Replies

This is a good article. Starrts kinda shaky, but pulls it out and ends well.

The author forgets alot of history between Alexander and modern wars. The Arabs and Turks (Seljuk/Ottoman) did pretty well against the infidel West from the 8th century AD through around 1699, conquering Spain and, were it not for Charles Martel, France as well. And later, absorbing Constantinople (mid-15th century), through the Balkans, and laying seige to Vienna at least twice; the last time broken largely by legions of heavy Polish cavalry.

It was only after 1699 when the Ottoman Empire fell behind technologically, socially, and economically, becoming ultimately the "sick man of Europe" and dismembered in the 1920s.

The Arabs world was not always so grabastic and ineffective. My 2 cents.

It was only after 1699 when the Ottoman Empire fell behind technologically, socially, and economically, becoming ultimately the "sick man of Europe" and dismembered in the 1920s.

The Arabs world was not always so grabastic and ineffective. My 2 cents.

You make good points.

Western society and culture continued to grow. Arab culture did not.

Walt

Good points. There was a time when the Arabs were well organized. Now is not that time.

Good points all. In the 100 or so years after Mohammed the Muslims expanded their empire faster than anyone in history. Were it not for Charles the Hammer, all of Europe would have fell. The Muslims did very well for themselves in the crusades. It was not until @1500 that Ferdinand and Isabella were able to unify Spain and cast out the Moors. The Muslims last ditch effort to take Europe was dashed by the Polish Hero Jan Slobieski at the gates of Vienna.

The real turning point for the Muslims happened when they rejected enlightenment (I think the leading Cleric advocating enlightenment was Al Jazeera Sp?) and embraced fundamentalism. They rapidly proceeded to descend into the stone age.

Ah, he does deal with that. There is a chapter in his book on "Potiers." Interestingly, the "Mahommetta" cannon that finally broke down the walls of Constantinople was NOT a Turkish or Muslim design, but a Hungarian one; and while the Muslims rolled over a defenseless north Africa, they were stopped, then expelled, by HIGHLY divided Spanish and French armies, which, had they ever united, would have overwhelmed the Muslims.

Well into the 1500s, Turkish/Muslim hardware was a joke. It was inevitably pilfered from western designs, but never improved upon. At Lepanto, a high percentage of the cannons did not work, and roughly four "galleasses" destroyed much of the entire Turkish fleet.

Moreover, Muslims were pretty well crushed when they met the Mongols, another "eastern" army.

You can (and Hanson does) always point to individual battles, or even short campaigns, where the "western way of war" is not dominant, but they are few and far between. What the West does, and the non-west does not, is use its free speech and free criticism to improve its militaries, restructure, and not lose again. You could see this after Cannae, Isandlwana, and Vietnam.

The author forgets alot of history between Alexander and modern wars.

You're right. The Romans also had terrible luck against the Parthians and Persians. Crassus, Valerian, and Julian the Apostate (among others) all had disastrous campaigns in the East.

lol...Dude, the author is Dr. Victor Davis Hanson.

HE didn't "forget" anything...he's probably one of the top 5 living military historians and a professor at the United States Naval Academy.

He left your points out because they weren't germane to the brunt of his article.

There's a terrific archive of his work for National Review here.