The History of Warfare by John Keegan

            A while ago, I read Clausewitz’s On War. Around the same time I finished the book, which had been the latest in a long list of classic books I’m reading through, I needed to write a post on what makes a book a classic. I didn’t consider the book a classic, because it wasn’t applicable outside of its genre. I also have two other criteria for a classic in that post, which are it must accomplish it’s goal well and neither of those two are outliers. In other words the book must consistently throughout the entirety of its pages accomplish its goal well and be applicable outside of its genre. Interestingly though Clausewitz’s On War isn’t a classic by my standards the book I just read that essentially is a response/critique of it, John Keegan’s The History of Warfare, is.

Critiquing Clausewitz

            John Keegan’s book The History of Warfare is an excellent critique of Clausewitz. Keegan’s primary problem with On War is that Clausewitz imagined, if you will, a perfect war. Keegan argues that Clausewitz was a product of his upbringing in Europe’s romanticized period where every person joined a regiment of war. They looked back on the ancient Greek classics of Homer and his colleagues as ideals to be aspired to. In idealizing this imagined “true” war, Clausewitz ignored the brutality of “real” war.  This “real” war is what Keegan focuses on. Unlike Clausewitz, Keegan didn’t witness was first hand. Instead he approached war from an academic perspective as a war historian. Despite his relative out-of-touch-ness and outsider status, I believe Keegan was better able to describe war and people’s motivations for war.

I’ll Give Clausewitz This…

            One undeniable advantage Keegan had over Clausewitz is the benefit of more hindsight and availability of knowledge. Keegan could look on the atrocity of WWII and the holocaust and quite quickly destroy Clausewitz’s claim that war is simply politics continued by another means. In a highly idealized version of the world that may be true. But as Keegan points out politics didn’t motivate Hitler to massacre millions. No something more sinister drove him. Similarly, what kind of politics would lead to the invention of MAD or mutually assured destruction? As a historian, Keegan could also look further back than Clausewitz did and see both the commonalities between different systems of warfare and the commonalities between them that hint at a deeper psychological drive towards warfare in humanity.

Conditions for Classics

            “[W]e are hardened to what we know, and we rationalise and even justify cruelties practised by us and our like while retaining the capacity to be outraged, even disgusted by practices equally cruel which, under the hands of strangers, take a different form.” Quotes like these from Keegan’s The History of Warfare are both applicable to those relatively uninterested in warfare and progress the book towards its goal of discussing the evolution of warfare both in technology, psychology, and motivations. Hence why though the original inspiration for this book might have been a response to Clausewitz’s On War the product is something much more.

Textbook-esque?

            Books like The History of Warfare can easily devolve into a list of dates and names, as Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire did. Admittedly, Keegan falls into this temptation at different points and instead of utilizing this history to make his point begins to retell the events and dates in a monotone fashion. However, those instances are relatively short-lived and few in comparison to how many opportunities there were. If you want to become more informed about the history of the violent predispositions of humanity and how different societies have struggled to both suppress their own proclivity towards violence, while justifiably defending themselves from external threats this book is an excellent read. He touches on the human condition, psychology, politics, science, morality and more yet still maintains a cohesive narrative throughout the 400 pages, which given the breadth of topics demonstrates Keegan’s ability to say much with very little.

What about You?

            Have you ever read a book and then read a critique of it? Do you think it’s fair of me to say that Keegan’s book is a classic, but Clausewitz’s isn’t? Have you ever read this book? Got any recommendations for me? Let me know in the comments.

Notes:

Sources:

Image Credit: "Mural of seige warfare" by Bill Taroli