“Future peacekeepers and peacemakers have much to learn from alternative military cultures, not only that of the Orient but of the primitive world also. There is a wisdom in the principles of intellectual restrain and even of symbolic ritual that needs to be rediscovered.”
Perhaps the best known dictum on military affairs is Clausewitz’s ‘War is merely the continuation of policy by other means.’ This, Keegan argues in History of Warfare, is nonsense. War is fundamentally shaped by many factors, most notably culture, and to ascribe its entire existence as an extension of policy is to confuse modern war with war itself.
To illustrate his point, Keegan surveys much of the history of warfare, from the Yanomamö in South America, who resolved minor disputes with a chest pounding duel (each participant took turns hitting the other on the chest until one surrendered) to Aztec flower wars (yearly wars intended to capture the highest possible rank of captive, who was then tortured to death) to medieval conflicts in which the two sides would agree beforehand how long a siege should last before the other side gave up and was permitted to leave.
Only modern wars, Keegan argues, have truly become about victory at all costs. The problem is that this is a very dangerous way to fight. Restraint, whether the influence of Buddhism on the Samurai or a cultural ethic among a group of tribes, can help limit the harm warriors can do to each other and war can do to the society that hosts it. Humanity needs warriors, he argues, because we all have the potentiality for violence, but we need armies that are disciplined, law-abiding, and moderate.
Military history has lost some of its shine in recent years, for what are probably good reasons. Keegan is one of the top modern military historians, however, known both for his broad, sweeping arguments and his command of the detail of military history. This book accomplishes exactly that: it provides both a great overview of military history in a number of contexts, and uses it to make a broader argument. My only criticism would be that he is not always easy to read: his sentences tend towards the complicated and the multi-clausal. If this is something you’re interested in, though, History of Warfare is the place to start.