Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power

Rating:
Summary: Bad reporting, questionable logic
Review: The common wisdom is that the reason the West has won so many wars is greater technology and greater economic strength. Hanson seems to think that this is not the case, and that better discipline, shock battle, individualism, a tradition of dissent, and a whole host of other factors play equally consistent roles. He tries to prove that this is the case. I don't believe he succeeds in that effort. Instead, the whole book winds up reading like a Europe-is-better diatribe without the proof necessary to make such statements.

Without going into too much detail, let me make a few points.

1. A major probelm throughout the book is that Hanson seems to claim as "Western" anything that is good. He talks about "Western" science and mathematics, for example, while ignoring the fact that many theories and technologies came from the same Arab countries that the "West" supposedly dominates. Words like "algebra" and "algorithm," for example, come from Arabic.

And what's the deal with the inventions? When Europeans learn gunpowder from the Chinese, Hanson portrays them as simply using their Western ways of learning and adapting to create Western style weapons. But when the Japanese learn how to build planes to improve their weaponry, Hanson describes them as having "westernized" their military. This is clearly biased reporting.

2. Freedom: Does giving soldiers freedom make them better fighters? Even in the West, there have been numerous dictators who've deprived their soldiers and citizens of freedom, including Hitler and Alexander. Genghis, Mao, and Ho deprived their people of freedom, and none of them ever lost a war while they were living.

Hanson explains this away by saying that the Westerner's so-called "tradition" of Western values makes up for their temporary loss of democratic values. Yet the non-Democratic Genghis and Mao did just as well. What kind of logic is this?

3. Better discipline and tactics: Hanson erroneously thinks that West has a monopoly on war tactics. I brought this up with a friend of mine who used to serve in the Navy. He laughed and said that educated military officers in the U.S. and in Europe all read Sun Tsu's "Art of War" as a means of learning war strategy.

I guess Hanson will now claim that Sun Tsu stole "Western" ideas...

4. Midway: Well, considering that the Japanese beat the Russians, who were considerably more Europeanized, doesn't that say something about their method of war?

Also, Hanson claims that technology isn't everything. They why is this the only battle he brings up where the Other had the technological advantage?

5. Vietnam: I have no idea how bringing up Tet proves anything. America lost that war. The point of this chapter was to show that a tradition of dissent improves Western war, but in this case, it lost the war. Hanson seems to think that the Americans could have won the war if they had held on to key positions won during Tet--he mentions casuality rates to "prove" it. Well, coulda, shoulda, woulda. Theories prove nothing; it's the end result that people look at. Wasn't that the opinion of the rest of the book?

Hanson also accuses Martin Luther King, David Halberstam, and a whole slew of other well respected journalists and leaders of lying about the war. He doesn't go into details. Just accusations and slander.

6. Afghanistan: Afghanistan really proved to me exactly how full of it Hanson is. He says that America faced a "logistical nightmare of fighting in a landlocked country 6,000 miles away" and that the terorists enjoyed "both internal and foreign support."

This is a complete lie.

I was in New York during 9/11. I watched and read everything about the War in Afghanistan. There was never any doubt that we would win. We removed the Taliban, and killed many of their top leaders. Victory was never in doubt, especially since we had better equipment, a better economy, and the ENTIRE world standing behind us. We knocked them out with our superior planes and bombs. Everyone expected it, and it happened.

Mr. Hanson's revisionist recollection of events is atrocious.

In the end, I think it's safe to say that this book failed to prove its thesis. Technology and capital are the driving forces behind Western victories.

I'm giving this book two stars rather than one star because I felt that it was an interesting read. It challenged me to learn more about Salamis, Lepanto, and all of the earlier wars which my grade school teachers never taught me. I'm giving this an extra star because it presented some parts of history with which I am unfamiliar, and it urged me to learn more.

That being said, Hanson should spend more time trying to tell the truth.


Rating:
Summary: Our Way of War-And Peggy Lee
Review: Victor Hanson has written an outstanding book with a very persuasive thesis--and yet, as Peggy Lee once queried, "Is that all there is?"

It long has been claimed that one of the main distinguishing characteristics of Western people is their "dynamism," a creative, outward-looking forcefulness, which can have both positive and negative consequences. Victor Hanson examines the West's "military dynamism," maintaining that it originated 2500 years ago in the small farming valleys of Greece, and with "civic dynamism" has made possible the West's leading role in the world today.

Hanson tells us how the small farm owners of early Greece would periodically march into battle, shoulder-to-shoulder, with body armor, spears and interlocking shields. Their phalanx, or columnar, formations would move quietly and methodically up and down battlefields almost as one fearsome organism. Regularly needing to return to tend to their fields, these voting citizen-soldiers were willing to engage in quick decisive face-to-face "shock collisions."

Among Hanson's nine decisive battles, two of particular interest were against Islamic forces, near Poitiers in 732, and in the Gulf of Lepanto eight centuries later. Also timely, coming in the aftermath of a sneak attack, was the Battle of Midway.
Western war-making advantages include the ability to carry out these very organized straight-on, relentless attacks (less advantageous against guerillas or terrorists). Our free market civic culture encourages autonomy, creativity, flexibility, initiative and technological advancement.

Hanson does have concerns about Western warfare, particularly as the world's war-making becomes increasingly Westernized. Still, this military dynamism-let's hope reluctantly used-is quite something. Not only in its ability to win, but, as Hanson shows, in being able to turn defeat into ultimate victory.

As extensive as this book is on the origins of the Western war-making, one can't help wondering if the Greek hoplites, instead of being THE explanation for Western dynamism, played only a major role in its development? Which leads to other questions.

As far as time and place, were there really no significant instances of Western dynamism predating or outside the early Greek republics? Is it truly impossible that there might have been sprouts of this dynamism taking hold in other less nurturing soils?

On this topic Hanson seems to protest too much-repeating "only then and not before," "only there and nowhere else." Otherwise, of course, genetics, including intelligence, might raise its ugly head. But, really now, even if we try to think of dynamism and intelligence as originally separate, how could two human traits so demonstrably powerful, subtle, and adaptable interact over thousands of years without each significantly effecting the other?

Isn't it possible that ancient Greece was where early Western dynamism, being so well nurtured, first flowered into something so historically important? If a small asteroid had cruelly cannonballed into those tiny Greek farming valleys 2500 years ago, would today's something-less-than-dynamic Europe, possibly under invasion from the Aztecs, be embarked upon a crash program to invent the flintlock musket? Or perhaps even the invention of the 1503 pocket-handkerchief would remain today only a distant shining dream?

Oddly, while Professor Hanson stresses the impossibility of any connection between Western dynamism and genetics, in a book that otherwise marches phalanx after phalanx of detailed facts across 492 pages of history in support of Western military superiority, it is difficult to find a single paragraph of reasoned argument in support of this impossibility-of-genetics contention.

Of course the denial of any meaningful genetic differences among human groups is in keeping with today's Primary Taboo. A taboo that has become so satirically extreme that when outward physical differences are to the extent that they simply cannot be denied, say, between pigmies and Vikings (please repeat: merely skin color), even this must be pressed into service as still more proof that there are absolutely no significant internal genetic differences.

If scholars were to adhere to the same can't-be-genetics assumption about countless other subspecies, from orchids to horses, their position would be considered about as scientifically rigorous as if they were to take for granted the existence of large alligators happily lumbering under the city streets of New York.

Nevertheless, the idea that significant genetic differences exist among human groups is simply unthinkable. But not so unthinkable that it does not need to be denied twelve times throughout Professor Hanson's book.

Of course even a genetic component would not mean Europeans are "superior" (or more accomplished) in this way or that in some ultimate, cosmic sense. Some Asian groups have higher average IQs. And all different cultures, tribes and races, having their different attributes, outlooks and values, have traditionally thought of themselves as superior to outsiders, and have every right to. Comically, it is only Europeans, or whites, who work tirelessly to prove that they are not only no better than anyone else, but morally inferior--"racist," "sexist," "xenophobic," etc. Thankfully, when it comes to such extreme ethnofugalism--this obsessive flight from the center of one's own inherited culture--Victor Hanson has too much integrity to take part.

Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the West, it has its own special character that should be preserved, rather than allowed to be overwhelmed by mass Third World legal and illegal immigration. If such a statement seems extreme, anyone can take a pocket-calculator and project current demographic trends over the next few generations. And to reduce the whole problem simply to one of "inadequate assimilation," an argument many "conservatives" cling to like a tattered baby blanket, is to be oblivious to (or dodge) a core component of civilizational suicide.

Overall, Victor Hanson is to be applauded for writing unashamedly about the West's military superiority. Although such superiority should be obvious to any child of twelve, Hanson explains it bravely (for these tremulous times) and brilliantly, including some of its most important origins.

However, that such an otherwise excellent work could contain so central a blind spot chillingly illustrates that we are living today in a time of political correctness that can only be described as an intellectually discombobulating, again to borrow from Ms Lee, "Fever!"


Rating:
Summary: Tainted Heart
Review: When the thought of war comes to one's mind, images of bloodshed or victory enter the mind. Now when that term is applied to the western civilization the image of failure rarely comes up. Over the course of history western civilization rarely ever loses a war to a non-western civilization. The question of why western civilization is a powerhouse in the game of war can be related back to the ancient civilization of Greece and Rome.
Victor Davis Hanson in Carnage and Culture gives readers a different viewpoint to see military history form "My curiosity is not with Western man's heart of darkness, but with his ability to fight - specifically how his military prowess reflects larger social, economic, political and cultural practices that themselves seemingly have little do with war." Instead of taking the typical approach to military history, which deals with the strategies of war and the blood of war, he takes a very different approach to military history. Hanson wants to make the reader realize that the culture of the soldier, the way his government acts towards him and other social influences beckoned upon him can affect his psyche.
The three parts of his book are appropriately titled creation, continuity and control. Here we see how through the battles he has chosen that the foundation of western power in warfare is laid out. In the continuity part we see the transformation from an emerging power into a force that is to be reckoned with later on in history. The part titled control is how it sounds, in which the western implants its talons on the world.
The details in Hanson's book, for some strange reason, makes it more intriguing not boring. Usually one when hears a book has great detail they either avoid the book or fall asleep while reading it. Hanson prevents you from putting down the book by making you feel like you're actually watching a TV report of the battle.

Rating:
Summary: Paperback Edition
Review: Wonderful, enlightening. However, the book was so poorly bound it fell apart in chunks.