The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece

VDH writes history with an approachable style that is easy to absorb. If a study of Greek warfare that had far-reaching implications for future generations interests you this book will be for you. Essentially, Hanson is suggesting that early Greek warfare was a single army-on-army event that would determine a winner and the soldiers could go back to their fields. Think of it as an arm-wrestling contest - who is stronger and has slightly better tactics. The contest is over quickly and is uncomplicated. Further, Hanson argues that destruction of crops and cities was not done partially because it wasn't possible. Wheat fields only burn at certain times of year and grape vines and olive trees are indestructible. It's an interesting book.

Best study of combatants reaction to battle I have seen.As a 75 year old disabled Viet Nam combat vet I had had more than 1 uncomfortable disconcerting reaction while reading this book.Also having grown up in Napa, CA I can attest to the labor involved in removing mature grape vines.

Hanson's main focus is to exchange tactical warfare discussions for those of the experiential recreations of the individual hoplite. To do this, he draws the reader into the bronze panoply of helmet, greaves, breastplate and shield and plunges us straight into the rush of snapping spears and the crushing, suffocating press of the rear columns. Each chapter in the second part offers a survey of individual aspects of battle, from who the individual soldiers were and what bound them to step-by-step assessment of the battle itself. These meetings, Hanson tells us, were never about the glory of war, or the passage into manhood, but deliberate, mutual agreements to resolve conflicts as quickly as possible in order to minimize the loss of farmers. Hanson explores such topics as the value of a commanding officer fighting and dying alongside his men, the driving bond by which men fought, and the principle of standing your ground, a concept in which Ancient Greek warfare was rooted in. More than historical description and analysis, Hanson provides reflection on what the principle of ancient Greek warfare meant for the Greeks and what it could mean today if we thought seriously of conducting ourselves shamelessly an honorably in conflict as the Greeks strove to do.

Victor Davis Hanson is unmatched in his writing's of ancient warfare. The foundation of the Western and modern military mindset was laid out by the Greeks (Macedonians and Romans to follow). The Greeks were primarily heavy infantry armies. Unlike the Persians and many other Near Eastern armies, they did not rely upon cavalry (although some modification will come under Alexander the Great), along with chariots as those armies had. As Hanson describes; "The Greek battlefield was the scene of abject terror and utter carnage." The Greek word "Othismos"- a "pushing" describes Greek city state warfare at its best. Very little ingenuity in tactics were used. The Persians would bring change to Greek city state warfare by using their cavalry, archers and chariots that would force the Greeks to "think outside of the box." The Hopelite-the Greek heavy shield bearing infantryman and his partners to his left and his right were inseparable, for if they loosened formation they were finished. The same came with the Phalanx trooper developed by Philip and improved upon by his more dynamic son Alexander. The basis for the Macedonian Phalanx and the Roman Cohort and Legion had its roots in the Greek way of war. Greeks were "citizen soldiers." not the Carthaginian mercenaries or Persian mass levy's. The were men with a "stake" in their respective society.

I really wanted to like this book! I like the era, and the subject. I read the reviews, several from each of the star ratings, and finally decided to buy it.I waited for several weeks for it to arrive, as I am currently living in China, and had my father ship it to me. When it finally did, I dove in.What I found really left me wanting. This book was compared to Keegan's "The Face of Battle," but I have to say that is a poor comparison in my eyes. I kept waiting for it to get better and it never did.What was I waiting for? I was waiting for it to give me an idea of what it was like to fight during that time, how it felt to be in a phalanx! What it instead provided me was passages with no feelings at all. It contained a lot of references to ancient accounts, and how various surviving artworks presented battle. A lot of the same material seemed to be presented over and over. The number of times it talked about the members of a phalanx were usually part of the same tribe, family, city, town, etc, was incredible. This along with how the strongest and most experienced men were put on the right side of the phalanx to help prevent drift, as everyone moved to be protected by the shield of the man on their right. There were times that I wondered if my wife had accidentally dropped my book and put my bookmark into a place I had already read, because even some of the sentences seemed the same, only to find that no, it wasn't that, it was just another rehash of the the material with a slight twist.I did learn a few things, since I hadn't studied any of the ancient battle accounts, and there was something to be learned in each chapter, but it definitely wasn't a good read and I found myself dreading to pick it up. In the end it was a boring account, that droned on without the slightest bit of emotion or power. In my opinion the book could have easily been written in 1/4 the space or less, and offered the same insights.I wasn't impressed and I was so let down that I decided to let others know by writing a review. I am glad that people like it so much, but unfortunately is wasn't for me.

This is a slightly unusual book made up of chapters on topics like armour and alcohol. The author clearly knows the primary sources well and has thought long and hard about hoplite warfare. The author argues that during the hoplite period the Greeks practiced a particular type of ritialistic warfare, where battles took place by agreement on open terrain at particular times. The hoplites would arrive with armour bearers who would carry their impossibly heavy armour and shields. The armour, shield and helment were so impractical in the Greek climate that the hoplites would suit up at the very last minute, and then advance for a savage and brief clash with an enemy formation. The clash would involve a charge of spears where hoplites would push their spears entirely through enemy plate armour, and then descend into a pushing match, where the rear ranks of the phallanx would push their shields into the backs of those in front, forming a giant crush until one side or the other pushed through the enemy phallanx and broke their line. The author argues that this form of warfare, where each side tries to finish the war as quickly as possible with a single brutal confrontation is somehow the "western" way of war. He argues that modern warfare as practiced by western states has its roots in these hoplite battles.The idea is interesting, and perhaps if I knew the primary material as well as the author, I would agree with everything he writes. However, a big weakness of the book is that there is not much discussion of the plausibility of the author's argument, or of alternative interpretations of the evidence. For example, the author argues that the pushing match was a key part of the battle, where each row of the phallanx pushes their shields into the back of the row in front. This idea seems implausible: how can anyone defend themselves effectively when they are being crushed from behind in this way? Perhaps the author has an explanation for how this was possible despite the implausibility. But he doesn't discuss the implausibility or any explanation. There are other astonishing facts that are not discussed as much as one might expect. For example, the hoplite shield is said to be 1" to 1.5" thick, which is a truly astonishing thickness compared to, say, the Roman scutum which was less than a centimetre thick. There are a lot of these unsatisfying points in the book, which makes one wonder whether the entire arguments holds water.The broader idea that hoplite warfare is some sort of template for modern western warfare seems even more tenuous. The ancient Greeks were not primarily a western people in the modern sense of the word. The Greeks primarily belonged to the group of ancient civilizations clustered around the eastern Mediteranean. The idea that modern western Europe is somehow uniquely a successor of ancient Greece in a way that other places are not is nonsense. The immediate successors of the Greeks were the Macedonians who spread Greek culture across the eastern Mediteranean and west Asia, then the eastern part of the Roman Empire, which continued to be a great Greek empire until 1453. We in the west have been profoundly influenced by the Greeks, but their influence on the Islamic world has also been profound. Arguably Greek civilization has had a much greater influence on Christian Orthodox countries such a Russia, which have a much stronger claim on being the successors of Greek Byzantine civilization than we do.Perhaps there is a uniquely "western" way of war that somehow reflects western culture rather than simply being a result of the west having overwhelming military supremacy on the open battlefield for the last few hundred years. But the idea that we can uniquely trace this method of war back to the ancient Greek hoplites in an unbroken line seems implausible.

Definitely recommend this, even if you're not a massive history buff. Easy to read prose, incredible detail and really puts the reader in the middle of everything, easily the best, most gripping and visceral look at what it would have been like to be alive (temporarily maybe) in one of these brutal, quickly-over battles.

fascinating description of classical warfare

Well written and logically describing the possibilities of ancient war. Academic interests are met in a way that still pique the interest of casual readers. Very interesting read.

Le modèle occidental de la guerre, de V D Hanson, nous plonge dans les guerres grecques de l'antiquité. Ce qui impressionne le plus, c'est son écriture. Hanson se place du coté du guerrier,nous ressentons les angoisses, les peurs du combattant.Hanson ose fait un parralele avec les guerres modenes. Pour lui, les fondements de la guerre occidentale n'ont pas changé depuis l'antiquité (cette thèse est encore aujourd'hui contreversée). C'est un clasique à ranger à coté de l'histoire de la guerre de J Keegan, et de Bellone de R Caillois.