This article presents a critique of Whiggish approaches to military history. It begins with this quotation from Dennis Showalter – ‘military history is arguably the last stronghold of what historiographers call the “Whig interpretation”’ – and notes that Showalter’s assessment was a reflection on both the general absence of theory and the linked poverty of the fallback theoretical basket of the subject, with such staples as War and Society, Face of Battle, and Military Revolutions. Recognizing the shortcomings of numerous approaches to military history, the author identifies the challenge – writing military history that incorporates multiple regions and takes a global approach. As the author concludes, the problem for the historian remains how best to address the complex interactions of, in particular, change and continuity, structure and conjuncture, the West and the wider world, and to do so to produce an account that is able to identify and probe crucial issues and key questions.

本文对辉格党的军事史方法进行了批判。它从丹尼斯·肖瓦尔特的这句话开始——“军事史可以说是历史学家所谓的“辉格解释”的最后一个据点”——并指出肖瓦尔特的评估是对理论普遍缺乏和后备贫困的反映该主题的理论篮子，包括战争与社会、战斗面貌和军事革命等主要内容。认识到许多军事历史方法的缺点，作者确定了挑战 - 编写包含多个地区并采取全球方法的军事历史。正如作者总结的那样，历史学家的问题仍然是如何最好地解决复杂的相互作用，特别是变化和连续性，