Take a photo of a barcode or cover
8 reviews for:
Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power
Victor Davis Hanson
3.63 AVERAGE
8 reviews for:
Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power
Victor Davis Hanson
3.63 AVERAGE
I've been warned about this book by my buddies at the NFBC group. After reading some reviews, I became wary but still determined to read it After all, this is the oldest book I have unread in my shelf and I got it for just $3.17 from a sale.
I want that $3.17 back now, please.
The author is not just racist and xenophobic, but worse, his writing is messy and repetitive.
This is NOT a book about battle history that I thought it was. Sure there are several historical battles like Salamis, Cannae, Midway, Tenochtitlan and so on, but I only got so little useful information about the battles. The author spent the majority of the book pointing out that the victories the Western armies achieved were because the Western values were better, and that the Eastern armies were simply decrepit, corrupt, and uncivilized. Ad nauseam.
For example, he argued for over than 50 pages that freedom and democracy are the main cause of the Greeks' victory at the Salamis and barely paid any attention (only a few paragraph) to the tactical and strategic acumen of the commanders as well as the choice of battle site that clearly advantaged the Greeks. Now, he is welcome of course for his thesis, but the way it was written was too repetitive and thus tiring.
Well, the author just lauded Trump as "a tragic hero" and described global warming as an “apparition” in his latest book so I should have known better. Nevertheless, his politics aside, the jumbled writing style and the lack of so-called titular "landmark battle" accounts ruined the book for me.
I want that $3.17 back now, please.
The author is not just racist and xenophobic, but worse, his writing is messy and repetitive.
This is NOT a book about battle history that I thought it was. Sure there are several historical battles like Salamis, Cannae, Midway, Tenochtitlan and so on, but I only got so little useful information about the battles. The author spent the majority of the book pointing out that the victories the Western armies achieved were because the Western values were better, and that the Eastern armies were simply decrepit, corrupt, and uncivilized. Ad nauseam.
For example, he argued for over than 50 pages that freedom and democracy are the main cause of the Greeks' victory at the Salamis and barely paid any attention (only a few paragraph) to the tactical and strategic acumen of the commanders as well as the choice of battle site that clearly advantaged the Greeks. Now, he is welcome of course for his thesis, but the way it was written was too repetitive and thus tiring.
Well, the author just lauded Trump as "a tragic hero" and described global warming as an “apparition” in his latest book so I should have known better. Nevertheless, his politics aside, the jumbled writing style and the lack of so-called titular "landmark battle" accounts ruined the book for me.
Pretty much anything by Victor Davis Hanson is worth reading.
I've read this book after Guns Germs and Steel from Jared Diamond following recommendations of r/AskHistorians subreddit ( they are great, thanks to them! ). It was a good thing to follow this order.
Guns germs and steel point location as a major factor to explain cultural dominance.
Carnage and Culture underlies the power of Western culture to raise deadly armies, disregarding mainly location factor.. This point is develop though several battles. Although you will have a quick introduction of the battle, the point of the author is not to make you live it but to highlight some culture characteristic of Westerners and their opponents.
I enjoyed most chapters with the exception of the Vietnam one where I got lost and couldn't follow his point.
Guns germs and steel point location as a major factor to explain cultural dominance.
Carnage and Culture underlies the power of Western culture to raise deadly armies, disregarding mainly location factor.. This point is develop though several battles. Although you will have a quick introduction of the battle, the point of the author is not to make you live it but to highlight some culture characteristic of Westerners and their opponents.
I enjoyed most chapters with the exception of the Vietnam one where I got lost and couldn't follow his point.
The author was a bit repetitive and, although the cases he presents do support his argument, I can't say that the author has definitively proved his point (to be fair though how could he?). Having said that he makes a very thought provoking set of claims about the link between culture and military effectiveness that make for an enlightening read. Definitely recommended.
(3 stars)
Im about halfway through. He repeats himself ALOT.
Words you will see a shocking amount of times:
shock battle
shock troops
Kind of a snooze, not much detail on the battles, and his ideas could have been summed up in one chapter really. I find his perspective interesting, but he really does put too much emphasis on the classical and really does discount the Christian element in the West's rise to military predominance in its embracing of reason and science.
Update:
(4 stars)
Finished the book last night. I think I'll bump it up to 4 stars. the second half starting at Tenochtitlán really was an interesting read, and covered much that I'd never read about yet. Despite what other reviews say, and combining everything else I've read about the rise of Western civilization, I think his thesis holds up decently well tho some of his statementa (particularly about the birth of capitalism) were really accurate.
Im about halfway through. He repeats himself ALOT.
Words you will see a shocking amount of times:
shock battle
shock troops
Kind of a snooze, not much detail on the battles, and his ideas could have been summed up in one chapter really. I find his perspective interesting, but he really does put too much emphasis on the classical and really does discount the Christian element in the West's rise to military predominance in its embracing of reason and science.
Update:
(4 stars)
Finished the book last night. I think I'll bump it up to 4 stars. the second half starting at Tenochtitlán really was an interesting read, and covered much that I'd never read about yet. Despite what other reviews say, and combining everything else I've read about the rise of Western civilization, I think his thesis holds up decently well tho some of his statementa (particularly about the birth of capitalism) were really accurate.
This book provides some interesting insights into historical battles, but the author's thesis isn't necessarily flawless. Overall, the book is a little dry and a bit of a tough read. Definitely read it for scholastic reasons, not pleasure.
Hanson argues for a distinct western strategic culture through the retelling of 9 historical battles. The Greek naval victory against Persia at Salamis demonstrates the efficacy of "free" soldiers against "slave" eastern soldiers, Alexander's victory against the Achaemenids at Gaugamela demonstrates a Western preference for decisive battle, the Roman recovery after the defeat to Hannibal at Cannae shows the unique resilience of a Western army of citizen soldiers, Charles Martel's stand against the Saracens at Poitiers shows the potency of the western tradition of heavily-armored ground infantry, Cortes' conquest of Mexico is told as a victory of Western emphasis on reason, empirics, and capacity for innovation, the British stand against Zulu warriors at Rorke's Drift demonstrates the superiority of western discipline in battle, Midway shows the value of individualism and flexible decision-making in battle, and American engagement in Vietnam as demonstration of a western tradition of self-critque that in the long run makes for a more dynamic and innovative fighting force. Although well-written, the limited anecdotal nature of this book makes an ultimately unpersuasive case for a very ambitious case. Hanson's argument would have benefited from a section on the historical and intellectual continuity of the "western traditions" described. I remain skeptical on how robust a superior western culture of war really is. Is discipline of formation and tactics really unique to Hellenic origins? Does not the greater efficacy of Roman forces under Authoritarian Imperial rule than under Republican guidance undermine the supposed martial virtues of democracy, freedom, and individualism? Did not Attila and Ghengis Khan, who are well outside the Hellenic western traditions utterly devastate European defenses? And given the periods of great stability, prosperity, and peace in Persia, China, and other "eastern" regimes, there seems to be a case to be made that if the Western tradition is better at war, the Easter tradition seems to be better at peace.
Beyond any problems with Hanson's thesis (any all encompassing historical thesis is guilty of cherry picking), this book is too poorly written to slog through! I made it through the first three of the nine battles and barely, at that. There is very little narrative logic, either in the chapter organization or even in individual sentences. The battles are not discussed linearly, but are often introduced from the middle (or near end) of the battle and then at some point later in the chapter the actual context and leading events are given (and even then, in a very unclear manner). It is very confusing. The subsequent discussion of how each battle represents this superior Western military culture and power is likewise poorly delivered and lacks cohesion. I wanted to enjoy this book more than I did, but alas it is not worth the time it takes to read and comprehend.