| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
If you do not believe in this theory or are just a big fan of Clauswitz, this book is still a fascinating read because it connects the whole history of war in one relatively slim volume. This is a rare accomplishment, and it provides and excellent base of study for any time period of history.
As for presentation, the book is divided into four main parts with interludes between them, discussing the major advances in military technology. Titled Stone, Flesh, Iron, and Fire, he mainly discusses the advance of weapons from bronze, to iron, to gunpowder, the rise and fall of the horse, and the institution of national armies as major turning points. The book can drag at some points, but on the whole is a quick read, though you may want to read some parts twice just because there is a lot of information here. In short this is a must own for any history buff!
Most interesting is probably the notion that the western (originally Greco-Roman) ideal of decisive battle is an abberation. In fact, natural (primitive) war involves many safeguards and rituals to prevent high casualties. That is not to say that conquest is not possible in primitive war - Aztecs, Monguls, and Turks all managed to set themselves up as permanent rulers in conquered lands. However, casualties are light and there is no shame in retreat in this type of warfare. Keegan then proceeds over ground well-travelled by military historians - how the evolution of European power has led to Western military hegemony since the 17th century. For my money, Hanson's Carnage and Culture (from which Keegan quotes) is a more interesting and provocative read, but Keegan is convincing and fresh in his slant on the same topic.
The only negative aspect of the book, for me, is the theme - that of debunking Clausewitzian theory. It seems to me that, in fact, Keegan has proven (not disproven, as he claims) that Clausewitz's basic assertion, "War is politics by other means" is true. It feels like Keegan is bending the definitions of war and politics to serve his philosophy, and that a Clausewitz apologist could fudge definitions of war and politics to re-prove Clausewitz's assertions. For example, is not the Aztec method of warfare - emphasising the capture of prisoners to be later used in ritual sacrifice - entirely consistent with advancing their theological political system, which requires pacifying their gods with such sacrifices? Granted, Keegan does use many more examples and details to show that warfare is only Clausewitzian if the people prosecuting the war (i.e. WWI) believe it. Natural warfare is not, and warfare in the age of nuclear weapons cannot be if human civilisation is to survive.
|