Constructing the Early Modern Soldier: Military Masculinity and Violence in the British Imagination, 1560-1660

这一多学科研究考察了英国人想象中的军事男子气概和暴力之间的相互作用以及1560年至1660年间早期现代士兵的塑造。早期现代时期受到了军事历史学家的特别关注，他们研究了1560年至1660年间军事和海军的发展是否以及如何导致了现代民族国家国际体系的建立，回应MichaelRoberts的“军事革命”论文（Roberts，1956;帕克，1976; Glete，1999;帕罗特，2011）。随着常备军作为陆地和海上的持续军事力量出现，大量近期的著作研究了欧洲国家如何试图垄断暴力（蒂利，1985;汤姆森，1995）。然而，尽管目前新军事史的重点是普通士兵的经历，但关于早期现代军事身份的文章很少（Woodcock和O 'Mahony，2019）。这些身份和暴力的理解之间的联系，虽然往往含蓄地承认，尚未直接检查在previoushistoriography（卡普，2012;布莱克摩尔，2013）。此外，尽管在现代女权主义思想中，（贝尔·胡克，1984年;谢泼德，2019年），直到最近，性别历史学家才开始探索现代世界早期的男性气质和暴力，很少关注军事身份（托马斯和羽毛，2013年;麦科马克，2015年）。相反，迄今为止，大多数对早期现代战争的性别方法都集中在政治方法上（Purkiss，2009; Hughes，2012）和女性研究（Hacker，1981;林恩，2012）。

This multidisciplinary study examines the interaction between military masculinities andviolence in the British imagination and the shaping of the early modern soldier between 1560and 1660.The early modern period has received an exceptional amount of attention from militaryhistorians examining whether and how military and naval developments between 1560 and1660 led to the creation of the modern nation-state international system, responding to MichaelRoberts's 'Military Revolution' thesis (Roberts, 1956; Parker, 1976; Glete, 1999; Parrott,2011). As standing armies emerged as continuous military forces on land and at sea, numerousrecent works examine how European states attempted to monopolise violence (Tilly, 1985;Thomson, 1995). However, despite the current focus of new military history on the experiencesof the ordinary soldier, little has been written about early modern military identities (Woodcockand O'Mahony, 2019). The links between these identities and understandings of violence,though often implicitly recognised, have not yet been directly examined in previoushistoriography (Capp, 2012; Blakemore, 2013). Moreover, despite the wide array of work ongender and violence in modern feminist thought (bell hooks, 1984; Shepherd, 2019), onlyrecently have gender historians begun to explore masculinities and violence in the early modernworld, with little focus on military identities (Thomas and Feather, 2013; McCormack, 2015).Instead, most gendered approaches to early modern war to date focus on political approaches(Purkiss, 2009; Hughes, 2012) and women's studies (Hacker, 1981; Lynn, 2012).