PSHAW?!
In other words, he's unemployed. I guess he's auditioning for a job at some liberal university. Looks like he's on the right track to gainful employment, with this long-winded attack on VDH and America's war on terrorism.
How did Prof. Hanson come to associate two such figures in his own mind and in his writings? As best as I can reconstruct it, his train of thought went something like this: “The Greeks were agrarians who figured out democracy and Western Civilization. We Americans are the heirs of that civilization; lots of us used to be farmers and a few still are; we call our own form of government democracy. So we are the Greeks of today. The Confederates, however, owned slaves—which we know is wrong, though the Greeks for some reason didn’t. The Confederates, then, were the Persian tyrants of the nineteenth century. Since Sherman fought them, he was the heir of the Athenians facing down Persian might at Marathon. Or perhaps of Epaminondas freeing Messenia from Spartan rule: it doesn’t so much matter. In any case, since we are Americans and heirs of the Greeks, we are also Unionists, Western, enemies of tyranny, and various good things. When we fight, the other guys are Persians, Spartans, rebels, Asiatics, tyrants, and various bad things.”
This “Hanson doctrine,” as it might be called, is not only supremely confused—it possesses a self-righteous Manichean quality worthy of Robespierre.
Southern Heritage Bump
Long-winded feller, isn't he? Not a bad synopsis of Hanson's career, but the dichotomy the author appears to perceive between the European Enlightenment and its Greek agrarian roots is, in fact, nonexistent both in Hanson's works and in fact. I think his real problem is that he doesn't like how Hanson deals with an idealized South, and there's not a lot to be done about that.
FMCDH
2) Maybe I missed it, but he seemed to skip over "Carnage and Culture" on his way to "Soul of Battle." Had he not done so, he would have found that Hanson, in fact, argues that one element of the "western way of war" is to fight to total victory and unconditional surrender. This outweighs any concerns over the southern "family farms." Yes, there were far more "family farms" in the South than plantations, but unfortunately, the plantation owners dominated the secession conventions and the "average" southern farmers lacked the will to resist . . . or else actually shared in their secessionist views. Either way, they were part of the problem.
For the author to quote the 12 "Agrarians" as to the southern character is a) dated and b) not necessarily right. After all, McWhiney and Jamison have argued ("Attack and Die") that the southern character was grossly mis-shapen by the Celitic influence on the south, and this "herding" character emphasized honor, offensive attacks, and a cavalry tradition (exactly like the Persians or Carthaginians); and they further argue that this is seen in the disproportionate casualties the South took: Lee lost MORE men as a percent of those committed in every battle than did the north except for Fredericksburg. The point is not Lee's generalship but whether the South fits the "non-western" part of Hanson's model, and I think it does.
Bottom line, the author has to jump through hoops to take pokes at VDH. Hanson has some inconsistencies (downplaying, for example, the significance of mounted knights in the Charles Martel's army) but overall he is one of the most VISIONARY people out there, unlike the critic.
Interesting summary of Hanson's work until we reach the later books. Odd how such an apparently intelligent reviewer is blinded by his own ideological presuppositions. I don't know where Devlin stands. He does not appear to be a kneejerk liberal by any means. Perhaps he is one of those neoconservatives who disapproves of the Iraqi war on other grounds?
Read half-way placemarker.
ping
He almost lost me right here...
F'ing Roger Devlin: Twit!
bump for later read - Thanks for posting.
"Victor Davis Hanson is a fine military historian of classical Greece. He knows so little of political theory that he cannot distinguish imperial aggression from its opposite. Sherman marched for the imperial aggrandizement of the Union; Epaminondas marched to destroy the Spartan empire. In that regard, these two figures were polar opposites. Sherman’s historical predecessors were rather the Persian commanders who attempted to crush agrarian, democratic, “Western” Athens and incorporate it into their empire."
Mr. Devlin is what is commonly called "loony-tunes". People can argue about just where he is coming from, but it sure as hell isn't from this planet.
I must admit having to take the author's word for his conclusions concerning Davis' later works, as I have not read them..
His extensive "cliff notes" on the earlier works are fascinating reading, however, and "make sense"..
I am curiously encouraged to investigate further..
My only concern is of course, with Mr Devlin's conclusions concerning the American Ideal vs. Terrorism..
I cannot in all honesty, see much parallel between the ancient greek agrarians and the american military machine, nor how it applies to a "guerrilla" war..
I'll make a copy of the article, make a few bookmarks, do some Googling, and peruse my own library, and see what conclusions I can arrive at..
Thanks, robo, for the post.
I think I'm getting a headache... ;op
Paid by the word?
Isn't "professional libelers" ,er, libelous?
(Calling all FR lawyers.)
Environmental determinism rears its ugly head. Ironically, in the purported history of the earliest determinists, LOL!
An example of that environmental determinism in their own philosophy.
redrock