Howling Forever (History of Warfare - John Keegan)

Member Name: MagdaDH

Product:	History of Warfare - John Keegan
Date:	03/11/05 (499 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Erudite, well written, captivating, informative and with a personal perspective

Disadvantages: Requires some prior knowledge of history to appreciate and enjoy; with a personal perspective

'History of Warfare' presents a look at the whole European/Western history (with substantial incursions into other cultures, notably China and Japan) from the perspective of warmaking. Considering how important warfare is in history as we know it, it's not surprising that Keegan's narrative is fairly coherent and rarely interrupted. From a war to a war, from a battle to a battle, with a revolution or a conquest thrown in for a good measure, pretty much everything in the outline of the known history gets covered.

The book varies in how detailed its account of actual events, dates and battles is in relation to a more general discussion of developments in warfare. I had a strong feeling that Keegan sometimes almost couldn't help himself and included unnecessary detailed data (notably about Roman and Greek campaigns), compelled probably by his classical education rather than the needs of the discourse.

It *is* pretty much necessary to have at least a vague idea of the outline of the Western history to read 'History of Warfare'. Theoretically it would be possible to embark on the task for a reader without even basic knowledge, but such a reader would probably find themselves overwhelmed by a barrage of names of peoples, places and cultures and generally the frame of shared reference assumed by the author. Keegan keeps the narrative element reasonably simple, but a lot of the book's interest derives from looking at the whole of history from the military/warfare perspective. I am not suggesting you need to be a history graduate to read and enjoy this book, but an awareness of a very rough outline of the last 5 thousand years helps.

The whole book is based - to some extent at least - on a polemical premise, directed at the Clausewitzian concept of 'war as a continuation of politics by any other means'. Keegan uses the Clausewitz's distinction between 'real war' and 'true war' throughout the book as well as employing other concepts similar but not identical to that distinction: 'primitive' versus 'modern' war, 'below and above military horizon', even 'civilised war'. This differentiation is a rather useful one and it was one of the most memorable aspects I was left with after reading 'History of Warfare'.

The range of the author is truly impressive: from the earliest civilisations of Sumer and Egypt to the first Gulf War, John Keegan presents a sweeping account of the what, how and why of military conflict throughout the Western history.

Apart from the introduction and the epilogue, devoted to the extensive discussion of 'what war is' and 'what war should be' questions, the rest of the book is divided into six sections, three main ones and three interludes. The interludes examine warfare from the point of view of external circumstances (geography and climate), fortifications and logistics. The main sections, entitled 'Stone', 'Flesh' and 'Fire' present the actual, roughly chronological account.

'Stone' deals with warfare of the primitive peoples and the early civilisations and concludes with the invention of the chariot. 'Flesh' concentrates, perhaps surprisingly, on the equine rather than the human variety and was to me the most fascinating but ideologically the most controversial section as it deals with both the use of horses in the cavalry formations of the 'civilised' world and with the role of the periodic invasions of the nomadic horse people from the steppes in defining the European civilisation. 'Fire' charts the history of warfare from the first use of the gunpowder to the present and includes the strongest polemic with the Clausewitz's ideas.

Keegan's main argument is that war and warfare are much more than means of achieving political (and thus supposedly rational) ends in the most efficient (and thus supposedly rational) way. 'How they fight' is an essential question that needs to be asked about any culture and is, largely, culture-defined and culture-dependent.

One cannot deny a validity of such an argument but the importance Keegan attributes to the cultural or even psychological factors seems to me excessive: he gives a reluctant due to technological advances but keeps going back to the 'moods' and 'value systems' that define modes of war in particular times and cultures. A supreme example of the domination of culture is the case of Japan reverting to pre-gunpowder state but arguably even that was not necessarily an instance of culture and value systems working their magic, but possibly consciously employed means of achieving a political end by the shoguns and their supporting samurai class.

I am probably not a typical target reader for Keegan's book. I come from a culture that historically prides itself on being the bulwark of Western Christianity against the barbarians from the Eastern steppe; but on the other tried to establish links with same steppe riding Sarmatians as the supposed ancestors of the Polish noble class. It's a culture where the traditional national dress dates to 17th century but looks more Turkish than powdered and bewigged 'civilised European'.

To such a reader like it was fascinating to see how personal and - of course - culturally determined Keegan's look is. He uses the term 'civilisation' and 'barbarian' throughout the book and it's hard to avoid noticing how firmly on the side of 'civilisation' his personal history and circumstances place him; and this is civilisation defined as the world of ancient Greeks and Romans and further on, the Christendom. He remains reasonably objective in quoting facts and accepting the more bloodthirsty aspects of his 'civilised' societies, but I had a strong feeling that despite that, his heart is located firmly on one side and his use of the terms 'civilised' and 'barbarian' is not only conventional.

I found especially far fetched his argument about the horse-riding nomads of the steppes being mentally more capable of cruelties than settled farmers of the land, supposedly due to their experience of herding and slaughtering the livestock and lack of mitigating religious scruples.

The whole book concludes with the account of both great wars of the 20th century, followed by the analysis of how the nuclear menace developed and how it, ultimately, refuted the Clausewitzian thesis: a war fought to win, when using the H-bomb, is a war of total destruction.

The totality and relentless cruelty of the wars of the 20th century is, in Keegan's analysis, a result of the militarization of the society ('every man a soldier'); technological developments (we bomb because we can) and - in the political plane - the application of the Clausewitzian principle. For Hitler war was politics (or politics was war). The greatest lesson of the last 200 years of warfare seems to be to stop using war as means of achieving political ends: in the current situation warfare is indeed a particularly bad choice of a political tool. Or is it?

The reader has to attempt the answer themselves. Or ask the president of the United States of America, George W. Bush.

The book was written before the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were waged in a clear pursuit of political ends, while he sees the first Gulf war as unequivocally just and amazingly efficient.

Has war doesn't pay anymore in the modern world? Is Clausewitzian principle refuted? Can we return to the ritualistic conflicts of the 'primitive war' but played out with modern armies consisting of the select few who are temperamentally unsuited to civilian life?

Keegan seems to think so, but despite his vision of the 'end of war', he is very reluctant to let go of the armies. He still maintains a tacit (and rather pathetic) admiration for those without which 'the world would become uninhabitable' and who are - or can be in his opinion - a civilising force. It is not very clear why he thinks so: it seems so obvious to him that the explanation is not provided. Perhaps he believes that the violent instinct of the human have to be channelled into some form of warfare. Perhaps he confuses the role of an army and one of a police force. He suggests revisiting and learning from the primitive cultures with their stylised, arms-length (or further) combat but at the same time he still believes in staying 'above the military horizon' and thus maintaining within the society an organisation of human beings devoted ultimately to the pursuit of killing or maiming others.

***

Overall, 'History of Warfare' is an impressive work indeed; accomplished with flair and personal passion; at the same time erudite and accessible. I learned a lot from it: particularly the specific military perspective and concepts, but also many aspects of war culture I have never considered before (from the essence of the Greek phalanx to how notions of citizenship rights and military duty got intimately entangled in the 19th century).

Many of the more general propositions in the Keegan's book seem to me to be unlikely to be true: I don't share his admiration for even very civilised armies and I don't necessarily identify with the 'civilised' world, especially the Roman one, as much as he does. The Marxist approach that was prevalent in my formative years of education makes me doubt the actual role of the great names in history and my background in scientific psychology makes me frown at the importance he seems to place on temperaments suited and not suited to warrior life.

But these do not need to detract from the main narrative: however much I doubted the 'whys' provided by Keegan, reading about the 'hows' and 'whats' was enjoyable and enlightening. I found myself using the knowledge gained from the 'History of Warfare' even when watching a Hollywood spectacle like 'Troy'!

Recommended for anybody with interest and basic knowledge of history.

Available for £6.99 in paperback from Amazon and from £1.44 from the Marketplace. (I got mine in a library sale from 30 pence).

Summary: European history from the point of view of warmaking, with strong personal angle from the author