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.” 正如同文艺复兴史学家John Hale*在他作品中提醒我们的一样：战争在我们文化的形塑过 程中扮演了本质性的角色。除了16-19世纪这三百年欧洲断断续续发生的战争可被视作由 职业军人所负责的行为、因而可被单独研究以外，之後的战争型态就已经演变成为所谓的 全面战争（Total War），全面指的不仅是影响到社会各个层面的人，还包括了其全球性 的规模。至此，没有任何一个历史学家能够否认，准备战争、进行战争或避免战争已经变 成了人类历史中的一个重要面向。正如俄国革命家托洛斯基宣称的那样：｢你可能对战争 没兴趣，但战争却对你非常有兴趣。｣ 今日的军事史学者必须理解，"军事史"只是战争的历史中一个面向，倘若在写作时不能 同时考虑到社会和政治的背景，那麽这样的研究将不再有多大的价值。即使是那些最顽固 的军事史学者也必须要在作品中加上"战争与社会"这般的字样来正当化其论述。 *John Rigby Hale（1923-1999），研究文艺复兴时期战争的英国史学家，着名作品包括 ”The Art of War and Renaissance England”与”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. 这种"战争与社会"概念的形塑与战争研究的出现其实有异曲同工之妙。如果说战争研究 是军事史学者试图延展他们的研究范畴到那些与战争有关的非军事领域的话，那麽"战争 与社会"便是社会史学者在探索战争对整个架构影响下的产物。最初只是讨论工业与後工 业革命的社会，亦即现代战争对社会的影响，但最终演变成对不同时期整个社会发展脉络 的关注。这个领域在二十世纪初由几位德国历史学者，如Werner Sombart*和Hans Delbruck**开其先声，但在当时并没有受到太多的重视。因为对军事史家来说，这种看法 并不具有教导意义，而第一代英国社会史学者又多半对战争这个｢对人类发展只有负面影 响｣的议题抱持着敌意。 "战争与社会"与"战争研究"这两种研究取向毫无疑问地有很多重叠之处，而对於前者 而言，1964年时媒体队一战终战五十周年的纪念可能是催生此一研究取向的来源。 *Werner Sombart（1863-1941），德国经济与社会史家，其在探讨资本主义与社会主义的 过程中，将奢侈品、流行与战争皆视作为一种经济典范。 **Hans Delbruck（1848-1929），德国军事史家，亦常被认为是第一位现代军事史家，将 军事史成为历史学中一个独立的学门，详情可见MRZ大在中的军事史史观理论系列 。 “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. ｢纪念｣两字也许并不是那麽地洽当，特别是这样的经历对西线的英国军队来说简直就是 一场最痛苦的折磨。对一般大众而言，一次大战的经验可以被简化成"索姆河战役*"与 "帕斯尚尔战役**"。至於当时为何参战，以及他们实际上打赢了这场战争的事实则被选 择性的忽视了。我於数年前曾建议，也许我们并不需要後悔这些事，但1918年的"百日战 役"和索姆河战役一样都应该被当作一种众所皆知的惨痛回忆来纪念。任何能够减少对战 争进行歌颂的愚蠢行为都应该要被鼓励，虽然我这辈子里面并没有看到太多。 *索姆河战役（Battle of Somme），发生於1916年7-11月，是一次大战中规模最大的一场 战役，协约国军队为了将德军阵线推回边境而发起的大规模进攻。现代的坦克车也滥觞於 此役。该役英军约有40万人伤亡。 **帕斯尚尔战役（Battle of Passchendaele），发生於1917年7-11月，协约国阵营为了 夺取法兰德斯境内的Passchendaele高地而发起的大规模攻势，最後英军成功攻克该地， 然而却付出了二十几万伤亡的代价。英国首相劳合．乔治曾在回忆录称此役为｢一次大战 中最大的惨剧之一。｣ ***百日攻势（Hundred Days Offensive），1918年8-11月，协约国（含美军在内）部队 於此役中成功地将德军推回兴登堡防线，但却付出了一百万伤亡的惨痛代价，其中英军就 占了四成的伤亡。 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"战争与社会"取向所要探讨的并不是这些战役的成败，以一战来说，重点是那些在战争 中被动员的社会群体、整个国家有大量的人自愿投入战争的努力、以及在英国与欧洲社会 逐渐流行的一种自觉，藉由那些不同阶层的悲剧所堆积而成。从英国与德国近四十年来大 量增加的此类作品当中，虽然尚未给社会大众带来影响，但我们已不难看出"战争与社会" 这样的概念是多麽成功的对学术研究造成了广泛的影响。 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. 这边我得再用一个自身的经验当作例子，当时我正受牛津大学出版社的委任对一本介绍一 次大战的书进行编篡，该书属於"Very Short Introductions"系列丛书的其中一本，对 各个领域如哲学、宗教与艺术等皆有简单扼要的介绍。 而当我被要求提出一份大纲给匿名审查委员时，他们的回应令我印象深刻。他们说：｢你 在关於军人与平民的关系这点要写些甚麽？交战国中女性地位的变动呢？战争所用的史料 和它所反映的国家偏见呢？战争在催化革命的过程中扮演了甚麽角色？人们如何回忆和纪 念战争呢？大众媒体的发展又产生了甚麽样的影响呢？｣ 我相信这些都是非常有助於深入了解战争的题材，但由於我只有四万字的篇幅，这样子的 要求就有些令人困扰了。幸运的是，我听从了查尔斯．韦伯斯特爵士一针见血的建议，我 彷佛还可以听见他如雷贯耳的叫道：｢反正这本书和战争有关对吧？那就写点战争！｣ 於是我照做了。 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 118.166.1.40 ※ 编辑: jonathan836 来自: 118.166.1.40 (03/14 22:05)