As a member of the Society for Army Historical Research for a few years I always take an interest in the list of new PhDs. One thing has struck me is that far and away the vast majority of these deal with khaki military history, that is from the First World War onwards. The British Army before then is relatively neglected. It occurs to me to ask why this is?
I suppose that if a PhD follows on from a MA, following a BA after A Levels at school it begs the question is this a result of the 20th century emphasis in the National Curriculum? I am, of course, only referring to the situation in the UK. It would be interesting to know if there is a similar bias elsewhere.
I also wonder if it is due to the relatively easily accessible and vast quantities of raw material available to the researcher of the 20th century?
And further; is 20th century military history simply seen as more relevant in some way?
I have been getting a few hits on this site, so if anyone reads this I would be delighted to hear what they think.