Michael
Nov 22nd 2008, 02:22 PM
CASTLES, BATTLES & BOMBS: HOW ECONOMICS EXPLAINS MILITARY HISTORY
University of Chicago Press (Footprint), $46.95 hb, 403 pp, 9780226071633
This is a book about warfare, battles and the preparations for them. It is not comprehensive but it is systematic, for it selects major periods or episodes in Western military history in the last one thousand years and, by applying economic theory, tries to pluck lessons from them. It extends from the mania for building fortified castles in medieval times to the bombing of Nazi Germany and the economics of the recent crusade against terrorism.
Book Review (http://home.vicnet.net.au/~abr/Current/july08blaineyreview.htm)
I find this topic fascenating - although I disagree with the thesis of this book entirely. I haven't read the book of course, only the review. That being said, the evidence offered in argument is very weak, though the review is generally positive of the book.
But I must say my view of the matter is exactly the opposite. For me, military history is always on the leading edge of everything. Advancements occur first on the battlefield and the results of these actions is what drives subsequent political, economic and social history.
Certainly there is an aspect of economics driving particular battlefield successes, but I would argue that those economic systems were a product of earlier military innovations. This is particularly true in the context of the modern era.
One point that does freak me out about the article-review is the apparent complete unawareness about the actual military outcome of WW1. In all of history, no war is as as consistently misunderstood as World War 1 - as demonstrated by the author of this review. He's a historian from one of the nations involved and completely ignorant on the the topic and entirely oblivious to that fact.
University of Chicago Press (Footprint), $46.95 hb, 403 pp, 9780226071633
This is a book about warfare, battles and the preparations for them. It is not comprehensive but it is systematic, for it selects major periods or episodes in Western military history in the last one thousand years and, by applying economic theory, tries to pluck lessons from them. It extends from the mania for building fortified castles in medieval times to the bombing of Nazi Germany and the economics of the recent crusade against terrorism.
Book Review (http://home.vicnet.net.au/~abr/Current/july08blaineyreview.htm)
I find this topic fascenating - although I disagree with the thesis of this book entirely. I haven't read the book of course, only the review. That being said, the evidence offered in argument is very weak, though the review is generally positive of the book.
But I must say my view of the matter is exactly the opposite. For me, military history is always on the leading edge of everything. Advancements occur first on the battlefield and the results of these actions is what drives subsequent political, economic and social history.
Certainly there is an aspect of economics driving particular battlefield successes, but I would argue that those economic systems were a product of earlier military innovations. This is particularly true in the context of the modern era.
One point that does freak me out about the article-review is the apparent complete unawareness about the actual military outcome of WW1. In all of history, no war is as as consistently misunderstood as World War 1 - as demonstrated by the author of this review. He's a historian from one of the nations involved and completely ignorant on the the topic and entirely oblivious to that fact.