Comments on: The Active Life

By: Garibaldi

Garibaldi — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:05:28 +0000

Despite the value of his earlier work, VDH really fell off the wagon later in life. He fell into that obnoxious school of thought which treats the past like a dress-up box, where you can just root around in history and pull out rather contorted analogies to modern events.

His politics and ideology pretty clearly color his later work. “The Soul of Battle” in particular is rather embarrassing.

By: Pedro

Pedro — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:29:33 +0000

VDH further explores the “Western Way” of warfare in “Carnage and Culture.” Defintitely worth reading.

By: Peadar Coyle

Peadar Coyle — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:32:25 +0000

I think the most important thing is the tinkerer idea, and how Historical ideas, just like Philosophical ones should be put to the test.

Tinkering really does lead to magnificient things, sometimes we have to ‘think outside the box’ and the best way to do that is a bottom up approach.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:58:33 +0000

Ryan-

Very true, I instantly regretted phrasing it the way I did as soon as I posted. Let’s just say I’ll withhold judgment until I read it, reservations notwithstanding.

By: Ryan Holiday

Ryan Holiday — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:45:11 +0000

@ Ben

Here’s what I love to do: Make sweeping, dismissive comments about books that I haven’t read because I had a crappy history teacher in high school.

Everything you mentioned is addressed and dealt with at length in the book, which is why it has been considered a SEMINAL piece of the study of warfare for the the last three decades.

Snark is the worst. You can keep these comments to yourself from now on because not only are you factually wrong in this case, but wrong about the history of science – where “buffoons” are the ones that make all the important discoveries that we then take for granted.

By: inh

inh — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:43:11 +0000

Ironically enough this reminded me of one of my favorite classroom experiences. Rather than simply discuss William Jennings Bryant my professor chose instead to actually deliver the “Cross of Gold” speech. That one experience probably gave me more context than years of memorizing “basic assumption” about history.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:57:44 +0000

I had a history teacher who claimed the reason Charlemagne never learned to write was exhaustion of the forearm from bearing a sword, making articulation of the hands and fingers difficult, something he discovered trying to sign a contractor’s bill after a day of painting. I knew what he was talking about, but it seemed a silly explanation for why someone who grew up illiterate would have trouble learning later in life.

Victor Hanson’s explanations remind me of this. We know from other periods of warfare that troops rarely marched in full armor, and would have only suited up right before battle lines were formed. “Laying waste to the land” usually meant burning crops and salting the earth, not just one specific act that turns out to be impossible. He sounds like another buffoon trying to make a name for himself by going against grain.