Tag Archives: History

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Books (3) Azar Gat – War in Human Civilization

Posted on by

Oxford University Press, 1st edition (paperback) cover 2008

 

(3) AZAR GAT –

WAR IN HUMAN CIVILIZATION (2006)

 

 

“War, huh, yeah

What is it good for?”

 

Azar Gat’s history of war in human civilization is nothing short of magisterial – and at least halfway answers that famous song lyric, telling us what war is for.

 

That is the fundamental question which this book examines – “Why do people go to war?”.

 

Is it part of human nature or a “late cultural invention” of “civilization”, linked to agriculture, the state or something else? In short, who was right – Hobbes or Rousseau?

 

Has war declined in modernity? If so, why?

 

“In this truly global study of war and civilization, Azar Gat sets out to find definitive answers to these questions in an attempt to unravel the ‘riddle of war’ throughout human history, from the early hunter-gatherers right through to the unconventional terrorism of the twenty-first century”.

 

The book is divided into three parts. Part 2 – titled Agriculture, Civilization, and War – is perhaps the most straightforward of the three, although the overarching question of why people go to war is still present throughout, along with the associated question of how they do. Although he gave the game away in Part 1, Gat definitely leans into Hobbes here, with the emergence of strong central states – Hobbes’ Leviathan – being a key reason for less violent societies. Yes – even when those states make a wasteland and call it peace, as with the Roman Empire and their Pax Romana. He indicates as much with the title of his conclusion for this part – War, the Leviathan, and the Pleasures and Miseries of Civilization.

 

However, Parts 1 and 3 were the most fascinating for me. Part 1 and its sweeping title Warfare in the First Two Million Years indicate that its gamut is the whole of human prehistory – and indeed earlier to hominid or primate prehistory. One myth that Gat dispels in Part 1 is that humans are uniquely prolific for intra-species violence. As Gat demonstrates, they are not – and indeed other animal species match or exceed humans for violence within their own species. Where humans differ is with respect to the targets of their violence. Whereas animals avoid more costly violence against evenly matched males and instead target young or females of their own species (as with the infamous example of male lions killing cubs when they take over a pride), humans are the opposite – targeting other males, often with the express motive of taking women and children as prizes. But you might ask – aren’t human males similarly evenly matched as their animal counterparts? Yes, indeed – which is why humans make it less evenly matched by the preferred strategies of the ambush or raid catching antagonists by surprise, ideally asleep, something which is easier to do for humans than for animals.

 

Which brings us to the other myth Gat dispels in this part – Rousseau’s “noble savage” or rather the myth of a peaceful ‘savage’, where the true escalation of violence in war arising with ‘civilization’, whether agriculture, the state, or something else. Indeed, Gat demonstrates that humans in their “state of nature” or indeed in societies not predominated by powerful central states experience much more violence, usually by substantial orders of magnitude.

 

As for Part 3 – Modernity: The Dual Face of Janus – Gat demonstrates that modernity has resulted in, well, more peace and less violence or war, even if that does not seem to be the case because of the destructive power of our technology. More intriguingly, Gat dispels (or at least introduces cause for caution with respect to) any monomythic explanations for this – such as “democratic peace theory” or fear of nuclear weapons.

 

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Empires (4) Macedonian Empire

Posted on by

Alexander the Great’s route and empire at its largest extent in 323 BC – map by Generic Mapping Tools for Wikipedia “Macedonia (ancient kingdom” under license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

 

(4) MACEDONIAN EMPIRE (336 – 30 BC)

“There are no more worlds to conquer”.

The Macedonian empire may have been essentially the empire of one man, but that man was Alexander the Great and his empire changed the world.

“Alexander the Great was the king of Macedon during the 4th century B.C. who saw the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and Asia and decided they would make a really bitchin’ backyard.”

Alexander’s empire was essentially the former Achaemenid Persian Empire, but also with the Macedonian hegemony of Greece – which he had led as a coalition of Greeks in his conquest of the Persian Empire (except the Spartans, because screw them – THIS ISN’T SPARTA!). Of course that was because it involved one of the finest fighting forces in history, honed (like his kingdom and its predominance in Greece) by his father Philip before him, the Macedonian phalanx, and led by Alexander as one of the finest military leaders of history, undefeated, usually against heavy numerical odds. That’s right – I’m an Alexander the Great and Battle of Gaugamela fan.

Alexander was nothing but audacious, as befitting a god among men – as he literally saw himself or came to do so. The feats of his life and conquests became legend. And genuinely funny, worthy of television deadpan snark at times – where is the Alexander sitcom series?! They could even call it Who’s The Greatest? That would be a hoot – as opposed to the unfunny snorefest that was Oliver Stone’s 2004 film.

Unable to untie the legendary insoluble Gordian knot of which it was prophesied that whomever untied it would conquer Asia? No problem – just cut it with your sword and go on to conquer Asia.

Faced with threat of the Persian navy which can strike at Greece behind your lines? No problem – just conquer the coastline of the Persian empire. Where’s your navy now, Persia?

The Persian emperor offers to surrender half his empire to you and your wimpy general Parmenion says you should accept? Sneer at him “I would too, if I were you”, then proceed to demonstrate you’re Alexander the Great by conquering the other half as well, while showing the Persian emperor he can run but he can’t hide.

Although my favorite story remains Alexander’s famous meeting with Diogenes – known to history as the Cynic philosopher but to contemporaries as that weird homeless naked guy sleeping in a barrel, although the only man to beat Alexander in an agora slanging match. (No one could beat Alexander in a ‘ýo mama’ slanging contest because his mother was the insanely hot Olympias, member of an orgiastic snake-worshipping cult of Dionysus – Alexander was something of a Dionysian himself). But I digress.

His empire may technically have only lasted as long as his reign, thirteen years from his succession to the throne of Macedonia in 336 BC to his death from fever in 323 BC at only 32 years of age. However, I’m reckoning it by the duration of the dynasties of his generals who succeeded him with their rival claims and Hellenistic kingdoms, until the last of them – Cleopatra, heir to the dynasty founded by Ptolemy in Egypt – fell to the Romans.

 

The “Vergina Sun” (as named after archaeological excavations around the town of Vergina in northern Greece) – tentatively interpreted as historical Macedonian royal symbol

DECLINE & FALL

Yes and no.

Yes – Alexander’s empire fell apart upon his death. It was hardly the only empire to fragment among the successors of its original conqueror, and three of those fragments, roughly corresponding to a third of Alexander’s conquests or the former Persian empire each, were powerful states of themselves – Egypt under the Ptolemaic dynasty of Ptolemy, Anatolia and the Levant under the Antigonid dynasty of Antigonus, and Mesopotamia and Persia under the Seleucid dynasty of Seleucus.

The Ptolemaic dynasty was most content to keep to Egypt, but they all took shots at each other – with the Antigonus and the Seleucids taking their best shots at reclaiming all the empire, the latter at their height coming close to Alexander’s empire.

These states and other successors warred endlessly among themselves in the Macedonian Succession Wars or Wars of the Diadochi, depleting themselves until the Romans – also fans of Alexander – swallowed them up, with the legion displacing the phalanx as the finest fighting force of the classical world. Of course, that’s a massive over-simplification of what is often regarded as the “single most complex and tangled succession crisis in history”.

THE MACEDONIAN EMPIRE NEVER FELL

Apart from the Hellenistic kingdoms and legacy he bequeathed the world, all the way to India, Alexander’s empire also persisted in the twenty cities or so he founded that bore his name, the most famous and enduring of which remains Alexandra in Egypt. Well, not quite the most enduring – that will always be the Alexandria he founded in our hearts. Next year in Alexandria, as we say.

THE SUN NEVER SETS

Alexander’s empire may not have been global, but it was an empire of the known world in Greek eyes. And it can rightly be regarded as one of history’s world empires, a turning point in European and Asian history that spread Greek culture – Hellenization – in its wake.

EVIL EMPIRE

Alexander could be a little, ah, bipolar but his empire tended to avoid the evil tag – except among the Persians – as he tended to be magnanimous in victory and seek to reconcile his conquests rather than simply subdue or destroy them, the key word being tended as he was also prone to bouts of (alcoholic) brutal violence

The kingdoms of his successors…not so much. The Seleucids in particular achieved enduring infamy with the successful Jewish revolt of the Maccabees against them. After all, you need a certain evil chic to go down in the Bible as the abomination of desolation – looking at you, Antiochus IV Epiphanes…

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Wars (4) Persian Wars – Greek-Persian Wars

Posted on by

Spartans fighting against Persians at the Battle of Plataea – illustration in Cassell’s Illustrated Universal History 1882 (public domain image)

 

(4) PERSIAN WARS –
GREEK-PERSIAN WARS (499-449 BC)

The classical Persian Wars – when the Greeks fought for their very existence as independent states against the imperial Persian superpower of the Achaemenid Empire, as an uneasy coalition of Greek city states fighting off two Persian invasions of Greece against the odds in the archetypal battles of classical Greek heroism.

That is not to overlook the Macedonian conquest of the Persian Empire featured in another top ten entry, or the longer Roman-Persian wars – through to the twilight of classical history, for nearly seven centuries from 54 BC to 628 AD, when the Romans fought their relentless slogging match against two successive Persian empires, the Parthians and the Sassanids.

Ultimately, however, the Roman-Persian Wars lack the existential significance of the Persian invasions of Greece, both to the classical Greeks and by extension Western civilization itself. It is difficult to imagine the shape of Western civilization, had the Persians succeeded in their invasions of Greece, particularly their second invasion, but it would have been immeasurably different.

Greek victories in the Persian Wars were certainly a defining moment for Athens and its democracy, as well as the Greeks as a whole – “their victory endowed the Greeks with a faith in their destiny that was to endure for three centuries, during which western culture was born”.

The Persian wars were also among the first wars in history to be written as history – by the creators of history as a genre, foremost among them Herodotus, styled as the father of history. They might also be argued to be the origin of Western military strategy and tactics – or at least the feature that was to recur so decisively as part of Western military superiority, the drilled formation, in this case the hoplite phalanx.

They also featured two of the landmark battles of history, won against the odds – Marathon and the naval battle of Salamis – as well as the heroic last stand of Thermopylae, the Spartan Alamo. Of course, as an Athenian loyalist, I’d point out that Marathon and Salamis were Athenian victories, as opposed to all that pro-Spartan agitprop of the 300 film, in which Leonidas breezily dismissed Athens.

Salamis was a particularly impressive Athenian victory, since they won it from exile after evacuating Athens itself, which was captured and razed by the Persians – choosing to carry on fighting from exile rather than submit to the Persians. This feat might be compared to the scenario if France had not surrendered to Germany in 1940, but had fought on with its fleet from north Africa – and won.

In terms of historical narrative, the first Persian invasion from 492 BC to 490 BC, under Darius the Great, was inconclusive with their defeat in the battle of Marathon…for the time being. Darius had to postpone a further invasion of Greece to fight strife within his own empire. When he died, his son and successor Xerxes took the second swing at Greece in earnest in an invasion from 480 to 479 BC, which was ultimately defeated at the battles of Plataea and Mycale.

After that, the Greeks were able to go on the offensive against the Persians in the Persian Empire itself, particularly in its formerly Greek fringes, but the Greek-Persian wars largely fizzled out from there with a return to the pre-war status quo by 449 BC, not unlike the persistent stalemate of the subsequent Roman-Persian Wars, although Greece was freed from the threat of Persian invasion. Of course, a lot of that was undone as the Persian Empire then learned to sit back and exploit the Greek city-states fighting among themselves, most notably in the Peloponnesian Wars.

ART OF WAR

The Greeks in the Persian Wars were almost exact contemporaries of Sun Tzu on the other side of the world, as the Persian Wars commenced a few years before the traditional date given to Sun Tzu’s death in 496 BC – and I’m inclined to favor the Greeks over Sun Tzu when it came to demonstrated art of war in actual history. Winning without fighting is all very well, but sometimes you have little choice but to fight – and to fight in desperate defence against numerically superior forces.

Hence the genius of Greek strategy, consistently fighting at geographical bottlenecks or chokepoints, including the straits of Salamis. Beyond that, the Greeks won because “they avoided catastrophic defeats, stuck to their alliance, took advantage of Persian mistakes” and possessed tactical superiority with their hoplite forces.

WORLD WAR

Sadly, I think it would be stretching things too far to call the Greek-Persian Wars a world war, even though the Greeks often styled it as the war of one continent against another or East against West, harking back to the legendary Trojan War as its predecessor – a continental front line that was replayed in the Roman-Persian Wars and beyond, as the Persians were replaced by Arabs and Turks.

STILL FIGHTING THE PERSIAN WARS

Well perhaps not in the style of the Greek or Macedonian Persian Wars, but Americans might feel they’ve been replaying the Roman-Persian Wars since 1979…

GOOD GUYS VS BAD GUYS

Sorry Persia – I know you’re not the weird mutant army featured in the film 300 and indeed one of the great civilizations of ancient history, but the Greeks will always be the good guys to me

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Books (4) Paul Johnson – Modern Times

Posted on by

 

(4) PAUL JOHNSON –

MODERN TIMES: A HISTORY OF THE WORLD FROM THE 1920S TO THE 1980S (1983)

 

“A latter day Mencken, Johnson is witty, gritty, and compulsively readable”.

 

Probably the most divisive entry in my top ten, in part because Johnson is the sole entry without a background as an academic historian (possibly except Ellis for whom I’m unable to find any biographical detail) – except perhaps for undergraduate study.

 

Instead, Johnson was a journalist and popular historian – although it makes you sit up and pay attention when you read that as a journalist he interviewed some of the historical figures in this book, as for example he states in a footnote he did with Kerensky (obviously in the latter’s exile as former leader of the Provisional Government of Russia overthrown by the Bolsheviks).

 

In part that explains the divisive nature of this entry – but perhaps mostly it’s the strength of his opinions and the prose style with which he expressed them, both of which (as well as that divisive nature) were reflected in this book.

.

Yes, yes – I know this book has been updated and reissued with various subtitles to reflect that (such as the one in my feature image) but I’m going with the original title.

 

It was the first book of history that I read from Johnson although afterwards I avidly read others by him as it was a huge influence on me in my youth. Not so much now as I’ve receded somewhat from him as I’ve perceived some of his more idiosyncratic opinions, albeit I still rank him highly enough for this entry.

 

For example, I can agree with his assessment of Eisenhower as the twentieth century’s most successful president (although he also ranks Reagan highly, perhaps even higher in the later editions) but not so much some of the other presidents he ranked highly (or badly). Sorry, I will never see Nixon as anything but crooked, even if he demonstrated a certain amoral competence.

 

From the above one may divine his opinions to be conservative, of a distinctly Catholic and anti-communist kind – interestingly enough as he originally was left-wing before his ideological reversal on the road to Damascus, a metaphor I think he would have particularly liked given his beliefs and name.

 

Whatever one may think of his opinions, the virtuosity of his prose style was undeniable – perhaps the best of any of my top ten entries, with a particular talent for turns of phrase and chapter titles, as illustrated by those for this book:

 

1 – A Relativistic World

2 – The First Despotic Utopias

3 – Waiting for Hitler

4 – Legitimacy in Decadence

5 – An Infernal Theocracy, a Celestial Chaos

6 – The Last Arcadia

7 – Degringolade

8 – The Devils

9 – The High Noon of Aggression

10 – The End of Old Europe

11 – The Watershed Year

12 – Superpower and Genocide

13 – Peace by Terror

14 – The Bandung Generation

15 – Caliban’s Kingdoms

16 – Experimenting with Half Mankind

17 – The European Lazarus

18 – America’s Suicide Attempt

19 – The Collectivist Seventies

20 – The Recovery of Freedom (in later editions – formerly Palimpsests of Freedom)

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Empires (5) Spanish Empire

Posted on by

The Spanish Empire at its greatest extent in 1790 (albeit with claims exceeding its control) by Nagihuin for Wikipedia “Spanish Empire” and licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

 

(5) SPANISH EMPIRE (1492 – 1976)

The first global empire and the original “empire on which the sun never sets”.

The Pope literally divided the world up between them and the Portuguese in the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas, although only after Portugal nudged the line further west to party it up in Brazil. Other European nations disagreed with the papal division of the world.

The Spanish Empire owed its global extent to its ‘discovery’ and conquest of the Americas from 1492 – a perfect storm of history as the Spanish royal sponsorship of Columbus coincided with the template for conquest from the Reconquista retaking the last Islamic stronghold in Spain.

Alexander the Great was reputed to have lamented that there were no new worlds to conquer (likely apocryphal) – the Spanish discovered one and conquered it. And whatever else one may think of the conquistadors, they exceeded Alexander and anyone else for a feat unparalleled in military history – remarkable in just how few Spanish forces conquered such large areas and populous empires numbering in the millions, crowned by their conquest of the Aztec and Inca Empires.

From there, they were the first to circumnavigate the world with Magellan’s expedition in 1522, although Magellan himself died en route from a nasty overdose of native spears and swords in the Philippines. So of course the Spanish claimed and conquered the Philippines as well, along with other Pacific Ocean islands.

However, they did claim more than they actually controlled in some places such as North America. Much of the modern United States was originally part of the Spanish Empire as attested by place names, but their claims extended well beyond that along the north-west Pacific coastline to Canada and Alaska, where they were ultimately contested by the British and Russians. Even so, the Spanish Empire still ranks as the fifth largest empire by area in history.

The Spanish Empire seemed to rise from one glittering height to another – with a lot of all that glitter indeed as gold and silver from the Americas, propelling it to the first world maritime superpower, and after the naval defeat of the Ottoman Empire at the Battle of Lepanto, arguably the greatest power of the world.

Of course, it was all downhill from there. Part of that was a result of pursuing dynastic Habsburg claims in Europe – it’s odd to think of the Netherlands and parts of Italy as former Spanish territory. Pro tip – you can have a maritime empire, or you can try to dominate Europe, but you can’t do both.

Still, Spain retained its empire, despite being eclipsed by other European powers, until the nineteenth century when it began to decline in spectacular fashion as a casualty of one war after another.

 

 

DECLINE & FALL

And how!

You could argue that Spain parallels the Romans in their tenacious decline and fall. Despite what might be called its crises of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries – and despite its waning power, at sea against England or Britain, and on land against France – it retained its empire until the nineteenth century.

However, the bell then tolled for the Spanish Empire, with the American Revolution (which it supported) and the French Revolution (particularly in the person of Napoleon). The Spanish Empire faced its own American revolution, losing the crown jewel of its empire with most of Spanish America winning independence.

Still, Spain was left a modest mid-tier empire as a nice beachside retirement nest egg, particularly in Cuba and the Philippines – arguably its parallel to the Byzantine continuation of the Roman Empire but skipping past a couple of centuries to that smaller rump Byzantine empire. It even briefly regained the Dominican Republic, as its parallel to the reconquests of Justinian or Basil.

And then it fell foul of the American Revolution again, this time in the form of the United States all grown up as the rising world power at the dawn of the twentieth century. The United States was looking around at empires and decided to take Spain’s for a test drive in the Spanish-American War.

Spain lost the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam to the United States, as well as Cuba to quasi-independence (effectively as an American colony). Reading the writing on the wall with respect to retaining any Pacific territory, Spain sold its other Pacific island territories to that other rising power of the twentieth century, Germany.

That left Spain with just the bottom-tier empire of its African territories – small outposts in Africa like Fernando Poo in Equatorial Guinea, although it did also expand into the territory known as Spanish Sahara. Pro tip – if your empire consists of places like Fernando Poo and anywhere with the Sahara in it, it’s time to get out of the empire game.

And so Spain did, albeit like Portugal only in the 1970s

THE SPANISH EMPIRE NEVER FELL

On the other hand, Spain technically retains some overseas possessions – the Canary Islands as well as some tiny islands and weird enclave cities in Morocco

But more so, the endurance of Spanish language and place names in the Americas demonstrates that, at least in some cultural sense, the Spanish Empire never fell

THE SUN NEVER SETS

The Spanish Empire was the original empire to make this claim – and mean it literally, although the claim was more memorably (and definitively) made by the British Empire. In influence, it was also a true world empire, reshaping Latin America in its own image.

EVIL EMPIRE

And how!

The Spanish Empire would be one of the leading contenders people would advance for an entry if one were to compile a Top 10 Evil Empires, primarily due to its apocalyptic destruction of the Americas – although in fairness that was mostly down to one horseman of the apocalypse, pestilence. The death toll is usually tallied in the tens of millions – with many native tribes and their cultures wiped out.

Even setting aside death from disease, the Spanish conquest of the Americas involved atrocity, brutality and cruelty by any standard, including contemporary opinion at the time.

However, many point to what is often called the Spanish Black Legend – a tendency to demonize or vilify the Spanish Empire, as well as Spain (and Catholicism) more generally in history – with at least some fairness to it. After all, it was Spanish advocates such as Friar Bartolomé de las Casas who documented so many of the evils of its empire for history – and Spain was the first in recorded history to pass laws for the protection of indigenous peoples, although the Crown often found it difficult to enforce those laws on its distant and unruly colonists.

And one can’t help but observe the far more substantial mix of indigenous population and culture in the Americas south of the Rio Grande as opposed to north of it – although again in fairness North America had more sparse populations and had higher European immigration

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Wars (5) Persian Wars – Alexander’s Conquest of the Persian Empire

Posted on by

Alexander the Great on his horse Bucephalus in the Battle of Issus against Darius III – from the Alexander mosaic in the House of the Faun, Pompeii (public domain image)

 

(5) PERSIAN WARS –
ALEXANDER’S CONQUEST OF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE (336-323 BC)

The Macedonian-Persian Wars of my namesake, Alexander the Great – the one exception to actually defeat and conquer the Persian Empire among the various Persian Wars, those recurring definitive wars of classical history fought by Greeks and Romans against successive Persian Empires over a millennium.

Of course, that was because Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire involved one of the finest fighting forces in history, the Macedonian phalanx, led by one of finest military leaders of history, without a defeat to his name, usually against numerical odds. That’s right – I’m an Alexander the Great and Gaugamela fanboy.

In fairness, Alexander was lucky, particularly in the opening of his campaign against the Persian Empire – narrowly escaping death at the Battle of the Granicus River. As the saying goes however, fortune favors the bold and Alexander was certainly bold, indeed to the point of personal recklessness, while the Persians were unlucky with their emperor, Darius III, who seemed cautious to the point of cowardly, notoriously fleeing his two big set-piece battles with Alexander at Issus and Gaugamela.

In fairness, Alexander was also legendary. Unable to untie the legendary insoluble Gordian knot of which it was prophesied that whoever untied it would conquer Asia? No problem – just cut it with your sword and go on to conquer Asia.

Faced with threat of the Persian navy which can strike at Greece behind your lines? No problem – just conquer the coastline of the Persian empire. Where’s your navy now, Persia?

Darius offers to surrender half his empire to you and your wimpy general Parmenion says you should accept? Sneer at him “I would too, if I were you”, then proceed to demonstrate you’re Alexander the Great by conquering the other half as well, while showing the Persian emperor he can run but he can’t hide.

Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire is also one of those wars that I style as adventurous wars – wars that resemble or evoke a tale of epic adventure, charismatic leaders and small heroic bands of warriors fighting against the odds to win. Indeed, Alexander and his conquests became just that – a historical and legendary source for tales of epic adventure

“Alexander became legendary as a classical hero in the mould of Achilles, featuring prominently in the historical and mythical traditions of both Greek and non-Greek cultures. His military achievements and unprecedented enduring successes in battle made him the measure against which many later military leaders would compare themselves, and his tactics remain a significant subject of study”.

Other wars in my Top 10 Wars that might be similarly styled as ‘adventurous’ wars are the Mongol Conquests and the Spanish Conquest of the Americas – to which one might also add my special mentions for the Arab Conquests and Viking Invasions.

Of course, this sets aside the distinctly unadventurous nature of wars to those at the pointed end of their destruction, usually on the other side, but also those who end up as casualties on the same side. Alexander’s conquests were no exception – infamously, he personally killed Cleitus the Black in a drunken altercation, the man who had saved his life at Granicus.

Of those wars I’ve styled as adventurous wars, I’d have to rank the Spanish conquest the highest in terms of just how lopsided or overwhelming the numerical odds were against it (for the Aztecs and even more so the Incas), victories unparalleled in history, even by Alexander. That said, Alexander did face overwhelming odds against him and his Greek or Macedonian forces, both in individual battles and the conquest of the Persian Empire as a whole.

In fairness, Alexander also probably started in the best position of all the leaders in those adventurous wars, having inherited the Macedonian state and its phalanxes honed to one of the finest fighting forces in history by his father Philip – although on the other hand, it is hard to imagine that Philip or any other Macedonian leader had the audacity or acumen to achieve Alexander’s conquest of the whole Persian Empire.

ART OF WAR

Let’s face it – Alexander the Great would have kicked Sun Tzu’s ass, cutting through all that mystic Taoist poetry like the Gordian knot. I know it and you know it. Did I mention this as an Alexander the Great fan account?

WORLD WAR

I think it would be overstating to it to claim that Alexander the Great fought and won the first world war, but you know he would have kept going through India if his army hadn’t wimped out on him.

STILL FIGHTING THE PERSIAN WARS

Alexander’s conquests might be done and dusted – indeed, pretty much after he died as so much relied on his personal charisma. However, the Persian empire was replaced by Greek kingdoms founded by Alexander’s generals, which would cast a long shadow in history even as they ultimately crumbled and the Persian empire rebooted against the Romans.

GOOD GUYS VS BAD GUYS

Sorry Persia – I know you’re one of the great civilizations of ancient history, but the Greeks and Alexander the Great will always be the good guys to me.

RATING: 4 STARS*****
A-TIER (TOP-TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Books (5) Geoffrey Blainey – A Short History of the World

Posted on by

 

(5) GEOFFREY BLAINEY –

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE WORLD (2000)

 

“The most prolific, wide-ranging, inventive, and, in the 1980s and 1990s, most controversial of Australia’s living historians” – that last epithet was for his commentary on public affairs, so naturally I like him.

Geoffrey Blainey is Australia’s leading historian – and the leading historian of Australia itself, coining the definitive phrase for that history in the famous title of his book The Tyranny of Distance.

Wide-ranging indeed – upon graduating, Blainey initially eschewed academia for the private sector as a freelance historian, studying and writing the history of a mining and railway company in Tasmania.

He subsequently ranged through Australian history, with a focus on thematic history “organized around the exploration of the impact of the single factor (distance, mining, pre-settlement Aboriginal society)”.

Of particular interest to me, his range extended to the “rhythms” of global history – “two centuries of conflict in The Causes of War (1973)”, “examining the optimism and pessimism in Western society since 1750 in The Great See-Saw”, the history of Christianity, and the “tempestuous” 20th century.

And of course this book – which with my interest in global history I tend to regard as his magnum opus, apologies to The Tyranny of Distance.

What distinguishes Blainey in my eyes, both generally and in his book, is his eye for theme – especially themes outside the usual political or military history to which history is slanted, particularly global history.

A single volume history of the world must necessarily be compact yet Blainey not only achieves this but also seamlessly works in chapters on themes that elude other such histories.

For example, a chapter on the historical impact of the night sky on humanity. Or a chapter on the conquest of night by artificial lighting. Or of time itself by mechanical clocks in western civilization.

Or such resonant images or phrases that stick in the mind like Venice as the Silicon Valley of Renaissance Italy – through its glass-making as the cutting edge of technological innovation such as lenses for telescopes or microscopes, which I’m tempted to add to the conquest of time and night as the conquest of light.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Empires (6) Persia – Achaemenid Empire

Posted on by

Achaemenid Empire (at its greatest extent under Darius the Great 522-486 BC) by Cattette for Wikipedia “Achaemenid Empire” licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en

 

(6) PERSIA – ACHAEMENID EMPIRE (550 – 330 BC)

“The empire that kicked off all the other empires” – the largest empire in history up until that point and first of the world empires, in impact rather than literal global extent. Best known in Western history as the liberators of the Jewish exiles in Babylon and recurring antagonists of the Greeks, not surprisingly reflecting the two predominant sources of Western culture.

The Persians originally started off as nomadic vassals of the preceding Median Empire, the extent and nature of which is disputed but apparently laid much of the groundwork for the latter Persian Empire in forming a powerful Iranian state. Cyrus the Great then founded the first Persian or Achaemenid Empire, by rebelling against and supplanting the Medes before then conquering the Neo-Babylonian Empire in Mesopotamia and kingdom of Lydia in Anatolia.

Ultimately the borders of the Persian Empire extended from central Asia, Afghanistan and Pakistan in the east, to the Nile, Black Sea and Balkans in the west – although famously the Greek city states successfully resisted it in the Greek-Persian Wars. It was so big it had four capitals – Babylon, Ecbatana, Susa and Persepolis.

The Persian model of governance – “a successful model of centralized, bureaucratic administration via the use of satraps; its multicultural policy; building infrastructure, such as road systems and a postal system; the use of an official language across its territories; and the development of civil services, including its possession of a large, professional army” – essentially set the template for subsequent empires, particularly in the Middle East – influencing not only the Greeks and Romans, but also the Arabs and the Abbasid Caliphate. For the latter, it “left a dream of the Middle East as a unit, and a unit where people of different faiths could live together.

Its ultimate nemesis was Alexander the Great – apparently an admirer of Cyrus the Great, but who just took the empire from Cyrus’ more pathetic descendant Darius III. Oh well – he wasn’t using it anyway. And the legacy of Cyrus suited Alexander better, including that title of the Great.

However, the first Persian or Achaemenid Empire might have been swept from history, but Persia itself continued to be a seat of empires – it revived under the Parthian and Sassanid empires, both recurring antagonists of the Romans until the Sassanids were conquered by the Arabs. Even then, Persia managed to revive itself under Islamic or Turkic dynasties.

 

Standard of Cyrus the Great

DECLINE & FALL

For tenacity in decline…yes and no. The Achaemenid Empire itself collapsed with indecent haste, conquered by Alexander as he pursued Darius III from one corner of the empire to the next like a Macedonian Terminator. However, the Persians proved quite adept at the long game of reviving themselves while under the nominal satrapy of their conquerors, whom they ultimately overthrew to revive their empire in even more enduring and tenacious form.

THE ACHAEMENID EMPIRE NEVER FELL

Well yes, the Achaemenid Empire fell rather dramatically to Alexander the Great, but Persia kept bouncing back, the zombie franchise of empires – as the Parthians, Sassanids, Safavids and the ironic ideological empire of the latter day Islamic Republic.

THE SUN NEVER SETS

Persia was the first of a long line of what can be termed world empires, as opposed to global ones – that is, in terms of their enduring influence and impact rather than a literal geographic global extent.

Although interestingly the Persians may well have been the origin of the claim for their empire as the empire on which the sun never sets. According to Herodotus’ Histories, Xerxes made the claim before invading Greece – “We shall extend the Persian territory as far as God’s heaven reaches. The sun will then shine on no land beyond our borders.”

EVIL EMPIRE

Well, with their mutant armies and war rhinoceri…wait – that was the film 300. Outside of that film’s depictions of the Persian Empire as the Mordor of its time, which reflects Greek accounts of them as antagonists to some degree, the Persians do reasonably well in avoiding the evil empire tag – although obviously they didn’t build and maintain an empire of that size by being nice.

And they do pretty well in their Biblical portrayals, due to Cyrus’ liberation of the Jews from Babylonian exile – while Babylon is immortalized by the Bible as the symbol of evil, Cyrus is praised by it and even hailed as messiah, a term that used to be more generic for one anointed by God.

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Wars (6) Punic Wars – Second Punic War

Posted on by

Hannibal crossing the Alps into Italy, 1881 or 1884 book engraving used as public domain image Wikipedia “Hannibal’s crossing of the Alps”

 

(6) PUNIC WARS –
SECOND PUNIC WAR (218-201 BC)

“Carthago delenda est” – Carthage must be destroyed!

The wars that defined the Roman Republic and its empire.

Also the most famous historical duel between two rival powers, with the stakes of supremacy to the victor and destruction to the vanquished.

Also arguably the most fiercely fought of Rome’s wars – and the closest it came to defeat in its rise to empire under the republic, with one of its worst defeats in battle of Cannae.

Also a nice polar opposite to the Hunnic Wars in my previous entry (even down to the resonance of their names) – with the rising republic of the Punic Wars at one pole and the falling empire of the Hunnic Wars at the other.

As for the Punic Wars defining the Roman republic and its empire, I know the Punic Wars took place well before the formal Roman empire, but they defined the Roman Republic as an imperial power and laid the foundations for the Empire in its most famous duel for Mediterranean supremacy.

As for that duel, such was its historical fame and potency of its imagery that the Punic Wars have continued to provide metaphors for modern history. “The wars lasted for more than a hundred years (264-146) and were analogous in many respects to later great hegemonic rivalries like the Anglo-French rivalry of the 18th Century and the Cold War, filled as it is with military arms-races, proxy-wars, attacks on regional states, at the end of which there was only a unipolar political landscape”.

Or in other words, the Mediterranean wasn’t big enough for the two of them.

Even in its defeat and destruction by Rome, Carthage provided the metaphor of Carthaginian peace – for “any brutal peace treaty demanding total subjugation of the defeated side” or terms that “are overly harsh and designed to accentuate and perpetuate the inferiority of the loser”, even more so for the subsequent legend that Rome salted the earth. Most famously, it was used by John Maynard Keynes for the Treaty of Versailles after the First World War – inaccurately in my view as a Versailles fan, and dangerously so as it undermined enforcement of the treaty. It’s a pity the term didn’t prompt more like one wry response to Keynes’ usage of it – “Funny thing, you don’t hear much from the Carthaginians these days”.

“Carthage must be destroyed” was the famous catchphrase of Roman senator Cato the Elder, who concluded all his speeches with it, whether it was relevant or not. It’s certainly an ice-breaker. I’m thinking of throwing it into all my conversations as well, or hijacking other people’s conversations with it.

Of course, by the time Cato was using it, it was really kicking a man when he was down. Rome had soundly defeated Carthage in the Second Punic War, essentially reducing Carthage to a small harmless shadow of its former territory – and a satellite state under the Roman thumb.

But to Cato, grumpy old curmudgeon that he was, the Carthaginians didn’t have the decency to be poor after their defeat, having far too much wealth when he visited it as a member of a senatorial embassy. And eventually he got his way with the Third Punic War (149-146 BC) and Rome crushed Carthage completely.

The Third Punic War was the somewhat anti-climactic conclusion to the trilogy of Punic Wars. The First Punic War (264-241 BC) was obviously not decisive but certainly interesting with the Romans wrestling Sicily from Carthage – as well as their impressive feat of throwing together a navy mostly from scratch, laying the foundations for Roman naval supremacy, even if that was mostly done through the neat trick of using ships as boarding platforms for infantry combat.

The Second Punic War (218-201 BC) was the big one . You know, the one with the elephants – in the famous crossing of the Alps into Italy, although only one elephant survived.

So while the elephants may not have loomed as large as had been hoped, what did loom large was the Carthaginian invasion of Italy , striking fear into the heart of Rome itself, and even more so the legendary Carthaginian general Hannibal, one of the greatest military commanders in history, with his textbook victory against the Romans at Cannae.

Sadly for Carthage, however, Hannibal was one of my top 10 great military leaders who were actually losers, because he didn’t know to go hard or go home – or rather, to go Rome or to go home, instead wasting his dwindling time and army d*cking around Italy, something of a running theme in that top ten.

Of course, it’s a lot more nuanced than that (particularly when it comes to the role of Hannibal’s leadership) but the Roman general Quintus Fabius avoided major battles and chipped away at Hannibal’s forces in Italy through attrition, while Hannibal’s rival and nemesis, Roman general Scipio Africanus, pulled a Hannibal in reverse by attacking the Carthaginians in Spain and Africa itself.

The Second Punic War also features some of the most famous battles in history – Cannae of course, but also the battles of Trebinia and Lake Trasimene for Carthaginian victories, as well as the battles of the Metaurus, Ilipa and Zama for Roman victories.

 

ART OF WAR

Obviously the Romans excelled in the art of war in their empire as a whole, perhaps even more so the Byzantines in Sun Tzu’s definition of the art of war as winning without fighting. An empire doesn’t survive a millennium without a few tricks of political diplomacy or playing enemies against each other up its sleeve.

However, facing Hannibal on their home territory in Italy was not their finest demonstration of the art of war. Reading Roman military history often prompts me to see the Romans as the Soviet Union of ancient history – winning through the manpower to replace one lost legion after another – and never more so than in the Second Punic War against Hannibal, which is eerily reminiscent of a Roman parallel for the Soviets in Barbarossa. Just ask Pyrrhus – who gave the world the term Pyrrhic victory because the Romans could just soak up their losses and keep coming.

This is something of a caricature for the Romans as well as the Soviets winning through brute force of manpower – both of which were as capable of finesse in the right circumstances, usually a combination of good leadership combined with well maintained or experienced forces. And the Roman legion was the finest fighting force of its time, with a discipline and tactical superiority that allowed it to outfight opponents that outnumbered it – as in the Battle of Alesia or Battle of Watling Street. Although one of the greatest strengths of the Roman legion was not so much its skill in fighting but in engineering, again as at Alesia.

WORLD WAR

It’s a bit hard to label the Punic Wars as a world war, even if was fought between two continents and had global consequences in the rise of the Roman Empire. However, as mentioned before, it had parallels to subsequent global hegemonic conflicts between rival powers

STILL FIGHTING THE PUNIC WARS

Well if there’s one thing a Carthaginian peace is good for, it’s for not fighting any more Punic Wars

GOOD GUYS AND BAD GUYS

Who were the good guys? The Romans obviously! Yes, it’s a bit more nuanced than that – with perhaps not too much to distinguish one from the other, and much to admire about Hannibal. But to quote the Youtube channel Pax Romana, child sacrificer says what? There’s a reason that the name for Moloch has passed into English as a pejorative term – and part of that reason is Carthaginian child sacrifice. No more Moloch!

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Books (6) J.M. Roberts – The Triumph of the West

Posted on by

 

(6) J.M. ROBERTS –

THE TRIUMPH OF THE WEST: THE ORIGIN, RISE & LEGACY OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION (1985)

 

Greatly expanded from the BBC TV series he presented of the same title, this book similarly looks at what is Western civilization and its titular ambigous triumph.

Roberts was a classic old school British historian – and by old school I mean Oxford, ultimately returning to his alma mater as Warden of Merton College, an academic title like many others that evoke those of a fantasy novel.

Apart from his academic distinctions, he had many published works for which he was hailed as “a master of the broad brush-stroke” – or in other words that thematic style of history which is my favorite.

That style is on display in what I regard to be the crowning achievement of any historian – a history of the world, particularly if it also spans all of history, as Roberts did with his History of the World published by Penguin (usually as the Penguin History of the World).

Given the scale, it’s obviously not light reading – but is demonstrative of Roberts’ style that pithy phrases from it still resonate in my mind many years after reading it. Roberts evoking most modern wars in the Middle East as the wars of Ottoman succession for example, or Romanticism as a secularized Protestantism.

Roberts’ style and mastery of broad brush strokes is even more on display in The Triumph of the West, perhaps not surprisingly given its origin in the television series he wrote and presented (for which prose style and mastery of broad brush strokes are effectively sine qua non for engaging an audience) as well as its shorter volume than his world history.

The chapters – corresponding to the episodes of the TV series – effectively showcase its presentation of “the origins and evolution of Western civilization, and the transformative challenges and influence it has exerted on the rest of the world”:

  • 1 – One World (TV episode – Dangerous Gifts: the benefits and costs of Western influence)
  • 2 – A Sense of Direction (TV episode – A New Direction: Influences from Ancient Graeco-Roman and Judeo-Christian Culture)
  • 3 – Birth of the West (TV episode – The Heart of the West: The Middle Ages and Orbis Christiani)
  • 4 – The World’s Debate (TV episode – The World’s Debate: Islam and Christianity)
  • 5 – Defining a World (TV episode – East of Europe: Byzantium and Russia)
  • 6 – An Exploring Civilization (TV episode – The Age of Exploration)
  • 7 – New Worlds (TV episode – same)
  • 8 – A New Age (TV episode – Age of Light)
  • 9 – History Speeds Up (TV episode – Monuments to Progress: The Long Nineteenth Century)
  • 10 – The Confident Aggressors (TV episode – India: The Ironies of Empire)
  • 11 – Responses and Repercussions (TV episode – The East is Red: China in the Twentieth Century)
  • 12 – A Sense of Decline (TV episode – The Decline of the West :Two World Wars and The Great Depression)
  • 13 – A Post-Western World? (TV episode – Capitulations: Third World countries learn the price of dependency on the West)

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)