HjemGrupperSnakMereZeitgeist
Søg På Websted
På dette site bruger vi cookies til at levere vores ydelser, forbedre performance, til analyseformål, og (hvis brugeren ikke er logget ind) til reklamer. Ved at bruge LibraryThing anerkender du at have læst og forstået vores vilkår og betingelser inklusive vores politik for håndtering af brugeroplysninger. Din brug af dette site og dets ydelser er underlagt disse vilkår og betingelser.

Resultater fra Google Bøger

Klik på en miniature for at gå til Google Books

Indlæser...

The Origins Of Western Warfare: Militarism And Morality In The Ancient World (History & Warfare)

af Doyne Dawson

MedlemmerAnmeldelserPopularitetGennemsnitlig vurderingSamtaler
342709,296 (3.5)Ingen
What is the source of the uniquely Western way of war, the persistent militarism that has made Europe the site of bloodshed throughout history and secured the dominance of the West over the rest of the world? The answer, Doyne Dawson persuasively argues in this groundbreaking new book, is to be found in the very bedrock of Western civilization: ancient Greece and Rome.The Origins of Western Warfare begins with an overview of primitive warfare, showing how the main motivations of prehistoric combat'revenge and honor'set the tone for Greek thinking about questions of war and morality. These ideas, especially as later developed by the Romans, ensured the emergence of a distinctive Western tradition of warfare: dynamic, aggressive, and devastatingly successful when turned against non-Western cultures.Dawson identifies key factors that led Western culture down this particular path. First, the Greeks argued that war could be justified as an instrument of human and divine justice, securing the social and cosmic order. Second, war was seen as a rational instrument of foreign policy. This, probably the most original contribution of the Greeks to military thought, was articulated as early as the fifth century b.c. Finally, Greek military thought was dominated by the principle of ?civic militarism,? in which the ideal state is based upon self-governing citizens trained and armed for war.The Roman version of civic militarism became thoroughly imperial in spirit, and in general, the Romans successfully modified these Greek ideas to serve their expansionist policies. At the end of antiquity, these traditions were passed on to medieval Europe, forming the basis for the just war doctrines of the Church. Later, in early modern Europe, they were fully revived, systematized, and given a basis in natural law'to the benefit of absolute monarchs. For centuries this neoclassical synthesis served the needs of European elites, and echoes of it are still heard in contemporary justifications for war.Providing a careful reconsideration of what the classical sources tell us about Western thinking on fundamental questions of war and peace, The Origins of Western Warfare makes a lasting contribution to our understanding of one of the most persistent and troubling aspects of Western culture.… (mere)
Ingen
Indlæser...

Bliv medlem af LibraryThing for at finde ud af, om du vil kunne lide denne bog.

Der er ingen diskussionstråde på Snak om denne bog.

Viser 2 af 2
Very interesting book in which author presents how approach to the warfare evolved from ancient times of tribal/ritualistic warfare, first cities and then (from the perspective of West) through great civilizations of ancient Greece, Rome, Medieval times and Renaissance.

As author states he concentrated on the West because of rather specific political thought that finally emerged from the area of modern Western Europe - self organization and democratic institutions. This is not to say that what one might call East (in Ancient times Persia and Parthia, today everything West looks at from high set east of the Greece) did not have same approaches and justifications when it comes to war - they were just seen by the West as empires (which of course automatically translated to tyrannical political systems - although what was Alexander or Romans set out to create and build?) and as such as failed social organizations.

That being said book explains that main topic whenever it comes to warfare is how to justify it and how to limit carnage (and thus reduce possibility of revenge strikes and never ending spiral of violence that could destroy tribes/communes that share similar values or even familial bonds). Decision concerning the war had to be ritualized to make sure cooler heads prevailed so that bloodshed is never reflexive action but seriously thought out decision.

What is interesting is that from the beginning rules of war evolved in division of "us" and "them" (general division of human communities). War between "us" (societies sharing same values, particularly history and religion, and as I said even familial bonds) are to be strictly regularized, no unnecessary bloodshed or enslavement. On the other hand war with "them" is free for all, no rules whatsoever. This slowly evolved from limited warfare of Greek cities toward more systematic approach to ever offensive warfare aiming at obliteration of enemy that started with Alexander the Great and culminated in the Roman society. What permeates all this development is notion that while brother nations are equal those that can enforce their will on others they are obliged to do it - for the betterment of everyone. This would be sort of a destiny manifest that would soon enforce master-client relationship between the countries and push the master state to continue to grow (through outright campaigns, or preventive wars (Roman statements on British Isles and Ireland were hilarious, they sound outright like reasons to invade Iraq in 2000's)) until it starts to collapse and gets replaced by next state in line. During this expansion periods every master state grows from democratic commune into oligarchy and then into empire, with wars becoming everyday event and people militarized to the maximum because in order to survive empire needs to expand and to make this possible military service needs to be popularized.

This then evolved further in the medieval times when religion and splits into various factions imbued question of just wars with religious zealotry. Slowly with the rise of the nation states relations between new states started to be marked by the interests of the states themselves (with variations of religious influence). Whatever would work to keep the state free of oppresion is treated as a way to go - diplomacy, backhand tactics or outright war. But constant propaganda aiming at dehumanization of the enemy (going back to "us" and "them") remained as a way to mobilize the populace and make sure they join the fight and support the effort.

Considering that inter-human relations are in majority marked with conflict situations (starting from visual or social differences, religious zealotry etc) it is ridiculous to expect that conflicts can be eradicated. While noble endeavors, international organizations show that after a while they will succumb to the pressure of the most influential state and soon master-client relations are again getting created with "others" getting pushed to the margins. For this to happen it takes time but unfortunately global reach and influence always result in some form of empire (why would anyone concede their advantage to somebody else? It would be like expecting that lion kills the antelope and then walks away from it voluntarily so that hyenas can feed of it - this is not the way nature works). And this then strengthens the destiny manifest of the "chosen ones" that inevitably causes conflict down the lane (again loop towards the division between "us" and them").

To say that similar views and developments dont take place in the East where more centralized governments reside (historically when compared against West, although West is moving fast to more centralized oligarchic states in last few years) is ridiculous. Human nature is universal and when it comes to basic things like fighting to ensure one's interests, people think the same way everywhere. If one takes a look at condemnation of war by pacifists it is clear that carnage of war is to be avoided but everyone (including the church fathers) is aware that wishful thinking wont bring peace and that conflicts are something that will always follow the human society.

Interesting book, presenting various political and philosophical schools that shaped people's understanding of conflict and rules that should bind all sides involved, from Greek heroic warfare, Roman's full scale militarism to pacifism of church fathers. Definitely a book that deserves to be read dozen times. ( )
  Zare | Jan 23, 2024 |
12/4/22
  laplantelibrary | Dec 4, 2022 |
Viser 2 af 2
ingen anmeldelser | tilføj en anmeldelse
Du bliver nødt til at logge ind for at redigere data i Almen Viden.
For mere hjælp se Almen Viden hjælpesiden.
Kanonisk titel
Originaltitel
Alternative titler
Oprindelig udgivelsesdato
Personer/Figurer
Vigtige steder
Vigtige begivenheder
Beslægtede film
Indskrift
Tilegnelse
Første ord
Citater
Sidste ord
Oplysning om flertydighed
Forlagets redaktører
Bagsidecitater
Originalsprog
Canonical DDC/MDS
Canonical LCC

Henvisninger til dette værk andre steder.

Wikipedia på engelsk

Ingen

What is the source of the uniquely Western way of war, the persistent militarism that has made Europe the site of bloodshed throughout history and secured the dominance of the West over the rest of the world? The answer, Doyne Dawson persuasively argues in this groundbreaking new book, is to be found in the very bedrock of Western civilization: ancient Greece and Rome.The Origins of Western Warfare begins with an overview of primitive warfare, showing how the main motivations of prehistoric combat'revenge and honor'set the tone for Greek thinking about questions of war and morality. These ideas, especially as later developed by the Romans, ensured the emergence of a distinctive Western tradition of warfare: dynamic, aggressive, and devastatingly successful when turned against non-Western cultures.Dawson identifies key factors that led Western culture down this particular path. First, the Greeks argued that war could be justified as an instrument of human and divine justice, securing the social and cosmic order. Second, war was seen as a rational instrument of foreign policy. This, probably the most original contribution of the Greeks to military thought, was articulated as early as the fifth century b.c. Finally, Greek military thought was dominated by the principle of ?civic militarism,? in which the ideal state is based upon self-governing citizens trained and armed for war.The Roman version of civic militarism became thoroughly imperial in spirit, and in general, the Romans successfully modified these Greek ideas to serve their expansionist policies. At the end of antiquity, these traditions were passed on to medieval Europe, forming the basis for the just war doctrines of the Church. Later, in early modern Europe, they were fully revived, systematized, and given a basis in natural law'to the benefit of absolute monarchs. For centuries this neoclassical synthesis served the needs of European elites, and echoes of it are still heard in contemporary justifications for war.Providing a careful reconsideration of what the classical sources tell us about Western thinking on fundamental questions of war and peace, The Origins of Western Warfare makes a lasting contribution to our understanding of one of the most persistent and troubling aspects of Western culture.

No library descriptions found.

Beskrivelse af bogen
Haiku-resume

Current Discussions

Ingen

Populære omslag

Quick Links

Vurdering

Gennemsnit: (3.5)
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3 1
3.5
4 1
4.5
5

Er det dig?

Bliv LibraryThing-forfatter.

 

Om | Kontakt | LibraryThing.com | Brugerbetingelser/Håndtering af brugeroplysninger | Hjælp/FAQs | Blog | Butik | APIs | TinyCat | Efterladte biblioteker | Tidlige Anmeldere | Almen Viden | 203,216,126 bøger! | Topbjælke: Altid synlig