User talk:Userunknown

Hi CorentinB, welcome to Wikiversity! I saw you editing User:User:CorentinB, but I think it's safe to delete that page now? If you've any other questions, I'll happily answer them - just leave me a note on my talk page. I'm adding some hopefully useful links below - cheers! Cormaggio beep 21:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I love you.
Yes, you're right, the page is history heavy. I'm a very history-oriented student and that's the angle I take on Strategy. I would love your insight from the theoretical/IR side and I think your suggestions are exactly what is needed on that page. Given my obvious historical bias, I tend to do a chronological overview and perhaps this is what has me stuck. I think what the page needs is a good once-over, cutting extraneous stuff that can go into the "Introduction to Military Hisory" class. We can keep only the bits of history that directly apply to the understanding of the theory. If I may be so bold, three courses are, in my mind, foundations to the study:

-Introduction to War History -Introduction to Political Science -Introduction to International Relations Theory

On this tripod of support, I think the Introduction to Strategic Studies has a sound start.

In my mind, the three themes can be carried on in future semesters: -Historiography -Statistical Methods for Political Science -Critical Theory and Challenges to Realist Thought

You and I will likly see eye to eye, judging by your putting Waltz at the top of the book list. I was trained in Classical Realism. Perhaps it would be good to temper that with our friend over in Peace Studies, who, I think, may have a better background in Critical Theory. The Intro to Strategic Studies wouldn't be complete without a section on State-Centric versus Human Security, per example.

I will be looking over your changes to see if I get inspired!--Dnjkirk 16:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your comments ! :) I'll try to make some changes to the Introduction to Strategic Studies course ASAP. I'll have some comments on the whole curriculum offered by the School, like including more "History of IR/Diplomatic history" as an introduction, since I've seen too many students knowing who were Clausewitz and Hans J. Morgenthau without being able to give correctly the beginning and ending dates of the two World Wars (well, haven't seen many of them in absolute terms, but even one is definitely too many), or being convinced that the nazis were responsible for the First World War. --CorentinB 23:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

SSS
Hey Corentin!

Thanks for the welcome! I will look around, and make any changes I think necessary - so jump in if you disagree with me! The Howard and Paret version - hmmm! I realise many scholars like it, although I feel a lot of that is scholarly laziness, just accepting that new is always better. Howard and Paret are great military historians, but it doesn't mean that we should take their word on Clausewitz. I do acknowledge in that note that they are celebrated, but ask that people use their own judgement, which I think is entirely right in an academic setting.

Thanks once again, and I really look forward to working with you!

ChrisfowTalk to me! 00:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)