The Usefulness of Using AI in Military History

Artificial intelligence (AI) holds growing potential in military history research by enabling structured access to vast sources and improving analytical capacity. This is especially relevant when considering Sir Michael Howard’s influential 1961 essay The Use and Abuse of Military History, in which he defines military history’s value across multiple levels: educating the general public, shaping national identity, informing military training, and guiding political decision-making. Howard warned against simplistic narratives or misuse of history to stoke chauvinism, instead emphasising history’s complexity and context-dependent lessons. AI systems, if trained appropriately, can support this nuanced approach rather than oversimplify it.

At the level of campaign analysis, Howard argued military history should help officers understand the conditions and uncertainties in which decisions are made, not offer a prescriptive template. Here, AI can be transformative: operational officers—rarely trained as historians—often struggle to access and interpret official sources. AI can bridge that gap, swiftly retrieving, summarising, and cross-referencing material from official histories, battle reports, and archives. The integration of AI in professional military education could thereby enhance the capacity to internalise the kinds of conditional, context-rich insights that Howard insisted are vital.

Furthermore, as seen in The Oxford Handbook of World War II and The Cambridge History of War, historiography has expanded far beyond battlefield narrative to encompass technology, ideology, economic mobilisation, and civilian experience. AI tools trained on such multidimensional historiography can help users form broader, interdisciplinary perspectives. AI's ability to link primary and secondary sources across domains facilitates more responsible use of history for both strategic thought and public understanding—key Howardian imperatives.

Finally, Howard's caution about misuse applies equally to AI: its outputs depend on the biases and limitations of its training data. Thus, military institutions must carefully curate the materials and methods used in AI development to avoid reinforcing national myths or institutional blind spots. When responsibly implemented, AI does not replace the historian but can become a critical aide in preserving historical rigour and accessibility.

This analysis is based on Howard’s original 1961 lecture (unpublished in the sources uploaded) and supported by references to comprehensive historical studies including Piehler & Grant (2023), Overy (2023), and Chickering et al. (2012).

"THE USE AND ABUSE OF MILITARY HISTORY" by Michael Mary Howard

https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parame.../vol11/iss1/16/...