Hoplites is well regarded. His Western Way of War stuff is seen as interesting but wrong.
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @Joshua_A_Tait ja @Kin_Loch
Just a point of clarification: Western Way of War is his hoplite book, and though the title is unfortunate, still represents the 'orthodox' position on hoplite battle (in contrast to H. van Wees' Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities, the heterodox position).
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @Kin_Loch
Ah, ok - it's the "western way of war" school that's controversial.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
It’s only controversial because many are too chicken to admit the obvious in our PC age: Western civilization since the time of the Greeks has consistently produced military forces which are invariably superior to non-Western forces.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
This was very much not true in the period c. 500 A.D. to c. 1500 A.D...about 1,000 of the c. 2,500 years 'since the time of the Greeks.' A general characterization which is wrong 40% of the time is hardly a good one.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
1099 was during the time frame and yet the West managed to move an army 2,000 miles and win. Nothing compares with the West’s ability to form an army and send it off to fight. Even elite non-West forces like the Jannisaries were pretty low quality.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Except that 1099 is pretty much a blip and crusader armies in the Levant will mostly lose, even against enemies as fragmented as they are. As for the Janissaries - there were 11,000 of them in 1527 and 40,000 by 1609...
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @Mark_E_Noonan ja
They were not a small elite, but a mainstay infantry force for the field army. To say that they were less than successful is also just silly. They won from Hungary to Mesopotamia, Egypt and North Africa.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @Mark_E_Noonan ja
If they were not as hyper-specialized for combat in the hills and mountains of Austria, it is because - unlike Hapsburg armies - they had a much wider range of threats and terrain they needed to be able to fight in. Read Chase, Firearms, (2003)
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @Mark_E_Noonan ja
But your tweet neatly sums up the weaknesses of the VDH version: it includes all of the 'Western' victories, but excises all of the failures. He also cuts out any European state which might be inconvenient to this argument.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä
E.g. Visigothic Spain, Post-Roman Greece, Hungary writ-large. The more you actually know about the topic, the more the exceptions and caveats - unacknowledged in books like Carnage and Culture - pile up, until they overwhelm and bury the argument.
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @Mark_E_Noonan ja
And that's the rub - Carnage and Culture is seductively plausible to someone who knows very little about the topic, but obviously flawed for those whose knowledge runs deeper.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Neat trick: if I agree with VDH, it’s because I’m ignorant! As if I didn’t know about Visigothic Spain. Nice try: but I do know all about it and thing like it are the exceptions which prove the rule: which wound up with a Reconquest of Spain rather than a Muslim France.
0 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.