What do you think?
Rate this book
Cowardice: A Brief History
A provocative look at how cowardice has been understood from ancient times to the presentCoward. It's a grave insult, likely to provoke anger, shame, even violence. But what exactly is cowardice? When terrorists are called cowards, does it mean the same as when the term is applied to soldiers? And what, if anything, does cowardice have to do with the rest of us? Bringing together sources from court-martial cases to literary and film classics such as Dante's Inferno, The Red Badge of Courage, and The Thin Red Line, Cowardice recounts the great harm that both cowards and the fear of seeming cowardly have done, and traces the idea of cowardice’s power to its evolutionary roots. But Chris Walsh also shows that this power has faded, most dramatically on the battlefield. Misconduct that earlier might have been punished as cowardice has more recently often been treated medically, as an adverse reaction to trauma, and Walsh explores a parallel therapeutic shift that reaches beyond war, into the realms of politics, crime, philosophy, religion, and love.Yet, as Walsh indicates, the therapeutic has not altogether triumphed—contempt for cowardice endures, and he argues that such contempt can be a good thing. Courage attracts much more of our attention, but rigorously understanding cowardice may be more morally useful, for it requires us to think critically about our duties and our fears, and it helps us to act ethically when fear and duty conflict.Richly illustrated and filled with fascinating stories and insights, Cowardice is the first sustained analysis of a neglected but profound and pervasive feature of human experience.
296 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2014
9 people are currently reading
242 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 - 17 of 17 reviews
June 14, 2022
Remember when people used to call each other 'chicken'? When failing to live up to whatever (usually) masculine standard that was in play at that moment, such as punching a bully, driving too fast or signing up to fight in some distant mass slaughter could see you fear-shamed and pilloried as a coward?
I'm old enough to have spend my 80s childhood trying to avoid the New Zealand equivalents of being called a coward - being labelled a 'Wuss', or even worse, the confusing epithet of 'Girl's Blouse'. (Being labelled as this particular item of clothing motivated my teenage self to jump off a ten-metre high platform that hung vertiginously over the local pool, after fearfully dithering at the top of the stairs for thirty minutes).
Still, the zenith of fear shaming - the whole World War One style sign-up-to-die-horribly-or-you-are-a-disgraceful-weakling - thing seemed long dead even in the 80s, presumably eradicated by the Vietnam War and the mass movement against it. People being shunned for not fighting in foreign wars, white feathers being left in their mailboxes and all that stuff seems long ago in our era where we understand trauma, fear and PTSD so much better than our ancestors.
This is however, a recent development. Martial prowess, bravery, courage and their flip sides of cowardice, yellow-bellyhood and general scaredy-catness have been labels that could make or break a person's position in their society across many cultures and thousands of years.
Chris Walsh explores this history, and the changing nature of what is brave and what is not in his work Cowardice, a book whose cover is a most appropriate yellow.
For any student of history or psychology, this is an interesting read. It's a little academic in tone, but you'd expect that considering Walsh was himself an associate director at Boston University when he wrote it.
Walsh outlines a fascinating history of cowardice, from its evolutionary beginnings, through ancient Greece, the 20th century and today.
He then maps a trajectory of how societal mores around courage and fear have shifted, and argues (effectively in my view) that the old ideas around the shame of fear have lost a lot of their power over contemporary society. It's very clear from his examples how powerful and shaming the concept of cowardice was.
Spartan cowards were effectively banished from society. A British tall ships Admiral went to the noose after choosing not to engage enemy ships. Napoleonic era soldiers were executed for running in the face of enemy fusillades. U.S Civil War soldiers came to blows, and in at least one case killed one another, over accusations of cowardice. To be a coward was to be the lowest of the low, a man unfit for polite society.
This shame continued into the modern era.
World War One of course is well-known for the pressure placed on men to enlist (or be given the white feather of the shirker) as well as the inhuman treatment of deserters and men who ran from battle. The British shot multitudes of their own men, and the cover of Cowardice is a scene from the Kurt Douglas film Paths of Glory, showing the French about to shoot their own men for being cowardly.
World War Two was also suffused with ideas of bravery and cowardice, with profound effect on the men fighting it.
Many men fought and died in fear of being labelled a coward by their fellow soldiers, the old labels of yellowbelly, etc. still carrying great weight. Governments and military brass however (at least in the allied nations other than the USSR) had started to approach this issue with a little more understanding and mercy.
The US army shot only one man for desertion in the whole of World War Two (quite a contrast to the Soviets, who shot anyone who so much as glanced rearward), and the man who went to the firing squad was singularly unlucky to receive the death penalty. Even by the 1940s, military understanding of what combat could do to soldiers had progressed a long way, the US military was comparatively gentle on men whose nerves gave out.
This trajectory has continued to the present day where trauma and PTSD are much better understood, and the labels of cowardice and coward are applied far more sparingly than they once were, even if they haven't disappeared completely.
Overall, Cowardice is an interesting, if sometimes a touch dry, read. Don't be scared to pick it up.
Four exaggerated clucking chicken sounds out of five.
I'm old enough to have spend my 80s childhood trying to avoid the New Zealand equivalents of being called a coward - being labelled a 'Wuss', or even worse, the confusing epithet of 'Girl's Blouse'. (Being labelled as this particular item of clothing motivated my teenage self to jump off a ten-metre high platform that hung vertiginously over the local pool, after fearfully dithering at the top of the stairs for thirty minutes).
Still, the zenith of fear shaming - the whole World War One style sign-up-to-die-horribly-or-you-are-a-disgraceful-weakling - thing seemed long dead even in the 80s, presumably eradicated by the Vietnam War and the mass movement against it. People being shunned for not fighting in foreign wars, white feathers being left in their mailboxes and all that stuff seems long ago in our era where we understand trauma, fear and PTSD so much better than our ancestors.
This is however, a recent development. Martial prowess, bravery, courage and their flip sides of cowardice, yellow-bellyhood and general scaredy-catness have been labels that could make or break a person's position in their society across many cultures and thousands of years.
Chris Walsh explores this history, and the changing nature of what is brave and what is not in his work Cowardice, a book whose cover is a most appropriate yellow.
For any student of history or psychology, this is an interesting read. It's a little academic in tone, but you'd expect that considering Walsh was himself an associate director at Boston University when he wrote it.
Walsh outlines a fascinating history of cowardice, from its evolutionary beginnings, through ancient Greece, the 20th century and today.
He then maps a trajectory of how societal mores around courage and fear have shifted, and argues (effectively in my view) that the old ideas around the shame of fear have lost a lot of their power over contemporary society. It's very clear from his examples how powerful and shaming the concept of cowardice was.
Spartan cowards were effectively banished from society. A British tall ships Admiral went to the noose after choosing not to engage enemy ships. Napoleonic era soldiers were executed for running in the face of enemy fusillades. U.S Civil War soldiers came to blows, and in at least one case killed one another, over accusations of cowardice. To be a coward was to be the lowest of the low, a man unfit for polite society.
This shame continued into the modern era.
World War One of course is well-known for the pressure placed on men to enlist (or be given the white feather of the shirker) as well as the inhuman treatment of deserters and men who ran from battle. The British shot multitudes of their own men, and the cover of Cowardice is a scene from the Kurt Douglas film Paths of Glory, showing the French about to shoot their own men for being cowardly.
World War Two was also suffused with ideas of bravery and cowardice, with profound effect on the men fighting it.
Many men fought and died in fear of being labelled a coward by their fellow soldiers, the old labels of yellowbelly, etc. still carrying great weight. Governments and military brass however (at least in the allied nations other than the USSR) had started to approach this issue with a little more understanding and mercy.
The US army shot only one man for desertion in the whole of World War Two (quite a contrast to the Soviets, who shot anyone who so much as glanced rearward), and the man who went to the firing squad was singularly unlucky to receive the death penalty. Even by the 1940s, military understanding of what combat could do to soldiers had progressed a long way, the US military was comparatively gentle on men whose nerves gave out.
This trajectory has continued to the present day where trauma and PTSD are much better understood, and the labels of cowardice and coward are applied far more sparingly than they once were, even if they haven't disappeared completely.
Overall, Cowardice is an interesting, if sometimes a touch dry, read. Don't be scared to pick it up.
Four exaggerated clucking chicken sounds out of five.
July 14, 2015
You are a coward!
I think it easily ranks among the top 3 as far as provocation is concern. We would never thought of ourselves as cowards. It is always others. So when it is thrown upon us, we get angry. It is such an automatic response: adrenaline pumping, body heats up, blood pressure builds and the most primal defence system kicks in.
I am fascinated by Cowardice. Especially during these times when we freely toss it onto label terrorists and the terrorists onto us.
Is avoiding confrontation bad? Is cowardice bad?
I would like to argue otherwise. Cowardice can be good. Cowardice is the fabric that builds modern cities. Can you imagine otherwise? How do you cramp ten million people in a small area if we were not cowards? How else can you adapt to a living condition where you are constantly in touch with people that are 'not your kind' and so many people doing things that inconvenience you? To accept cowardice, we have to invent a new word: Tolerance.
Please read this book. Chris did a good job in looking at cowardice in various angles. Perhaps after reading this, you would think differently when somebody throws this word out. You would stop your primal instinct to get angry but to think...is that a good thing? Then it would have serve its purpose: make you more of a thinking man instead of an angry man.
I think it easily ranks among the top 3 as far as provocation is concern. We would never thought of ourselves as cowards. It is always others. So when it is thrown upon us, we get angry. It is such an automatic response: adrenaline pumping, body heats up, blood pressure builds and the most primal defence system kicks in.
I am fascinated by Cowardice. Especially during these times when we freely toss it onto label terrorists and the terrorists onto us.
Is avoiding confrontation bad? Is cowardice bad?
I would like to argue otherwise. Cowardice can be good. Cowardice is the fabric that builds modern cities. Can you imagine otherwise? How do you cramp ten million people in a small area if we were not cowards? How else can you adapt to a living condition where you are constantly in touch with people that are 'not your kind' and so many people doing things that inconvenience you? To accept cowardice, we have to invent a new word: Tolerance.
Please read this book. Chris did a good job in looking at cowardice in various angles. Perhaps after reading this, you would think differently when somebody throws this word out. You would stop your primal instinct to get angry but to think...is that a good thing? Then it would have serve its purpose: make you more of a thinking man instead of an angry man.
July 6, 2025
Disappointingly hollow and surface level. Doesn’t even attempt theory nor does he attempt to use cogent psychiatric research as evidence for his “conclusions.”
This is just a long opinion piece. The author clearly wants to say we’re suffering as a result of no longer living in a shame/honor society but ironically enough is too cowardly to say that because the reality is that such a perspective would re-inscribe some especially patriarchal norms that he knows are seen as unacceptable by both the publishing industry and intelligentsia. So instead, after giving a VERY mid historical overlook at a smattering of examples of cowardice in war, he tries to close out the book with a bunch of un-interrogated and right-slanted questions such as: “Have we psychologized trauma too much? Maybe war was better when we used to call people little piss babies? Is it better to be evil than to be cowardly?”
He implicitly condones excessive violence when he references the murder of Trayvon Martin (with no mention of race) and describes “Stand Your Ground” laws as “defensive and courageous.” He mentions 9/11 twice, but only to ensure that we know that terrorists are “cowards,” and not to discuss Americans’ shame surrounding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He ascribes the 9/11 attacks to religious fundamentalism, rather than blowback for American intervention in the Middle East.
It’s actually so gross how disappointing this book is the longer I think about it.
It only gets a 2 because it is still able to be useful to me.
This is just a long opinion piece. The author clearly wants to say we’re suffering as a result of no longer living in a shame/honor society but ironically enough is too cowardly to say that because the reality is that such a perspective would re-inscribe some especially patriarchal norms that he knows are seen as unacceptable by both the publishing industry and intelligentsia. So instead, after giving a VERY mid historical overlook at a smattering of examples of cowardice in war, he tries to close out the book with a bunch of un-interrogated and right-slanted questions such as: “Have we psychologized trauma too much? Maybe war was better when we used to call people little piss babies? Is it better to be evil than to be cowardly?”
He implicitly condones excessive violence when he references the murder of Trayvon Martin (with no mention of race) and describes “Stand Your Ground” laws as “defensive and courageous.” He mentions 9/11 twice, but only to ensure that we know that terrorists are “cowards,” and not to discuss Americans’ shame surrounding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He ascribes the 9/11 attacks to religious fundamentalism, rather than blowback for American intervention in the Middle East.
It’s actually so gross how disappointing this book is the longer I think about it.
It only gets a 2 because it is still able to be useful to me.
November 23, 2015
Pope John Paul II was certainly a courageous man, standing up to Nazis and Communists. Pope Benedict XVI made some accommodations with Nazis and as Pope with liberals. Pope Francis didn't mention religious liberty or abortion when addressing Congress.
Were latter two cowards or did they use reasonable discretion?
I don't know. And neither does Walsh. This book posed a lot of questions I have asked over the years but gave few answers. An over emphasis on war was another downer. What about standing up to racism, intolerance, political correctness? Don't these require courage? Or didn't Walsh have the courage to address these issues?
Interesting but not recommended.
Were latter two cowards or did they use reasonable discretion?
I don't know. And neither does Walsh. This book posed a lot of questions I have asked over the years but gave few answers. An over emphasis on war was another downer. What about standing up to racism, intolerance, political correctness? Don't these require courage? Or didn't Walsh have the courage to address these issues?
Interesting but not recommended.
October 26, 2025
3.5 stars
Simple primer of an American (and British) history of cowardice. This book used to be a literary analysis which the author then expanded. But it does explain why a lot of the focus comes from literature analysis.
Starts with some philosophy - why do we need cowardice? There’s a tension between bravery/cowardice on a group/individual level - some level of cowardice is necessary for preservation of the group. (Interestingly, doesn’t talk about wisdom in knowing when to be a coward.) This is known as balancing selection - it takes all kinds.
Refers to Dante’s circle of hell - those who have not lived, but are neutral/indecisive. That was a big sin.
Most of the book then talks about cowardice in the military context and its changing attitudes. The idea is that the group is brave on its own; but it can also be bravery because of an absence of choice (eg you’re in a group). And the allure of courage is easier to talk about - but the stain of cowardice is not so easily dispelled.
Second chapter has this entertaining Patton quotes -
Third chapter mentions a definition of security as being “without care” - security and safety being words at odds. Security had the association of relating to feel fear for fear of the responsibility such feeling would entail.
Fourth chapter deals with changing attitudes towards cowardice. Basically, in 1757 Britain executed an admiral who they thought was not brave enough. In the 1960s Vietnam War, men killed their superiors to encourage them to do the bare minimum.
Cowardice changes - it’s not about failing duty to your brothers at arms, it’s about failing in your duty to be yourself.
This goes into chapter five, which talks about the dominance of the American military helping ensure world peace; and perhaps accounting for cowardice not being such a big issue any more. There are fewer people fighting; the impact on social consciousness is less.
There is also a segue into people needing more therapy.
Chapter six goes more explicitly into the idea of moral cowardice (vs physical cowardice). I suspect the idea of moral courage/cowardice would be of greater interest to people who read books, but this segue doesn’t really do that topic justice.
So it’s an interesting topic, dealt with on a superficial level.
Simple primer of an American (and British) history of cowardice. This book used to be a literary analysis which the author then expanded. But it does explain why a lot of the focus comes from literature analysis.
Starts with some philosophy - why do we need cowardice? There’s a tension between bravery/cowardice on a group/individual level - some level of cowardice is necessary for preservation of the group. (Interestingly, doesn’t talk about wisdom in knowing when to be a coward.) This is known as balancing selection - it takes all kinds.
Refers to Dante’s circle of hell - those who have not lived, but are neutral/indecisive. That was a big sin.
Most of the book then talks about cowardice in the military context and its changing attitudes. The idea is that the group is brave on its own; but it can also be bravery because of an absence of choice (eg you’re in a group). And the allure of courage is easier to talk about - but the stain of cowardice is not so easily dispelled.
Second chapter has this entertaining Patton quotes -
When we land we will meet German and Italian soldiers whom it is our honor and privilege to attack and destroy.
Many of you have in your veins Italian and German blood, but remember that those ancestors of yours so loved freedom that they gave up home and country to cross the ocean in search of liberty. The ancestors of the people we shall kill lacked the courage to make such a sacrifice and remained as slaves.
Third chapter mentions a definition of security as being “without care” - security and safety being words at odds. Security had the association of relating to feel fear for fear of the responsibility such feeling would entail.
Fourth chapter deals with changing attitudes towards cowardice. Basically, in 1757 Britain executed an admiral who they thought was not brave enough. In the 1960s Vietnam War, men killed their superiors to encourage them to do the bare minimum.
Cowardice changes - it’s not about failing duty to your brothers at arms, it’s about failing in your duty to be yourself.
This goes into chapter five, which talks about the dominance of the American military helping ensure world peace; and perhaps accounting for cowardice not being such a big issue any more. There are fewer people fighting; the impact on social consciousness is less.
There is also a segue into people needing more therapy.
Chapter six goes more explicitly into the idea of moral cowardice (vs physical cowardice). I suspect the idea of moral courage/cowardice would be of greater interest to people who read books, but this segue doesn’t really do that topic justice.
So it’s an interesting topic, dealt with on a superficial level.
December 17, 2019
An average book exploring the origins of cowardice, its close links with military action and its broader application to inaction. I agree that to be labeled a coward is probably one of the worst labels you could attach to someone due to how this word has been socialized, and how doling out this insult makes us feel a sort of moral superiority. Some interesting applications on the concept of duty and societal coercion... at the end of the day it boils down to man's relationship with society and how the latter affects the former's consciousness and actions.
"All the soldiers doing the same identical thing, all of them powerless to stop it, all of them devoutly and proudly believing themselves to be free individuals. It expanded to include the scores of nations, the millions of men, doing the same on thousands of hilltops around the world. And it didn't stop there. It went on. It was the concept -- concept? the fact; the reality -- of the modern state in action."
"All the soldiers doing the same identical thing, all of them powerless to stop it, all of them devoutly and proudly believing themselves to be free individuals. It expanded to include the scores of nations, the millions of men, doing the same on thousands of hilltops around the world. And it didn't stop there. It went on. It was the concept -- concept? the fact; the reality -- of the modern state in action."
February 26, 2025
As the title suggests, it is a brief summary of a topic that has not only spanned thousands of years, but has taken on a thousand masks in a million circumstances throughout history and culture. From the ancients and their praise of heroes and paralyzing fear of the afraid to the modern 'dreadful freedom' that has set foot in many modern societies, particularly those without divine or spiritual stabilization, whether that be internal or external.
Really good messaging, and summed up complications and hypocrisies on the topic as well as any work could. It does not attempt to 'solve' cowardice, or to pretend to offer a solution to a problem that undoubtedly has had unthinkable amounts of money put into it. It instead uses simple encouragement and encouragement from Virgil - a nice recall to the topics of ancients that were mentioned throughout the book, and all of those in history who read the same work.
Really good messaging, and summed up complications and hypocrisies on the topic as well as any work could. It does not attempt to 'solve' cowardice, or to pretend to offer a solution to a problem that undoubtedly has had unthinkable amounts of money put into it. It instead uses simple encouragement and encouragement from Virgil - a nice recall to the topics of ancients that were mentioned throughout the book, and all of those in history who read the same work.
January 14, 2019
The author’s chosen definition of coward is “someone who, because of excessive fear, fails to do what he is supposed to do.” Following this definition, the book presents a historical account of the concept through examination of examples, both real-life and fictional. I was hoping to see a broader account with more cross-cultural evidence brought to bear. Aside from a few exceptions, the examples treated are in a predictable lineage from ancient Greece and Rome to modern Europe and North America. Furthermore, until the very end, the primary context is military. The last chapter has an all too brief discussion of moral cowardice as opposed to physical cowardice. If we accept the narrowness of scope, though, I found the discussion of the examples very apt. The chapter on “The Rise of the Therapeutic” was also thought-provoking, with good philosophical points on the tension between cowardice as a shirking of duty on the one hand, and the dilution of moral credit by the compulsion of duty on the other. Overall, brief and narrower than I’d like, but worthwhile.
December 27, 2017
About the concept of 'cowardice', mostly from an American perspective, esp. referring to the American Revolution and Civil War, and with some bits about WW1, and some other wars here and there.
I found the book a bit meandering, interesting points here and there, but without really a point. Could probably be condensed into an interesting magazine article.
I found the book a bit meandering, interesting points here and there, but without really a point. Could probably be condensed into an interesting magazine article.
February 21, 2018
Concentrates too much on literature and films but still quite interesting, especially the brief historical notes.
December 21, 2021
Now I have to write my review for uni *sighs*
June 3, 2025
Very interesting and well written book on a feature of the human character that seldomly gets any attention.
January 2, 2016
This history is driven in large part by the paradox that cowardice – the word comes from Latin cauda, tail, with the French pejorative suffix -ard – is socially eliminated by instilling fear of itself. Many soldiers are not inherently brave in combat, but they do not turn tail because they are more afraid of being seen as cowards than they are afraid of dying. "A similar note resounds through Ralph Waldo Emerson's 'Self-Reliance'….The transcendent gives us something to aim for, energy and validation to help us brave the dark and see the stars, but the fear of cowardice gets us out of the corner to begin with." (p. 187) At the same time, however, "Shaming people into sacrifice has caused uncountable horrors." (p. 10) While consisting mostly of American and English military history, there is a final chapter on broader philosophical implications.
May 7, 2015
Appeasement never works.
Since the author discussed that, I heartily approve this book. (And Arendt. And Bulgakov. And Confucius. The index made me change my opinion from not very good to really liking, so I'm glad I learned to check indices a long time ago!)
I concealed reading this history the whole time I had it since I didn't want to imply I am a fearful person by reading about cowardice, which is pretty peculiar psychology, in retrospect...
Hm, after all, Walsh does cite Plutarch, so this cannot be anything that terrible!
(Haha, see my classical biases.)
I'm just pretty nervous right now, so that is causing problems with this review process. It will be all right by the end of the month!
Since the author discussed that, I heartily approve this book. (And Arendt. And Bulgakov. And Confucius. The index made me change my opinion from not very good to really liking, so I'm glad I learned to check indices a long time ago!)
I concealed reading this history the whole time I had it since I didn't want to imply I am a fearful person by reading about cowardice, which is pretty peculiar psychology, in retrospect...
Hm, after all, Walsh does cite Plutarch, so this cannot be anything that terrible!
(Haha, see my classical biases.)
I'm just pretty nervous right now, so that is causing problems with this review process. It will be all right by the end of the month!
January 19, 2015
La banalità del codardo supera la sua mostruosità. Viviamo in tempi che hanno derubricato la vigliaccheria a reato minore o che l'hanno resa irrilevante. Ma un excursus storico di prim'ordine ci mette di fronte alla potenza morale di un'accusa del genere. Tuttavia, l'inevitabile preponderanza del biasimo per i pavidi quando sono in divisa rende la tesi dell'autore indimostrabile: dov'è la società?
September 28, 2019
Interesting perspective from the US about the notion of cowardice.
December 7, 2015
It is indeed brief but also a fascinating and provocative look at how the definitions and perspectives on cowardice have evolved, and how it remains a devastating insult for many.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews