Dr. Hanson is most famous for his 2001 book Carnage and Culture in which he argued that the military dominance of Western Civilization, beginning with the ancient Greeks, is the result of certain fundamental aspects of Western culture. Hanson rejects racial explanations for this military preeminence. He also disagrees with environmental explanations, as put forth by authors such as Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel. According to Hanson, Western values such as political freedom, capitalism, individualism, democracy, rationalism, and open debate form an especially lethal combination when applied to warfare. Non-Western societies can win the occasional victory when warring against a society with these Western values, writes Hanson, but the "Western way of war" will prevail in the long run. Hanson emphasizes that Western warfare is not necessarily more (or less) moral than war as practiced by other cultures; his argument is simply that the "Western way of war" is unequalled in its devastation and decisiveness. Source: Wikipedia === Do you agree on this thesis?
Not at all. There are several examples in European history of wars being fought in particularly daft ways, which had little if anything to do with individualism and even less with rationalism. The Ancient Greeks were known to allow the enemy to form up its ranks of hoplites for the battle so that the fight would be fair. This resulted in unusually high casualties for both parties no matter how decisive the victory of either. The Roman way of warfare, at least before Marius' reforms, was basically to keep sending men into the fray in tight formations until they had battered their way through. A very simple encirclement executed by Hannibal at Cannae (216 BC) cost the lives of more than 40,000 men on a single day because the Romans refused to adapt their rigid and wasteful way of warfare. I can't begin to mention all the little things that are stupid about the way the Milites and later the Knights fought in Medieval battles. These "chivalric" ideals lived on for centuries allowing for the strangest of events to happen when one side decided to let the other get a "fair chance". Has anyone seen "Regeneration"?
I believe he has some valid points. I think your examples Roel predate the "western civilizations" he was referring to. These values are a relatively recent development for the most part. Someof the Greek states were an exception perhaps, but only a temporary aberration not to be revived for centuries.
Ah, but it says: If Hanson did mean his theory to apply also to cultures as old as that of the Ancient Greeks, then obviously he can't be anything but wrong since many of the aspects of "Western culture" that he describes weren't around in those days. Yet this is what Steiner wrote. Another fact is that these values and concepts often only fully appeared after Europe conquered half the world in the 16th and 17th centuries!
I'm with Roel, I'm afraid. Besides, non-Western armies did repeatedly kick the arse of Western armies up until the West really started winning the technology battle. Examples include the Mongols, and the fate of the Crusades. did not exist between Ancient Greece and (slowly beginning in) the Early Modern Period. For me, one of the best reasons for why the West has been so dominant can be found by simply lookig at a world map that shows the distribution of good arable soils. Most of the world has bits & bobs scattered hither & thither, but Europe is almost entirely good arable soil (with only Britain having large chunks that is not). America, like Britain, has a mixture, but still more arable than most. So as soon as the farming technology has risen to the level of being able to produce a large surplus, then a large chunk of your population is free to do other stuff. Oh, and you have a large population to play with. Couple that with the abundant resources most of Europe has/had, and off you go.
i would essentially agree with the statement, western civillisation apart from the barbarian invasions of the 400s has never been overun by another culture and even then the eastern roman empire (byzantium) did not succumbe. incursions into europe have been succesful temporarily but have all ultimately failed inc the arabs in 770s the mongols in 1240s (not by military means) the ottomans in the 1500s. no other area has achieved this including the chinese who are the next best example of and enduring civilisation. yes western armies have been beaten on the battlefield on numerous occasions especailly when outside of their own domain, however the western world is still here and many of the values we hold are the same as those held by the greeks and romans. i would say that it is true that europe and east asia are/were the most ferile areas in the world and essentially surrounded by less hospitable land there fore it is possible that cultures in those areas would find it nearl;y impossible to conquer the more prosperus areas...also the two main cultures of east asia and europe were always geographically to far apart to have ever clashed militarily..so were safe from destruction by one antoher.
In name they are the same, but in practice they are very different indeed. Few people in any western country today would accept what the Greeks called Demokratia because of the many restrictions it placed upon the electorate and because of its elaborate direct democracy system. Few people in any western country today would accept the morals of the Roman world: slavery, orgies, gladiatorial combat, public executions, decimation.
It is true. Our political system is not, strictly speaking, democratic. True democracy is where I get to vote on every decision made by the government, from which roads my local council chooses to repair, up to which country we declare war on next. Obviously this is impractical, so we have a different form of government, often called 'representational democracy' (it has a posh name, but I forget), where we choose some guy to decide these things for us for a few years. We then get to choose again. The Romans were, afaik, the only culture to regularly have people killed purely for amusement. :kill:
the concept was there and obvousily are values today are totally different but not too much i feel. slavery has thankfully disappeared, but gladiatorail combat is still there (boxing wrestling etc) the olympics are still going and as you probably all know orgies still do happen quite frequently
That's true , you can't have a pure democratic society , it's too impractical, like in the US every thing is elected pretty much , including sheriffs , so your not always getting the most qualified person in a position of power , and many a time corruption is present when running for a seat of sheriff (using sheriff as an example of some of the impractibilities of democracy)
We are getting off topic, I guess. I agree with Roel that although we have undergone Roman-Greco influence this influence is more in theory than in practice. I am historian myself and studied a lot about Romans and Greeks and we are -thanks god- not like them. In order words: The thinking of Aristotle has had more influence than the whole of Athens. I don't question the influence of Roman-Greco civilisation, but I think that Hanson is wrong because he suggests a MILITARY tradition dating back to Antiquity. This is proven wrong: The Roman republic waged war in a completely other way than the Greek city-states. And the Medieval knight doesn't fit into the picture of the assumed development since Roman age. Is there any suggestion for an alternative description of the 'Western way of war"? By the way democracy is mass-rule, or more correct: the ones who can manipulate the mass.
The Aztecs had their soldiers fight to make prisoners which they could later sacrifice to their gods. War definitely has a reason if it serves to keep your gods happy. Sun Tzu does not represent the Western way of war yet he clearly gives war a place in society, which is that of creating and destroying states.
But aren't political freedom, capitalism, individualism, democracy, rationalism, and open debate the very values that are compromised at the onset of war, as was the case in Britain in WW1 for example?
Gatsby wrote: Most wars are more limited however in a war for national survival such as WW II you are correct though perhaps you overstate the case somewhat. Many freedoms were temporarily abridged however a Totalitarian state was not set up as might seem to be the natural consequence of such abridgement. Fortunately the West was able to return for the most part to the political and social system in place before the war.
I agree with you, Gatsby. And I am willing to go beyond: I think that democracy does not fit war, because public opinion will curb any extense or prolonged campaigning. Besides war is not good for capitalism, because it disturbs trade and upsets economy as a whole. Hanson is therefore wrong in his assumptions that Western values, like democracy and capitalism, are favourable for waging war, or even lie on the basis of a successfull military doctrine. Besides the most succesfull military armies in Antiquity were developed by authoritarian societies, like Sparta, and the most successfull campaigns were conducted by outspokenly dictators, like Alexander.
