider commentary.  (In my classes, the umpire students often have better analysis of what was going on due to their much better understanding of events.)
   Free Kriegsspiel:  The players are all operating double-blind and separated.  The umpire students are information runners to you.  You run the master map.  These games work best when they focus on maneuver; by being the umpire, you are the game system, and can ensure that facets of the lesson you want to bring out are highlighted by the system. 
   Staff rides:  The participants study up on a particular battle, usually with a particular role or point of the battle assigned to each student; then you move around the battlefield, with the relevant student providing the primary briefing at each point, and then discussion of the situation, decisions, and outcomes.  By having the game running as well you have more hope of getting students into the shoes of the historical commanders.

4) Consider the option of running a survey of the evolution of warfare by fighting a series of fictional battles on the exact same terrain.  This tends to drive home the tactical changes, at the very least, and gives at least an inkling of the larger scale changes - particularly when the site of entire Napoleonic & prior armies' clashes is only a battalion or company-scale area by the end of the 20th Century.

[TheCommandTent]

This will raise some eyebrows but use the game Diplomacy to teach some of the overall effects of WWI. You don't necessarily need to play the game out but it is a really god tool to show how and where all the major participants were fighting and what their main goals were.

If you do play it as a game then set up teams of players as each country - Head of State, Head of Military, and Diplomat. Only Diplomats can talk with other countries Diplomats. Heads of State decide what your war aims are and the Military Heads write the orders.

Great idea.  I've borrowed a copy of Diplomacy from a friend and am looking into how/if I can use this.

The moth was held back be being on vacation and away from the Internet.  :)

A few thoughts:

1) Choose what you want the students to learn, then find games whose decisions will help drive the learning.

2) KISS on the game front.  Whatever game you use, make sure the relevant decisions are front and center, and the mechanics of the game are simple or handled by you.

3) Consider melding the methods of staff rides and free Kriegsspiel (see below).  Player-Students learn about the prior situation and their named role in the battle; Umpire-Students learn about the overall situation.  You umpire the game.  The post-game discussion expects to focus on what they did, what their historical counterparts did, and why they think the counterparts made the decisions they did.  The Umpire-Students help by providing the wider commentary.  (In my classes, the umpire students often have better analysis of what was going on due to their much better understanding of events.)
   Free Kriegsspiel:  The players are all operating double-blind and separated.  The umpire students are information runners to you.  You run the master map.  These games work best when they focus on maneuver; by being the umpire, you are the game system, and can ensure that facets of the lesson you want to bring out are highlighted by the system. 
   Staff rides:  The participants study up on a particular battle, usually with a particular role or point of the battle assigned to each student; then you move around the battlefield, with the relevant student providing the primary briefing at each point, and then discussion of the situation, decisions, and outcomes.  By having the game running as well you have more hope of getting students into the shoes of the historical commanders.

4) Consider the option of running a survey of the evolution of warfare by fighting a series of fictional battles on the exact same terrain.  This tends to drive home the tactical changes, at the very least, and gives at least an inkling of the larger scale changes - particularly when the site of entire Napoleonic & prior armies' clashes is only a battalion or company-scale area by the end of the 20th Century.

Thanks for the comments and ideas.  I have been toying around with a simplified Kriegsspiel idea and I like the focus that you mention to bring to such a simulation.

[MengJiao]

Let me know your thoughts and I'll use this thread to get feedback on the class as I develop it and teach it.

  I was trained (long, long ago) in history and archaeology, so I think the advantage of a military view of history is that it can go into some serious and useful detail.  I would take the English Civil Wars (1639 -- Bishop's war to say 1660 -- it's just 20 years).  Very well documented. Primary sources all in English and its not as completely foreign as say figuring out what on earth Julius Ceasar is doing etc. etc. PLUS while there are some interesting commanders, there are also some interesting Armies (I'm looking at You, Eastern Association and New Model Army and the Royalist White coats and so on).  PLUS, the battles are over pretty fast and tactically not all that hard to intuit.

[bayonetbrant]

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1246967/wargames-teaching-tool