What do you think?
Rate this book
Modern War Studies
Enduring Battle: American Soldiers in Three Wars, 1776-1945
Throughout history, battlefields have placed a soldier's instinct for self-preservation in direct opposition to the army's insistence that he do his duty and put himself in harm's way. Enduring Battle looks beyond advances in weaponry to examine changes in warfare at the very personal level. Drawing on the combat experiences of American soldiers in three widely separated wars—the Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II—Christopher Hamner explores why soldiers fight in the face of terrifying lethal threats and how they manage to suppress their fears, stifle their instincts, and marshal the will to kill other humans.
Hamner contrasts the experience of infantry combat on the ground in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when soldiers marched shoulder-to-shoulder in linear formations, with the experiences of dispersed infantrymen of the mid-twentieth century. Earlier battlefields prized soldiers who could behave as stoic automatons; the modern dispersed battlefield required soldiers who could act autonomously. As the range and power of weapons removed enemies from view, combat became increasingly depersonalized, and soldiers became more isolated from their comrades and even imagined that the enemy was targeting them personally. What's more, battles lengthened so that exchanges of fire that lasted an hour during the Revolutionary War became round-the-clock by World War II.
The book's coverage of training and leadership explores the ways in which military systems have attempted to deal with the problem of soldiers' fear in battle and contrasts leadership in the linear and dispersed tactical systems. Chapters on weapons and comradeship then discuss soldiers' experiences in battle and the relationships that informed and shaped those experiences.
Hamner highlights the ways in which the "band of brothers" phenomenon functioned differently in the three wars and shows that training, conditioning, leadership, and other factors affect behavior much more than political ideology. He also shows how techniques to motivate soldiers evolved, from the linear system's penalties for not fighting to modern efforts to convince soldiers that participation in combat would actually maximize their own chances for survival.
Examining why soldiers continue to fight when their strong instinct is to flee, Enduring Battle challenges long-standing notions that high ideals and small unit bonds provide sufficient explanation for their behavior. Offering an innovative way to analyze the factors that enable soldiers to face the prospect of death or debilitating wounds, it expands our understanding of the evolving nature of warfare and its warriors.
Hamner contrasts the experience of infantry combat on the ground in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when soldiers marched shoulder-to-shoulder in linear formations, with the experiences of dispersed infantrymen of the mid-twentieth century. Earlier battlefields prized soldiers who could behave as stoic automatons; the modern dispersed battlefield required soldiers who could act autonomously. As the range and power of weapons removed enemies from view, combat became increasingly depersonalized, and soldiers became more isolated from their comrades and even imagined that the enemy was targeting them personally. What's more, battles lengthened so that exchanges of fire that lasted an hour during the Revolutionary War became round-the-clock by World War II.
The book's coverage of training and leadership explores the ways in which military systems have attempted to deal with the problem of soldiers' fear in battle and contrasts leadership in the linear and dispersed tactical systems. Chapters on weapons and comradeship then discuss soldiers' experiences in battle and the relationships that informed and shaped those experiences.
Hamner highlights the ways in which the "band of brothers" phenomenon functioned differently in the three wars and shows that training, conditioning, leadership, and other factors affect behavior much more than political ideology. He also shows how techniques to motivate soldiers evolved, from the linear system's penalties for not fighting to modern efforts to convince soldiers that participation in combat would actually maximize their own chances for survival.
Examining why soldiers continue to fight when their strong instinct is to flee, Enduring Battle challenges long-standing notions that high ideals and small unit bonds provide sufficient explanation for their behavior. Offering an innovative way to analyze the factors that enable soldiers to face the prospect of death or debilitating wounds, it expands our understanding of the evolving nature of warfare and its warriors.
294 pages, Hardcover
First published April 7, 2011
1 person is currently reading
27 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 19, 2016
This is a thought-provoking and well-written comparative study of combat by a UNC alum. Christopher Hamner has several objectives in this compact book. His first major theme is an exploration of continuity and change in combat experience between three American wars: the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Second World War. Within the context of his comparative study Hamner challenges the 'Band of Brothers' (primary-group cohesion) theory for why men fought in battle by offering an alternative: men fought in the twentieth century, specifically, because Army training had taught men to think about survival in combat as a rational decision-making process. Thus, self-preservation and task-cohesion (group commitment to some goal) became the primary combat motivators while social cohesion provided psychological support to help sustain motivation long-term. The third point (and related to his discussion of motivation), Hamner discusses how soldiers coped with fear.
There are three distinct parts to Enduring Battle. In the first two chapters, Hamner emphasizes the similarities and differences in combat experience and then delves into a comparison of how men overcame fear in all three wars. Chapter one emulates John Keegan's Face of Battle by giving the reader a detailed description of how men experienced three battles: Cowpens, Shiloh, and the Hurtgenwald. Part II investigates evolution and revolutions in military training, technology, and leadership. Part III, the last chapter, offers a critique of the 'Band of Brothers' thesis and fleshes out how Hamner sees social cohesion, task cohesion, and survival as competing combat motivators across three centuries. His conclusions offer some speculative theses about how the mechanics of combat have evolved since 1945 with specific attention to the increasingly depersonalized nature of warfare in postindustrial age.
Hamner crafts an argument for certain continuities across the three wars in question. Among these are the omnipresence of danger, fear in battle, and the constant proximity of death to the individual soldier. The differences are stark, however, as Hamner argues revolutionary changes in technology (the introduction of automatic weapons, artillery, aircraft) led to evolutionary changes in tactics. Men no longer massed in linear formations by World War II because the technology made these tactics a death sentence for companies and regiments. Instead, soldiers used dispersed formations that relied on cover, move-and-fire techniques, and individual decision-making. Dispersed tactics created what Hamner calls the "empty battlefield" wherein the enemy became increasingly depersonalized, the individual soldier was far more isolated from comrades, the duration of battles stretched for months, and combat seemed "specific" to the soldier—as if every bullet and artillery shell had that soldiers' name on it. Because dispersal meant that officers could no longer use their direct physical presence and the threat of carrots and sticks to entice men to fight, Army training adapted to these new conditions by encouraging soldiers to think of combat as an exercise in problem-solving. If men made the right decisions (e.g. taking cover, using move-and-fire techniques, keeping your head down) it would increase the odds of survival. Hamner argues that, at first, men could draw on their training for motivation in combat (If I make the right decisions, I'll live. If I don't, I'll die) until the capriciousness of combat eventually led the soldier toward fatalism (The only way I can ensure that I live if by my not being here.).
Finally, Hamner offers an interesting interjection into debates concerning why men fight. He acknowledges that after S.L.A Marshall's Men Under Fire was published post-World War II, many historians argued that primary-group cohesion was a useful explanation for why men fought. That is, men fought for the men beside them. However, Joseph Glatthaar, Omer Bartov, and other historians have illustrated several weaknesses with using the primary-group cohesion theory. First, in many cases unit attrition rates exceeded the original strength of the unit and thus primary-groups could not fully cohere as men were killed, wounded, and replaced. Second, bonds between a primary-group can actually strengthen collective resistance to authority in ways that are counterproductive to military aims. Third, Hamner advises against assuming that the psychology of combat and combat motivation was universal across all times and places. In that case the primary-group theory may have explanatory power only in certain historical periods. Hamner's alternative to the primary-group theory rests on two principles: individual agency and task cohesion. Individual agency simply implies that soldiers are more likely to fight when they believe that their individual actions can influence their survival. This component of his argument rests of his body of research concerning military training the twentieth-century. Task cohesion posits that a group can achieve its state goals (whether it be a sports championship or a tactical objective in war) without possessing affectionate bonds between its members. Task cohesion and an individual's belief in his ability to shape outcomes and ensure self-preservation can explain why men fought in the Second World War and perhaps in other conflicts, as well. Social cohesion still factors into the equation but not as a combat motivator. Instead, social cohesion can assuage fear and offer psychological support outside combat that helps sustain a soldier's long-term commitment to fight.
There are three distinct parts to Enduring Battle. In the first two chapters, Hamner emphasizes the similarities and differences in combat experience and then delves into a comparison of how men overcame fear in all three wars. Chapter one emulates John Keegan's Face of Battle by giving the reader a detailed description of how men experienced three battles: Cowpens, Shiloh, and the Hurtgenwald. Part II investigates evolution and revolutions in military training, technology, and leadership. Part III, the last chapter, offers a critique of the 'Band of Brothers' thesis and fleshes out how Hamner sees social cohesion, task cohesion, and survival as competing combat motivators across three centuries. His conclusions offer some speculative theses about how the mechanics of combat have evolved since 1945 with specific attention to the increasingly depersonalized nature of warfare in postindustrial age.
Hamner crafts an argument for certain continuities across the three wars in question. Among these are the omnipresence of danger, fear in battle, and the constant proximity of death to the individual soldier. The differences are stark, however, as Hamner argues revolutionary changes in technology (the introduction of automatic weapons, artillery, aircraft) led to evolutionary changes in tactics. Men no longer massed in linear formations by World War II because the technology made these tactics a death sentence for companies and regiments. Instead, soldiers used dispersed formations that relied on cover, move-and-fire techniques, and individual decision-making. Dispersed tactics created what Hamner calls the "empty battlefield" wherein the enemy became increasingly depersonalized, the individual soldier was far more isolated from comrades, the duration of battles stretched for months, and combat seemed "specific" to the soldier—as if every bullet and artillery shell had that soldiers' name on it. Because dispersal meant that officers could no longer use their direct physical presence and the threat of carrots and sticks to entice men to fight, Army training adapted to these new conditions by encouraging soldiers to think of combat as an exercise in problem-solving. If men made the right decisions (e.g. taking cover, using move-and-fire techniques, keeping your head down) it would increase the odds of survival. Hamner argues that, at first, men could draw on their training for motivation in combat (If I make the right decisions, I'll live. If I don't, I'll die) until the capriciousness of combat eventually led the soldier toward fatalism (The only way I can ensure that I live if by my not being here.).
Finally, Hamner offers an interesting interjection into debates concerning why men fight. He acknowledges that after S.L.A Marshall's Men Under Fire was published post-World War II, many historians argued that primary-group cohesion was a useful explanation for why men fought. That is, men fought for the men beside them. However, Joseph Glatthaar, Omer Bartov, and other historians have illustrated several weaknesses with using the primary-group cohesion theory. First, in many cases unit attrition rates exceeded the original strength of the unit and thus primary-groups could not fully cohere as men were killed, wounded, and replaced. Second, bonds between a primary-group can actually strengthen collective resistance to authority in ways that are counterproductive to military aims. Third, Hamner advises against assuming that the psychology of combat and combat motivation was universal across all times and places. In that case the primary-group theory may have explanatory power only in certain historical periods. Hamner's alternative to the primary-group theory rests on two principles: individual agency and task cohesion. Individual agency simply implies that soldiers are more likely to fight when they believe that their individual actions can influence their survival. This component of his argument rests of his body of research concerning military training the twentieth-century. Task cohesion posits that a group can achieve its state goals (whether it be a sports championship or a tactical objective in war) without possessing affectionate bonds between its members. Task cohesion and an individual's belief in his ability to shape outcomes and ensure self-preservation can explain why men fought in the Second World War and perhaps in other conflicts, as well. Social cohesion still factors into the equation but not as a combat motivator. Instead, social cohesion can assuage fear and offer psychological support outside combat that helps sustain a soldier's long-term commitment to fight.
June 30, 2014
This book is an exploration of the experience of infantry combat over time. It focuses primarily on the American Revolution, Civil War, and World War II with occasional discussions of Vietnam or the Gulf War. Hamner focused on infantry because, he says, they take on large casualties and have a degree of flexibility in decision making not always afforded to soldiers in other kinds of positions (especially women and men in large pieces of machinery like tanks, naval ships, etc). Hamner deftly suggests the ways in which infantry soldiers are and are not alike across these different wars. He is especially interested in how technology reshaped infantry tactics over time. In Hamner's account, the development of new and more lethal weaponry caused the shift from linear to dispersed tactics. This shift, from tightly packed armies massing together to more dispersed and isolated fighting units, is at the core of the shifting infantryman's experience. Nearly all his insights rest on this essential evolution in the 20th century.
The book also investigates how men confront their own fear and the strategies they use to master fear. Hamner writes extensively about how men (and in his book most soldiers are men) sought to create a sense of agency in an otherwise chaotic battle environment. Unlike older social scientists, Hamner emphasizes the role that task cohesion and individual agency have in preparing men to fight.
It is perhaps unfair to fault Hamner for what his book doesn't include, but I think it is worth pointing out that by avoiding an in-depth discussion of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Hamner avoids how counter-insurgency tactics complicate his narrative of evolution. Although he acknowledges these issues, the book fails to account for them in a meaningful way.
The book also investigates how men confront their own fear and the strategies they use to master fear. Hamner writes extensively about how men (and in his book most soldiers are men) sought to create a sense of agency in an otherwise chaotic battle environment. Unlike older social scientists, Hamner emphasizes the role that task cohesion and individual agency have in preparing men to fight.
It is perhaps unfair to fault Hamner for what his book doesn't include, but I think it is worth pointing out that by avoiding an in-depth discussion of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Hamner avoids how counter-insurgency tactics complicate his narrative of evolution. Although he acknowledges these issues, the book fails to account for them in a meaningful way.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews