Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power.

Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power by Victor Davis Hanson New York: Anchor Books, 2001 544 p. $29.95 [ISBN: 0-3857-2038-6]

Although for many observers 9/11 brought the return of history to a globalizing world, it is still unfashionable in polite society to admit--a la Samuel Huntington--that civilizations exist and are fairly clearly demarcated not only by their history but also by unique cultural traits. It is even more declasse to suggest that those distinctive characteristics might give one civilization an advantage of one sort or another over others. While few observers deny that the West has seemed to have the upper hand in military struggles over the past few hundred years or more, it is far more acceptable in saloon society to chalk up the phenomenon to environmental caprice, as Jared Diamond did in his popular Guns, Germs, and Steel, or to the mercantile and militaristic ambitions of a civilization gone greedy.

Classical historian Victor Davis Hanson does not buy the prevailing thinking. In Carnage and Culture, he offers fundamental and systematic reasons why history has unfolded as it has, particularly military history. His thesis is that the undeniable Western advantage in warfare itself, particularly on the battlefield, stems directly from the cultural traits of Western societies. Conversely, the cultural traits of non-Western societies gave way to ritualistic and tribal forms of warfare that were regularly bested by Western militaries.

Victory has causes, Hanson tells us, and they are not always the ones that crop up in after-action reviews, such as terrain, command, planning, local tactics, and weaponry. Instead, such factors as political freedom, the quest for decisiveness, a sense of civic duty, rationalism and science, capitalist economics, technological enthusiasm, discipline combined with individual initiative, and a tradition of critique and self-correction have not only made Western societies into what they are today, both good and bad, but they also provide the foundation of understanding the enduring Western military advantage in battle.

While allowing for anomalies, Hanson maintains that the whole of military history basically supports his thesis. To illustrate his points most vividly--and he is a vivid writer and historian--he chooses one West versus non-West battle (to include a few Western defeats) to highlight advantages derived from each cultural trait.

The Athenian naval victory over the Persians at Salamis in 480 BC shows the moral advantage that free men have over slaves. Alexander the Great's breaking of Darius III's large Persian and Greek force at Gaugamela in 331 BC evinces the advantages of a Western tradition of decisiveness rather than ritual maneuvering. The annihilation of the Romans by Hannibal's army at Cannae in 216 BC and Rome's subsequent recovery to drive him from Italy and win the war with Carthage demonstrate the ability of a civic republic to rally its citizenry to strategic victory even after a calamitous defeat.

The Frankish victory over the Moors at Poitiers in 732 AD exemplifies the power of the yeoman tradition in Western warfare--lower class landed infantry soldiers and their shock formations whose operations were based not on brave individual warriors, a proud non-Western tradition, but on a team of exchangeable cogs in a machine. Cortez's campaign in Mexico in 1520-1521 and culminating victory over the mighty Aztecs at Tenochtitlan point up the advantages of Western rationalism and technology when put together. The Venetian crushing of the Turkish fleet at Lepanto in 1571 highlights the military benefits capitalist societies have over command-directed economic traditions.

The 1879 British defense of Rourke's Drift against the Zulus after the annihilation of the British force at Isandhlwana shows the advantage of the soldier over the warrior. Nimitz's tide-turning triumph at Midway in 1942 illustrates the value of a society that prizes individual initiative. Finally, and perhaps most controversially, the U.S. operational victory/political defeat in the Tet Offensive of 1968 is an example of the self-correcting mechanisms of societies not afraid to criticize themselves and improve.

Hanson's battle chapters are rich and entertaining. Even so, the problem with this battle-per-cultural-trait method is that military history is so rich and diverse that it offers a series of actions or battles to prove almost any thesis on warfare. Hanson is primed to take on this argument and spends considerable time in a preemptive defense to convince the reader that such engagements as Thermopylae, Kabul, the Little Big Horn, Isandhlwana, Khartoum, and Dien Bien Phu do not disprove his thesis. His general tactic is a debater's best friend--positing the impossible to imagine the opposite case. After all, "England was in India, India not in England," and a handful of Zulus could never be imagined "butchering thousands of rifle-carrying redcoats."

Moreover, where many non-Western forces were successful, Hanson contends that it was because they borrowed Western tactics and weapons. "In all such debate [scholars] must keep in mind that non-European forces did not with any frequency and for long duration navigate the globe, borrowed rather than imparted military technology, did not colonize three new continents, and usually fought Europeans at home rather than in Europe." For those keeping score and bent on citing notable non-Western victories, Hanson maintains that his essential points still stand on the record: the dynamism of the West has generally made for superior forces and that dynamism sprang from political and cultural values unique to the Western tradition. Moreover, there has been no attempt by Western forces to incorporate non-Western traditions or cultural values to improve battlefield effectiveness, while the reverse has often been true. After all, as Hanson tells us, "Alexander did not hire the [Persian] Immortals, the British did not outfit regiments with assegais, and the American Navy did not institute samurai sword training."

Hanson's broad and provocative thesis is largely supported by his analysis of selected engagements (themselves subject to endless reinterpretation), but the more interesting issue is whether his choices are indicative of a more universal theme that provides the single best explanation for Western dominance. This is a complex question. First, there is the matter of what the West is and what it is not. Hanson is squarely in the Adlerian intellectual tradition in assuming that the West is defined by a relatively linear cultural tradition evolving from Greece to Rome to Europe and at last to the United States. David Gress, author of From Plato to NATO: The Idea of the West and Its Critics, has challenged this traditional interpretation effectively, or at least expanded on the idea of a pure cultural link from Socrates through to Milton Friedman. But questions remain. For instance, what traditions do the Russians/ Soviets represent? This is not addressed. In fact, much could be learned from West-on-West conflicts, but Hanson's only point there is that such clashes have always been a bloodbath due to the military effectiveness of both sides.

Second, who represents "everyone else," and why can't these societies reach a point where they can challenge the dominant characteristics of Western societies? This brings to the strategist's mind the question of whether these cultural traits represent truly sustainable, competitive advantages on the battlefield--advantages that are valuable, unique, hard to copy, and decisive. Hanson leaves no doubt that these qualities are valuable. He also makes a persuasive case that they are unique. It is less certain whether they are difficult or costly to imitate--and the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese in particular have effectively demonstrated that on occasion. Finally, we know that these traits, while giving great advantage to Western militaries, are not always decisive.

Most important, there are the questions of whether these advantages even matter. The invasion of Iraq would certainly prove Hanson's point about Western military superiority when the enemy stands and fights, but the non-Western way of war has been employed since the initial victory and with some tactical success for America's adversaries. If these cultural traits manifest themselves as advantages only on the battlefield, then a Westerner hopes that he doesn't run short of fights and adversaries willing to accommodate him. Finally, there is the question of where political and cultural qualities actually make the West more vulnerable. For instance, do the standards of individual freedom, openness, and transparency make homeland defense harder? Do the traditions of civic society and clear separation between combatants and noncombatants hamper the West's effectiveness in counterinsurgency campaigns?

The questions remain to be answered. But Hanson's provocative thesis is more right than wrong and marks a valuable contribution to a hotly debated subject. Whether one buys his entire premise, Hanson's enduring contribution is to reintroduce the power of culture to the debate about military effectiveness. For too long it has been out of fashion to speak of cultural influences and differences--systems of belief, patterns of behavior, and values. Instead, intellectuals swarmed to cultural relativists (Aren't we all really the same? It's just our greedy leaders who are different) and geographic determinists such as Jared Diamond, who offered explanations about Western military superiority that had the comforting feel of an apology.

Ironically, Hanson's controversial thesis is fairer to the non-Westerner than to Diamond or others. Unlike them, he is by no means an implicit racist. He makes much of the fact that intelligence and bravery are shared the world over and by every culture in equal measure. But some cultural groups evolved different societal traits concerning the way they would order their economic and political affairs. The traits of the West allowed it to develop a matchless military power that accounts for the advantages it has enjoyed on the battlefield and in campaigns.

John Hillen, the author of several books and numerous articles on strategic affairs, is a military consultant to ABC News and a contributing editor at national Review.