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. ( )

12/4/22