Changes

The biggest impact came in the shift away from the study of battles. At one time battles were emphasized because of the supposed universal patterns could be gleaned by studying old battles that would be applicable to future actions. This style especially characterized military academies. Secondly battles were studied because of their current political implications for national pride. Thirdly, they made great stories of courage, excitement, blunders and bloodshed.  

The biggest impact came in the shift away from the study of battles. At one time battles were emphasized because of the supposed universal patterns could be gleaned by studying old battles that would be applicable to future actions. This style especially characterized military academies. Secondly battles were studied because of their current political implications for national pride. Thirdly, they made great stories of courage, excitement, blunders and bloodshed.  

Ironically, just as the battlefield narrative was achieving new standards of comprehensiveness and depth in the immediate postwar period (1950s), the whole discipline of military history was reshaped by new developments. The "new military history" focused  on institutions, society, and thought rather than action.<ref>See  David A. Charters et al., eds.''Military History and the Military Profession'' (1992)  p 47.</ref>

Ironically, just as the battlefield [[narrative]] was achieving new standards of comprehensiveness and depth in the immediate postwar period (1950s), the whole discipline of military history was reshaped by new developments. The "new military history" focused  on institutions, society, and thought rather than action.<ref>See  David A. Charters et al., eds.''Military History and the Military Profession'' (1992)  p 47.</ref>

"What happened on the battlefields of the Civil War is very important to know and understand," historian David Blight argues states in ''Beyond the Battlefield: Race, Memory, and the [[American Civil War]]'' (2002). But to know what happened on the battlefield is not nearly enough: "The legions of readers for Civil War military history should continue to hear the bugle call to knowledge of how the war was fought, which leaders were most pivotal in outcomes and why, which factors led to Union victory and Confederate defeat, and the values and motivations of soldiers and civilians in waging such a fundamental struggle for America's national existence." Thus, Blight looks "beyond the battlefield" and puts traditional battle history in context—and, it seems, in its place.<ref>Quoted in Noe (2007)</ref>  

"What happened on the battlefields of the Civil War is very important to know and understand," historian David Blight argues states in ''Beyond the Battlefield: Race, Memory, and the [[American Civil War]]'' (2002). But to know what happened on the battlefield is not nearly enough: "The legions of readers for Civil War military history should continue to hear the bugle call to knowledge of how the war was fought, which leaders were most pivotal in outcomes and why, which factors led to Union victory and Confederate defeat, and the values and motivations of soldiers and civilians in waging such a fundamental struggle for America's national existence." Thus, Blight looks "beyond the battlefield" and puts traditional battle history in context—and, it seems, in its place.<ref>Quoted in Noe (2007)</ref>