Rating: 
Summary: Extremely useful, but not quite finished
Review: Victor Davis Hanson's goal is truly ambitious : To find among the victories and defeats of Western armies against various foes the factors that gave the Western civilization such a military dominance over much of the world.
I'd say the demonstration is impressive, but not quite complete. He isolates some factors, among them civil militarism, democracy, capitalism, a tradition of scientific inquiry.
I see two weaknesses in the book :
First, the relationship between some of those factors is sometimes unclear. Is independent scientific inquiry a characteristic onto itself, or is it a consequence of a democratic tradition? The author does not seem to be quite sure (neither am I).
Second, the author takes some things for granted, for instance just mentioning that democracy and capitalism go hand in hand, without any attempt at proving that point. Unsupported, that conclusion could be shredded to pieces by even moderate authors like John Ralston Saul, who tried to demonstrate that "capitalism is happiest under dictatorships". Both democracy and capitalism are tricky concepts nowadays, more work would be needed to delve into that relationship in a satisfactory manner.
This being said, the book is wonderfully well-documented, entertaining for anyone with an interest in history (and not just military history), thought-provoking and very readable. It gave me the taste for more and sent me toward other history books. I may not agree with all of the author's conclusions, but reading the book certainly expanded my knowledge of the subject.
Rating: 
Summary: Pretty good book, but don't let Hanson lead you astray.
Review: My review essay is on-line. It's pretty long (way too long for Amazon), since I have multiple agendas. I praise the book in broad terms but criticize Hanson's rather perverse rejection of key explanatory concepts offered by writers like William McNeill, Paul Kennedy, and Jared Diamond. His thesis is actually fully compatible with theirs, and the resulting multi-causal explanation is much more useful.
Rating: 
Summary: A limited but valuable view of our society
Review: Although Hanson logically explains the world domination by European powers for the past 500 years and foreseeable future, his brilliant basic argument is seriously undercut by his right-wing nonsense. He attributes military success to the inherent individualism of a free society; he ignores the fundamental element of a free society, the ability of people to trust each other without the need for police and other regulatory enforcers. It's worth reading, nonetheless. Basically, he argues that individualism, rationalism and personal initiative of a free people are the keys to European success. It's an absolutely valid thesis; unfortunately, he didn't include the equally vital discipline, personal responsibility and willing obedience. Yet, it's easy enough to overlook his flaws and focus on his main theme that specific cultural traits make the vital difference. Basically, Hanson argues that European individualism has its roots in classical Greek democracy. His weakness is not knowing why such democracy arose in Greece, just as a similar fierce democracy arose in Scandinavia. Not knowing "why" matters, but it doesn't take away from his basic emphasis on personal freedom and responsibility. Actually, two key factors explain European success. First is the willing acceptance of discipline needed for a united cause; second is the personal initiative to come up with aa good alternative if the first element fails. These principles apply to all elements of a free society. Great warrior societies perish, great commercial societies vanish, and great religions die. Enduring societies produce guns, butter and prayers. Freedom works, because people with free choice volunteer to vigorously defend their societies. People who are free to choose achieve far more than those who are coerced or drafted. This applies to war as well as economics, religion, politics, the arts and justice. Hanson limits his examples to war, which is the great weakness of his book. Strangely enough, Hanson laments ". . . some key ingredients of traditional Western warfare appear to be all but gone. Mercenary armies in America and Europe are the norm." It's an odd comment on today's voluntary, well-paid and highly professional US military, compared to the conscription of draftees in the past. However, the fundamental basis of a free society is trust. It applies to business, which is why Enron, WorldCom, Tyco and Halliburton are such distressing symbols of greed over honesty. In analyzing the Tet Offensive of 1968, Hanson blames "liberals" for the American loss of Vietnam. He doesn't seem to understand that it was the public loss of trust in the military and political leadership of the 1960s that brought defeat. In 1944, the Battle of the Bulge was a similarly rude shock for Western society which expected the war to be over before Christmas - - - but, in those days politicians and generals were trusted. Ignoring such elements of a free society constitute major flaws in this book. But, it doesn't undermine the basic premise that certain basic cultural values give Western society an unprecedented military and economic advantage for the past several hundred years. Ours is a confrontational society based on competition in business, an adversarial legal system, a win-lose political debate rather than compromise and mediation, and a system of checks and balance on the use of political and economic authority. Those qualities made Western society into the world's superpower. It's time to look at 5,000 years of history to examine qualities that created earlier dominance in war, economics or religion. We tend to think of Western society as the pinnacle of material and spiritual achievement, as all previous societies thought of their accomplishments. Surely one lesson of history is that the qualities which create success are not those which sustain it. Hanson is well worth reading for his one-note theory of modern power -- he says it is the Western knack for killing. It is much more. There is a whole quilt of qualities, not merely one little blood-soaked patchwork piece. He offers a nice first step in understanding the worldwide acceptance of current European values -- but, he ignores many other elements that create the whole patchwork quilt. The greatest danger to our freedom comes from absolutist dogma such as Hanson's assertion, "Western civilization has given mankind the only economic system that works . . . . . " Egypt under the Pharaohs was the longest surviving and wealthiest society of its era -- which collapsed because it could not accept change. Our society is scarcely the only one that works -- though it may well be the best for modern times. Hanson needs to look beyond his own cloistered little ivory tower to see the beauty of other societies. Fortunately, a free society is a process of continual change. Unlike past nations, which enshrined a conservative heritage of tradition rather than accept change, Western society will likely continue to evolve to meet and match ever-changing conditions. Hanson aptly shows one reason why. But, there are many more reasons it is so.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting and Though Provoking
Review: Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power by Victor Davis Hanson is an interesting read. The central thesis of the book is that the Western style of direct decisive infantry warfare, with roots in democracy and capitalism, has been historically superior and partly responsible for the Western Worlds superior position. Hanson seeks to present his book as a kind of rebuttal to Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond. As to the latter objective. Hanson fails miserably for Hanson's and Diamond's theories are not inconsistent and Hanson's attempt to make them so detracts from the rest of the book.. Diamond's seeks to explain why it was the Spanish who conquered the Incas in 16th century Peru and not Incas who sailed to Madrid to conquer the Spanish. He theorizes that the Spanish had greater access to domesticatable crops and animals and European geography allowed for an easier exchange of ideas from other burgeoning societies. Hanson seeks to minimize the advantages of what Diamond speaks of and instead focuses on military strategy, and western economic and political thought. What Hanson misses is that without advanced military transport in the horse, the availability of sophisticated weapons, such as steel swords, rudimentary guns and cannon the Incas would never have been conquered. Hanson's own treatment of the conquest of Tenochtitlan (Mexico City) in 1520-1521 is the proof. The Mexican Army utilized infantry tactics, since they did not have any calvary. They fought decisive battles with their opponents, since like the ancient Greeks they had a war season. While the Greeks was based on the harvest, the Mexican was based on the harvest and religious considerations. While they also fought symbolic flower wars these were not the ones fought to protect their Empire. The Spanish, with several hundred Spaniards and thousands of natives under Cortez, were able to defeat the Mexicans. It was the horses, guns and eventually smallpox which were decisive. There can be no argument that Spain or Cortez operated in a democratic or that capitalism was the basis of their economy. One can even argue that what defeated the Aztecs was their penchant for human sacrifice and the desire to capture Cortez instead of killing him. In numerous battles the Aztecs could have killed Cortez but did not. Hanson's and Diamond's book build on each other and offer a compelling explanation to justify each others theories. Hanson unintentionally builds on Diamond's concepts to explain why societies with equal resources do not necessarily develop equally. Otherwise, Hanson's book is well written and very interesting. It is in the description of the battles and the campaigns where he excels. It would have been better if Hanson had dealt with some of the possible exceptions to his theory - the century old Ottoman Empire, the supremacy of the Prussian military tradition which was hardly based on notions of democracy and the Russian almost suicidal defense of their homeland at Stalingrad. Maybe he is saving that for his next book.
Rating:
Summary: The West is Different
Review: Another thought-provoking book from Mr. Hanson. The argument of the book is simply stated: Western countries have always fought differently and more effectively than all other civilizations on the planet. Although I am not convinced of the complete truth of the hypothesis, where do the mongols fit, for example, the author does array quite a few battle studies that fit his opinon. More importantly, the book is an attempt to explain a question that everyone is curious about but few authors have the courage to attempt to answer: Why is the West the dominant culture politically and militarily on this planet? This book may not be the total explanation, I believe it almost certainly is not, but the author deserves points for attempting to address this important question. As with all Mr. Hanson's books, it is superbly and lively written.
Rating:
Summary: Good, but a little repetitous
Review: I enjoyed this book. It is well-written and literate. It makes a good companion (or counterpoint) to Jared Diamond's "Guns, Steel, and Bacteria" -- successfully persuading me that more than early environmental factors account for the rise and continued material success of Western cultures vizaviz other cultures. I'm not as convinced by the book's central premise -- that the success of the West on battlefields is accounted for by its origins in the Greek polity of ancient Athens. OK, so it may be to some extent true. But, by the end of the book, I found myself positively irritated by the number of times this had been offered as a reason for everything. Also, the chapter on Viet Nam made me want to gargle with a good clarifying mouth wash: yuck! That said, the actual battle descriptions make engaging and thrilling reading.
Rating:
Summary: Victor Davis Hanson makes history come alive
Review: This is probably the most enjoyable history book that I have ever read. His writing style is such that I can visualize the events because he personalizes the stories by bringing the battles down to the personal motivation of the participants. The focus of the motivation of the participants has given me a much deeper understanding of the cultural currents and has put them into a very unique historical context. I highly recommend the book and have given it as gifts so some of my closest friends.
Rating:
Summary: Why the West is Best (at least at war)
Review: In this overall quality book, Hanson lays out the reason why the West has overcome occasional blunders to win nearly every major conflict where survival of the culture was at stake. While those of the left may deride the overall view of the book as chauvanistic and Euro-centric, Hanson argues that the aspects of Western culture that the left holds sacred are what contribute to the efficient, ruthless fighting machine that has won consistently from Salamis to the Gulf War. These factors include freedom of inquiry, civilian control over the military; open exchange of information, separation of religeon from political, scientific, and military discourse,and so on. While Hanson uses this book as a vehicle to discredit others who have argued that environmental factors have led to the West's ascendancy (most notably Jared Diamond in "Guns, Germs, and Steel, another good read), I see this book as a sequal more than a refutation of the latters' views. The one question that Hanson doesn't effectively answer is why the seeds of Western democracy took hold and spread in the West, not elsewhere. Diamond and company come close to answering the question, but don't quite address it completely. These two authors should collaberate to answer this question and close the bridge between them.
Rating:
Summary: doesn't hold up
Review: Exciting, and the thesis is alluring and thought provoking. As you go through it, however, it is less appealing, the logic has a lot of holes, and one tires of the didactic presentation.
Interesting, but that was it for me...
Rating:
Summary: Had to read it for class, ended up liking it :)
Review: I had to read this book for my War and Society class at Temple University by force, and ended up liking the book (which made it much more easier to read, unlike most required readings for college classes). It is definitely a good read for those interested in Western Warfare and would like to have a better grasp of why Western civilization seems more often than not to be on the winning side of wars. I am now 70% of my way through the book, and am finding it quite easy to read, and also enjoyable. Hanson looks at a wide range of Battles over a span of over 1,900 years (which end up not being all wins for the West), from Salamis in 4th Century BCE to the Tet Offensive of the Vietnam War in the 1970s. While I have found a chapter or two of the book to be less focused on the battle itself and it seems like Hanson goes off on tangents at times, overall the book is well written and informative. I find the subtitle a little off, and contradictory to what Hanson tries to get across. "Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power" is a little inaccurate. Even Hanson himself says he didn't pick these battles as "landmark" or "decisive" battles which won wars, but rather battles that exemplorate the factors which make western warfare superior.
|
