What do you think?
Rate this book
Civil Wars: A History in Ideas
A highly original history, tracing the least understood and most intractable form of organized human aggression from Ancient Rome through the centuries to the present day.
We think we know civil war when we see it. Yet ideas of what it is, and what it isn't, have a long and contested history, from its fraught origins in republican Rome to debates in early modern Europe to our present day. Defining the term is acutely political, for ideas about what makes a war "civil" often depend on whether one is a ruler or a rebel, victor or vanquished, sufferer or outsider. Calling a conflict a civil war can shape its outcome by determining whether outside powers choose to get involved or stand aside: from the American Revolution to the war in Iraq, pivotal decisions have depended on such shifts of perspective.
The age of civil war in the West may be over, but elsewhere in the last two decades it has exploded--from the Balkans to Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, and Sri Lanka, and most recently Syria. And the language of civil war has burgeoned as democratic politics has become more violently fought. This book's unique perspective on the roots and dynamics of civil war, and on its shaping force in our conflict-ridden world, will be essential to the ongoing effort to grapple with this seemingly interminable problem.
We think we know civil war when we see it. Yet ideas of what it is, and what it isn't, have a long and contested history, from its fraught origins in republican Rome to debates in early modern Europe to our present day. Defining the term is acutely political, for ideas about what makes a war "civil" often depend on whether one is a ruler or a rebel, victor or vanquished, sufferer or outsider. Calling a conflict a civil war can shape its outcome by determining whether outside powers choose to get involved or stand aside: from the American Revolution to the war in Iraq, pivotal decisions have depended on such shifts of perspective.
The age of civil war in the West may be over, but elsewhere in the last two decades it has exploded--from the Balkans to Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, and Sri Lanka, and most recently Syria. And the language of civil war has burgeoned as democratic politics has become more violently fought. This book's unique perspective on the roots and dynamics of civil war, and on its shaping force in our conflict-ridden world, will be essential to the ongoing effort to grapple with this seemingly interminable problem.
349 pages, Hardcover
First published February 3, 2017
55 people are currently reading
789 people want to read
About the author
David Armitage
39 books47 followersDavid Armitage is an English historian known for his writings on international and intellectual history. He is chair of the history department and Lloyd C. Blankfein Professor of History at Harvard University.
There are multiple other authors with the same name:
David T. Armitage: Academic specializing in semiconductor and liquid crystal physics
David^^Armitage: Children's book illustrator, husband of Ronda Armitage
David^^^Armitage: Children's book author
David^^^^Armitage: Author specializing in golf coaching
There are multiple other authors with the same name:
David T. Armitage: Academic specializing in semiconductor and liquid crystal physics
David^^Armitage: Children's book illustrator, husband of Ronda Armitage
David^^^Armitage: Children's book author
David^^^^Armitage: Author specializing in golf coaching
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
August 4, 2020
Αν ο Πόλεμος (πατέρας των πάντων) είναι μια έννοια δύσκολη να κατανοηθεί από την ανθρώπινη νεοτερικοτητα που ζητά την αιτία των πραγμάτων, ο πόλεμος μέσα στην ίδια την πόλη, την κοινωνία των πολιτών, ο Bellum Civitas των Ρωμαίων, που έδωσαν τις πρώτες εννοιολογικες παρατηρήσεις πάνω σε αυτόν, ο Εμφύλιος Πόλεμος, ο Civil War, που αν και πόλεμος είναι...πολιτισμένος γιατί είναι μέσα στην πολιτεία, civilisation και civilis, μπορεί να κατανοηθεί ως κάτι ανθρώπινο; Είναι η μεγαλύτερη καταισχυνη του είδους μας ο Εμφύλιος Πόλεμος· είναι μια ντροπή, μια υπενθύμιση της άγριας ζωωδους κατάστασης του (όντος πολιτικού) ανθρώπου;
Κι αν η νομική επιστήμη και το διεθνές δίκαιο βρήκε μέσα στους αιώνες τους νόμους εκείνους που διέπουν σήμερα τον Πόλεμο, το jus in bello και το jus ad bellum, γιατί δεν έχει καταφέρει να ορίσει τελολογικα και σχηματικά την βία του Εμφυλίου Πολέμου· του πολέμου μέσα στην ίδια την κοινωνία των ιδίων πολιτικά και φυλετικά ανθρώπων· του πολέμου των αδερφών, μέσα στο ίδιο το σπίτι, μέσα στην ίδια την οικογένεια...; Του πολέμου που είναι καθημερινώς παρόν ως πολιτική· αλλά γίνεται Εμφύλιος Πόλεμος όταν επιλέγει να αμφισβητήσει την εκάστοτε εξουσία· μια συνέχεια της πολιτικής μέσα στην ίδια την κοινωνία των πολιτών αλλά... με άλλα μέσα (παραφραζοντας τον Κλαουζεβιτς);
Απαιτητικό και ευσυνοπτο ιστορικό αφήγημα της δυστοκιας του ανθρώπου να δώσει μορφή κ έννοια σε ένα γεγονός που μόνο περιγραφικά έχει καταφέρει να οριοθετηθει νομικά και κοινωνιολογικα. Μέχρι εκεί φτάσαμε με αυτό το Πόλεμο!
Κι αν η νομική επιστήμη και το διεθνές δίκαιο βρήκε μέσα στους αιώνες τους νόμους εκείνους που διέπουν σήμερα τον Πόλεμο, το jus in bello και το jus ad bellum, γιατί δεν έχει καταφέρει να ορίσει τελολογικα και σχηματικά την βία του Εμφυλίου Πολέμου· του πολέμου μέσα στην ίδια την κοινωνία των ιδίων πολιτικά και φυλετικά ανθρώπων· του πολέμου των αδερφών, μέσα στο ίδιο το σπίτι, μέσα στην ίδια την οικογένεια...; Του πολέμου που είναι καθημερινώς παρόν ως πολιτική· αλλά γίνεται Εμφύλιος Πόλεμος όταν επιλέγει να αμφισβητήσει την εκάστοτε εξουσία· μια συνέχεια της πολιτικής μέσα στην ίδια την κοινωνία των πολιτών αλλά... με άλλα μέσα (παραφραζοντας τον Κλαουζεβιτς);
Απαιτητικό και ευσυνοπτο ιστορικό αφήγημα της δυστοκιας του ανθρώπου να δώσει μορφή κ έννοια σε ένα γεγονός που μόνο περιγραφικά έχει καταφέρει να οριοθετηθει νομικά και κοινωνιολογικα. Μέχρι εκεί φτάσαμε με αυτό το Πόλεμο!
August 17, 2025
Egy felmérés szerint 1816 és 2001 között a világban 484 háború volt, ebből 296 polgárháború. Kb. 60%. Ami arra utal, hogy ez a polgárháború nevezetű izé igencsak fontos dolog, de valamiért a mainstream történelem alig foglalkozik vele - de sebaj, itt van professzor Armitage, és megoldja. Vagy nem.
Amiben biztosak lehetünk: hogy a polgárháború fogalma az ókori Rómából ered. Egyszerűen azért mert a polgárháború alapfeltétele, hogy legyenek polgárok - akadjon állam, amin belül a (legalábbis elméletben) azonos jogokkal rendelkező alanyok ilyen vagy olyan okból nekifeszülhetnek egymásnak. Ilyen értelemben nem polgárháború az ókori görög városállamok egymás elleni harca, legfeljebb testvérharc, hisz különböző szuverén államok akasztanak bajuszt. De innentől a pontos definiálás akadályokba ütközik. Mert ugye képzeljünk el egy amerikai államot, amelyik fellázad az elnök ellen, mert az eltörölné a rabszolgaságot. Polgárháború ez? A későbbi korok történészei szerint nyilván, de Lincoln elnök szerint dehogy, csak zendülés. Aztán itt van a vértelen forradalom, amikor az angol rendek behívták Orániai Vilmost, hogy uralkodjon rajtuk. Polgárháború ez? Azt gondolom, nem, csak békésen lezajlott egy hatalomátadás. Viszont Thomas Paine és Edmund Burke szerint az volt. Most akkor kinek higgyünk? És akkor még nem is említettük Voltaire és Napóleon urakat, akik szerint az összes európai háború tokkal-vonóval a polgárháborúkhoz sorolható, hisz egy civilizáción belül zajlottak. Zűrzavar az egész. És hát az van, hogy miután letettem ezt a könyvet, nem érzem, hogy a kérdéseimre megnyugtató választ kaptam volna.
Ennek elsődleges oka, hogy Armitage nem eseménytörténetet ír, hanem eszmetörténetet, következésképp alig tudunk meg arról valamit, mik történtek a világ nagy polgárháborúiban, viszont annál többet arról, mint gondoltak különböző emberek azokról, és egy idő után hogyan próbálták meg a hadijog nyelvére lefordítani azt. Viszont ezek a gondolatok folyamatosan változnak, hisz nyilván az éppen zajló folyamatokra próbálnak reflektálni - a képlékenység tehát borítékolva van. Vegyünk például egy friss, XXI. századi definíciót:
(A polgárháború) "Hosszan tartó katonai harctevékenység, elsődlegesen belső konfliktus, amely évente legalább 1000 főnyi harctéri halálos áldozatot követel, amely a központi kormányzat erőit egy olyan lázadó erővel állítja szembe, [...] amely képes arra, hogy a lázadók által elszenvedett halálesetek legalább 5%-át okozza a kormányerőknek."
No most egy ilyen "félrevezetően egyértelmű" megfogalmazás nem magyaráz meg semmit, inkább csak leplezi, hogy valójában nem tudunk semmit. És az csak a kisebbik baj, hogy Armitage sem tud ebből az általános bizonytalanságból valami szilárd talapzaton ácsolni. A nagyobb baj, egy idő után azt se hittem el, hogy egy ilyen szilárd talapzatra egyáltalán szükség van. A szerző ugyan megpróbál amellett érvelni, hogy a pontos, általánosan elfogadott definíciók segítenek abban, hogy a polgárháború sújtotta régiókban nemzetközi összefogással békét teremtsünk, de én ebben se nagyon hiszek. Szerintem ugyanis nem a definíciók, hanem a nagyhatalmi érdekek döntenek a beavatkozással vagy be nem avatkozással kapcsolatos kérdésekben - a definiálás csak ezután jön, amit ez a kötet számomra fényesen bizonyít is. Így viszont azon elmélkedni, hogy valami polgárháború-e vagy sem, csak szemantikai játék, amire jellemzően azok érnek rá, akik épp nem polgárháborúznak.
Amiben biztosak lehetünk: hogy a polgárháború fogalma az ókori Rómából ered. Egyszerűen azért mert a polgárháború alapfeltétele, hogy legyenek polgárok - akadjon állam, amin belül a (legalábbis elméletben) azonos jogokkal rendelkező alanyok ilyen vagy olyan okból nekifeszülhetnek egymásnak. Ilyen értelemben nem polgárháború az ókori görög városállamok egymás elleni harca, legfeljebb testvérharc, hisz különböző szuverén államok akasztanak bajuszt. De innentől a pontos definiálás akadályokba ütközik. Mert ugye képzeljünk el egy amerikai államot, amelyik fellázad az elnök ellen, mert az eltörölné a rabszolgaságot. Polgárháború ez? A későbbi korok történészei szerint nyilván, de Lincoln elnök szerint dehogy, csak zendülés. Aztán itt van a vértelen forradalom, amikor az angol rendek behívták Orániai Vilmost, hogy uralkodjon rajtuk. Polgárháború ez? Azt gondolom, nem, csak békésen lezajlott egy hatalomátadás. Viszont Thomas Paine és Edmund Burke szerint az volt. Most akkor kinek higgyünk? És akkor még nem is említettük Voltaire és Napóleon urakat, akik szerint az összes európai háború tokkal-vonóval a polgárháborúkhoz sorolható, hisz egy civilizáción belül zajlottak. Zűrzavar az egész. És hát az van, hogy miután letettem ezt a könyvet, nem érzem, hogy a kérdéseimre megnyugtató választ kaptam volna.
Ennek elsődleges oka, hogy Armitage nem eseménytörténetet ír, hanem eszmetörténetet, következésképp alig tudunk meg arról valamit, mik történtek a világ nagy polgárháborúiban, viszont annál többet arról, mint gondoltak különböző emberek azokról, és egy idő után hogyan próbálták meg a hadijog nyelvére lefordítani azt. Viszont ezek a gondolatok folyamatosan változnak, hisz nyilván az éppen zajló folyamatokra próbálnak reflektálni - a képlékenység tehát borítékolva van. Vegyünk például egy friss, XXI. századi definíciót:
(A polgárháború) "Hosszan tartó katonai harctevékenység, elsődlegesen belső konfliktus, amely évente legalább 1000 főnyi harctéri halálos áldozatot követel, amely a központi kormányzat erőit egy olyan lázadó erővel állítja szembe, [...] amely képes arra, hogy a lázadók által elszenvedett halálesetek legalább 5%-át okozza a kormányerőknek."
No most egy ilyen "félrevezetően egyértelmű" megfogalmazás nem magyaráz meg semmit, inkább csak leplezi, hogy valójában nem tudunk semmit. És az csak a kisebbik baj, hogy Armitage sem tud ebből az általános bizonytalanságból valami szilárd talapzaton ácsolni. A nagyobb baj, egy idő után azt se hittem el, hogy egy ilyen szilárd talapzatra egyáltalán szükség van. A szerző ugyan megpróbál amellett érvelni, hogy a pontos, általánosan elfogadott definíciók segítenek abban, hogy a polgárháború sújtotta régiókban nemzetközi összefogással békét teremtsünk, de én ebben se nagyon hiszek. Szerintem ugyanis nem a definíciók, hanem a nagyhatalmi érdekek döntenek a beavatkozással vagy be nem avatkozással kapcsolatos kérdésekben - a definiálás csak ezután jön, amit ez a kötet számomra fényesen bizonyít is. Így viszont azon elmélkedni, hogy valami polgárháború-e vagy sem, csak szemantikai játék, amire jellemzően azok érnek rá, akik épp nem polgárháborúznak.
April 18, 2017
A impressive looking tome that is a little thinner and less impressive once you crack the cover. Armitage has created an interesting history of the concept of "Civil War" that is useful in considering the modern development of the idea of a global civil war. Good but should have just been an essay in Foreign Policy.
March 21, 2020
A much more slippery concept than you think.
David Armitage's Civil War: A History of Ideas maps civil war as a concept in Western moral and legal thought, showing the much more elusive concept than one generally is aware. Armitage indicates has the Greek polis system had no real proper version of the concept although stasis being the seed concept related to the idea given to us by the Romans. The Romans bring this in flourishing but as a distinction from social wars, which by our standards would be civil. Interestingly despite religious wars and slave revolts through the feudal period,the beginnings of the period of revolutions in the early modern era really brings the concept back and leads to return to theorizing. The 19th century brings civil war under the aegis of international law according to Armitage, and the 20th and early 21th shows the expansion of the concept as wars between states subside and wars within states become the norm. Armitage moves from Greek and Roman thinkers to Hobbes to Marx to be a Rawls and Foucault and military tribunals. Fascinating as a intellectual history.
David Armitage's Civil War: A History of Ideas maps civil war as a concept in Western moral and legal thought, showing the much more elusive concept than one generally is aware. Armitage indicates has the Greek polis system had no real proper version of the concept although stasis being the seed concept related to the idea given to us by the Romans. The Romans bring this in flourishing but as a distinction from social wars, which by our standards would be civil. Interestingly despite religious wars and slave revolts through the feudal period,the beginnings of the period of revolutions in the early modern era really brings the concept back and leads to return to theorizing. The 19th century brings civil war under the aegis of international law according to Armitage, and the 20th and early 21th shows the expansion of the concept as wars between states subside and wars within states become the norm. Armitage moves from Greek and Roman thinkers to Hobbes to Marx to be a Rawls and Foucault and military tribunals. Fascinating as a intellectual history.
February 1, 2021
Αρκετά ενδιαφέρον βιβλίο. Εξαιρετική μετάφραση. Ο συγγραφέας πολύ σωστά προσεγγίζει το θέμα του ορισμού του εμφυλίου πολέμου, μη δίνοντας κάποιον ορισμό, αλλά παραθέτοντας όλες τις προσεγγίσεις και τα ιστορικά δεδομένα. Ένα κατάλληλο βιβλίο για όποιον ενδιαφέρεται να εμπλουτίσει τις ιστορικές του γνώσεις και φυσικά να ανοίξει ένα παράθυρο σε ότι έχει σχέση με αυτό που λέμε εμφύλιο πόλεμο.
February 16, 2018
It was a pleasure to see David Armitage present a lecture on his new book Civil Wars: A History in Ideas at the Huntington Gardens tonight. There was so much in the lecture that resonates with ideas I present in my classes that I was very excited to buy the book. That I have been able to read much of it in the scant hours since the lecture is an indication of how slight the book is, but it does walk the reader through the evolution of the idea of civil war and the weighty academic and practical, legal debates that have emerged about it over two millenia. It turns out that a panoply of influential intellectuals has grappled with this paradoxical idea of people warring against their own (in the lecture, Armitage displayed some quiet humor- quite literally -by showing, in his powerpoint, the poster for the Marvel film Civil War, some political cartoons taking digs at Republicans' civil war, and, repeatedly, the cover of his book (well-peddled!)). For my purposes, the bits I liked best in book and lecture resonate with questions I raise in the courses I teach on war and international relations. My favorite were these two bits that had to do with constructivism (which I'd just taught this week): (1) "Civil war was not a fact of nature, waiting to be discovered. It was an artifact of human culture that had to be invented" and (2) "Civil war is an inheritance humanity may not be able to escape. By this, I do not mean that humans are inherently competitive, greedy, and aggressive or that our lot will always be societal suicide - to drive swords into our own entrails, as Lucan might have put it. Instead, I mean that civil war is one of those indispensable concepts that, once invented, has proved to be surprisingly translatable. ...Even the utopian promise of revolutionary change could not dethrone civil war from the repertoire of political thought, if only because politics itself was always a form of civil war by other, less deadly means. In this way did the idea acquire the bewitching power of something not invented but discovered."
March 1, 2018
Civil Wars is interesting and short read that explains why we don't have an agreed-upon definition of 'civil war.' David Armitage traces the concept of 'civil war' back to its philological beginnings in the Roman republic, and then brings the use of the concept forward through enlightenment era Europe to the modern day.
Even in during the Roman civil wars surrounding the fall of the republic and rise of the Caesars, the definition and use of the term 'civil war' were fraught with political consequences and volatility. The classically educated enlightenment-era thinkers and statesmen who thought to apply the idea of 'civil war' to their own era, found that the term had lost none of its controversial baggage. As Armitage argues, the very serious need for a term like 'civil war' in the modern age makes it just as difficult to come to an agreed upon definition now as it was in the year 100 BCE in Rome.
I found this book to be interesting, but on the short side. In his introduction, Armitage critiques the idea of writing a genealogy of the term 'civil-war' because it is effectively impossible to unravel the term from the historical figures who created, and reappropriated it over the centuries.
And yet, in spite of critiquing political science approaches to the concept of civil war that creates abstract definitions of little consequence to anyone who might experience a civil war, Armitage does not make little attempt to incorporate the experience of participants and victims of civil war into his work. Such an undertaking may be viewed as an expansive take on Armitage's subject matter, but he surely had the space to do it.
Under normal circumstances, I would rate this book a '3' as a result, but given that the tone of most reviews seems to be overly negative, I will leave it as a 4. The book is worth reading, in spite of its modest intentions.
Even in during the Roman civil wars surrounding the fall of the republic and rise of the Caesars, the definition and use of the term 'civil war' were fraught with political consequences and volatility. The classically educated enlightenment-era thinkers and statesmen who thought to apply the idea of 'civil war' to their own era, found that the term had lost none of its controversial baggage. As Armitage argues, the very serious need for a term like 'civil war' in the modern age makes it just as difficult to come to an agreed upon definition now as it was in the year 100 BCE in Rome.
I found this book to be interesting, but on the short side. In his introduction, Armitage critiques the idea of writing a genealogy of the term 'civil-war' because it is effectively impossible to unravel the term from the historical figures who created, and reappropriated it over the centuries.
And yet, in spite of critiquing political science approaches to the concept of civil war that creates abstract definitions of little consequence to anyone who might experience a civil war, Armitage does not make little attempt to incorporate the experience of participants and victims of civil war into his work. Such an undertaking may be viewed as an expansive take on Armitage's subject matter, but he surely had the space to do it.
Under normal circumstances, I would rate this book a '3' as a result, but given that the tone of most reviews seems to be overly negative, I will leave it as a 4. The book is worth reading, in spite of its modest intentions.
August 5, 2017
3.5 stars, this would make a fascinating university course but a little cumbersome to read.
December 7, 2017
Despite having some major issues with this book, it contains a wealth of historical materials, and Armitage certainly characterizes some of the problems that arise out the usage of the term "civil war".
I recently wrote a critique (which you can read here https://belliresearchinstitute.com/20...) of what I saw as his major flaws:
1. While some people here felt that he spent too much time dwelling on the ancient world, I'd say this is actually the decisive moment. His reasoning for choosing "bellum civile" over "stasis" as the paradigmatic form of civil war in Western civilization was flawed. I go into detail as to why in the article linked to above. Whether one begins with one or the other has a major effect on how one's characterization will look subsequently. In my view, "bellum civile" reduces or fragments the symbolic range of civil war by arbitrarily favoring military significations over the domestic, medical, juridical, and political significations that the Greeks heard in it.
2. This removes civil war even further from the problems with which it is associated: the question of citizenship, the question of domestic servitude, the question of moral uprightness in moments of chaos and disorder. Armitage seems to even recognize this as these questions make a reappearance in the latter half of the book. Thus there is a kind of lacuna, where civil war begins much more complicated, becomes simplified in "bellum civile", only to reach back around and resemble the Greek term "stasis" once again. This could have been avoided by looking more closely at the continuities of "stasis" in "bellum civile" rather than viewing them as totally distinct terms.
3. Patricia Owens recently wrote a great critique called "Decolonizing Civil War" which I recommend highly. There she highlights that this presentation of civil war ultimately effaces one of the aspects that Western powers saw as horrifying about it: that it tends to blur who is a citizen, who is outside citizenship, and who is a legitimate enemy. This brings us to the question of slavery and of the colony. But Armitage's civil war elides over these problematic spheres, viewing, due to his preference of Latin poets, civil war as essentially a conflict concerning the civilized, the "brothers".
If he had taken this more broad starting point, the book likely couldn't exist in the form it does here. By favoring the war poets, and the militarized concept, he only looks at "real" wars, not bothering much with colonial wars, with religious wars, or with conflicts that didn't involve bloodshed at all. This is absolutely a critique of his presuppositions, rather than what follows. If one prefers his beginning point, this is a very impressive book. I would just want to add that it is a great book on one form or presentation of civil war, namely the militarized Latin one, not necessarily of the conceptual variety of what it has been and could be, though it does mention some of these in the beginning and at the end.
I recently wrote a critique (which you can read here https://belliresearchinstitute.com/20...) of what I saw as his major flaws:
1. While some people here felt that he spent too much time dwelling on the ancient world, I'd say this is actually the decisive moment. His reasoning for choosing "bellum civile" over "stasis" as the paradigmatic form of civil war in Western civilization was flawed. I go into detail as to why in the article linked to above. Whether one begins with one or the other has a major effect on how one's characterization will look subsequently. In my view, "bellum civile" reduces or fragments the symbolic range of civil war by arbitrarily favoring military significations over the domestic, medical, juridical, and political significations that the Greeks heard in it.
2. This removes civil war even further from the problems with which it is associated: the question of citizenship, the question of domestic servitude, the question of moral uprightness in moments of chaos and disorder. Armitage seems to even recognize this as these questions make a reappearance in the latter half of the book. Thus there is a kind of lacuna, where civil war begins much more complicated, becomes simplified in "bellum civile", only to reach back around and resemble the Greek term "stasis" once again. This could have been avoided by looking more closely at the continuities of "stasis" in "bellum civile" rather than viewing them as totally distinct terms.
3. Patricia Owens recently wrote a great critique called "Decolonizing Civil War" which I recommend highly. There she highlights that this presentation of civil war ultimately effaces one of the aspects that Western powers saw as horrifying about it: that it tends to blur who is a citizen, who is outside citizenship, and who is a legitimate enemy. This brings us to the question of slavery and of the colony. But Armitage's civil war elides over these problematic spheres, viewing, due to his preference of Latin poets, civil war as essentially a conflict concerning the civilized, the "brothers".
If he had taken this more broad starting point, the book likely couldn't exist in the form it does here. By favoring the war poets, and the militarized concept, he only looks at "real" wars, not bothering much with colonial wars, with religious wars, or with conflicts that didn't involve bloodshed at all. This is absolutely a critique of his presuppositions, rather than what follows. If one prefers his beginning point, this is a very impressive book. I would just want to add that it is a great book on one form or presentation of civil war, namely the militarized Latin one, not necessarily of the conceptual variety of what it has been and could be, though it does mention some of these in the beginning and at the end.
December 12, 2018
This work trends a bit academic, but it offers a readable insight into a difficult concept...defining what a Civil War is. Covering three time eras (Roman Empire, Early Modern Europe, Mid to Late 19th century), this work attempts to define what a Civil war is...and it is not a simple concept. Depends on so many factors and it will not get easier as time evolves. Some lessons for the future, but the author doesn’t spend that much time on that aspect. If people are worried about a second American Civil War, it helps to know the definition. A solid read.
October 4, 2017
"Yet with death and destruction all around us, the peace we have feels more like that of the graveyard. And more than any other form of conflict, the one that has lately filled the graveyard is not war between states, not terrorism, but civil war." (5)
"It's easy to perform the conjugation: I am a revolutionary. You are a rebel. They are engaged in a civil war." (14)
"The Greek name for the evil that divided the polis was stasis. ... Stasis for the Greeks remained a state of mind rather than an act of physical resistance. It might lead to war, or even arise from war, but it did not in itself entail actual warfare; in this sense, it could mean what we might call a standoff or impasse without actual aggression or combat." (38)
"[A] repressed truth was rediscovered: at the heart of most great modern revolutions was civil war." (122)
"It was one of the many paradoxes of civil war's intellectual history that as the world came closer to the cosmopolitan ideal of universal humanity, the more intimate would international and even global wars become." (198)
"It's easy to perform the conjugation: I am a revolutionary. You are a rebel. They are engaged in a civil war." (14)
"The Greek name for the evil that divided the polis was stasis. ... Stasis for the Greeks remained a state of mind rather than an act of physical resistance. It might lead to war, or even arise from war, but it did not in itself entail actual warfare; in this sense, it could mean what we might call a standoff or impasse without actual aggression or combat." (38)
"[A] repressed truth was rediscovered: at the heart of most great modern revolutions was civil war." (122)
"It was one of the many paradoxes of civil war's intellectual history that as the world came closer to the cosmopolitan ideal of universal humanity, the more intimate would international and even global wars become." (198)
March 17, 2019
David Armitage's Civil Wars: A History of Ideas is an excellent introduction to the topic of what constitutes "civil war." The book primarily focuses on Western terminology "civil war" from Cicero to the present. Moreover, the book itself is a quick read that is full of other authors some well-known (Cicero, Caesar, Sallust, Burke, Paine) to some quite who are obscure and almost forgotten to historians today. Armitage provided context to previously written histories and novels shedding light on connections between people like Victor Hugo and Abraham Lincoln. The prose was lucid and intriguing. I believe this book opens the door for many scholars around the world to examine the concept of "Civil War" more closely. I'd be curious to see what political scientists, sociologists, anthropologists, and historians come up with in the future.
June 20, 2023
Read in preparation for a US Civil War and Reconstruction class. An ambitious undertaking. This book could be 1000 pages longer and still not cover the subject adequately. The final chapters mostly center on a semantics argument on the legal definition of a Civil War. It's pretty well written, and the author admits its limitations. Overall, it is not a bad read for people interested in international relations and a VERY LIGHT history of the idea of civil war.
November 22, 2018
Walaupun pengenalannya memikat tetapi selepas itu ia memanjang pada hal istilah terutamanya dalam lingkaran zaman Roman dengan penceritaan yang teliti. Kemudian ia bercerita tetang perang saudara US yang panjang juga. Sedikit saja disentuh perihal perang saudara di benua lain. Suku buku ini saja dipenuhi biblio, catatan kaki dan indeks. Apapun ia masih memberi ilmu buat saya.
February 23, 2019
I was hoping that the book would be more of an examination of the markings of a civil war. This book is more of an essay on the term ‘civil war’. Where it originated, where thoughts about it changed, and where it was refashioned for present history’s conflicts. Interesting but many of it’s arguments are merely semantic.
March 28, 2020
Excellent intellectual history of the idea of Civil War from the Romans (the Greeks didn't have the concept) to the present day. The choice to call something a rebellion, insurrection, revolution or a Civil War is always political, and the idea of Civil War as a familial conflict dates back to the Romans.
May 16, 2020
Very academic, but a quite interesting look at how we define civil war and the implications therein. My major qualm is that it skips over a huge chunk of time between Roman Civil Wars and then the English Civil War and is very European/USA focused. Would have been good to delve into civil wars worldwide and those pre 17th century and post- Roman.
July 9, 2024
A well-written study of the identification and classification of civil wars. This book presents a convincing set of arguments regarding the evolution of the concept of civil war from the Roman republic through the Second Gulf War. It provides plenty of concepts to be considered when evaluating conflicts, and the implications of their naming as ‘civil’ wars. A good read, and well researched.
June 2, 2017
Started off slower but eventually became a well rounded book that examines how we think about civil wars in relation to other types of conflict. The author doesn't do anything earth-shattering, but this book does add something noteworthy to the library of literature on the topic.
January 27, 2023
An interesting take on what civil war means, and a very in depth analysis of the concept throughout history. A very dense novel when it comes to history; however, it still conveys concepts in a easy to understand manner.
June 9, 2017
main point- Civil war is a debated term, and always used with political and or moral implications or objectives.
Interesting, will re read in future
Interesting, will re read in future
September 19, 2017
I simply could not get into this book. I think it is because I have a new puppy who keeps bothering me. I did figure out that it is hard to define what a civil war is, but that was about it.
February 26, 2018
An address to nations on the semantic crisis of civil wars and their history of the past 2,000 years, echo of a global warning from scholars through the 20th century.
March 7, 2018
Interesting to complicate the distinctions and implications of 'civil war', just as the meaning of 'genocide' has led to consequences -- legal, moral, spiritual and physical.
February 5, 2022
It's a fine read although a tad too academic for what it proposes. Regardless, it does expose a comprehensive cronogram of the concept of Civil War and the challenges that it presents
February 5, 2022
I can't bother with a full review as my eyes glazed over so many times. It was interesting in parts but felt it needed some stronger point.
March 20, 2017
4.5
Informative and enlightening on the political, historical and philosophy of civil wars. It comes down to what you would define a civil war.
Informative and enlightening on the political, historical and philosophy of civil wars. It comes down to what you would define a civil war.
June 1, 2017
So, it seems the concept of civil war has always been somewhat controversial, but only really ran aground after the lawyers got through mangling it... Really not much of a surprise there, huh?
This is a small, fairly dense book that examines the idea of civil war throughout history. Armitage asserts its beginnings as a concept with the Romans. Sounds arbitrary, but the concept does originate from the Latin. Ancient Greece had internal disruptions, of course, though Armitage would retort internal disruptions within the process of democracy aren't really disruptions at all, but rather the political process itself. Armitage touches on Greek stasis and just as quickly leaves it alone. Armitage contends that our knowledge of the concept of civil war for two thousand years has mostly been sourced almost exclusively from poets and historians. Appian and Lucan are favorites of the author cited early and often. This reliance makes for a persistently shifting and often creative definition. A common invariant, however, seems to be that a civil war involves conflict amongst civilized people; this is opposed to "exterior" conflicts with competing states uncivilized, or barbarians. In fact, civil war has frequently been associated with the family war, one of the most horrific events with its inevitable tragic consequences. The irony of a completely uncivilized civil war is a constant ugly pillar on Armitage's stage. Civil war potentially encompasses what should never be encompassed legally: patricide, fratricide, and filicide. Armitage moves his survey along chronologically. He notes Hobbes' state of nature, though awful, is clearly not a civil war. Not for Hobbes, anyway. He pushes on to the jurist and philosopher Vattel, who courageously attempted to internationalize civil war by claiming internal factions became separating if not totally separate entities endowed with their own legitimate sovereignty. This allows the law of nations to potentially enter into a conflict existing inside a state in ostensible war with existing internal faction(s). Vattel hoped that civil war participants seeking either outside military assistance or arbitration would prompt more peaceful resolutions and conditions in the European political theatre. Certainly America's bid for independence was hastened along by France's direct assistance. Speaking of France, its revolution(and the United States') opened up the concept of civil war into something more positive, more hopeful than had ever been connected with the term in the past. Political independence and a people's self determination began to outweigh(at least in theory) the stark ledger losses accrued during a civil war. Unfortunately, idealism often promotes its own degree of cynicism. Revolution and rebellion found little to separate them now, other than corporal success. But cynicism didn't really march in its forces until the American civil war and its Union lawyers put pen to paper. Lincoln tossed out the term civil war whenever he desired to emphasize the United States' need for regaining lost unity, utilizing the term rebellion on all other occasions to specifically denote criminal culpability of an internal policing variety. The Lieber Code was hand tailored to outfit the Union's cause against southern secessionism, according to Armitage. The twentieth century continued the march of idealism with the created concept of human rights. No longer was the Hobbesian sovereignty within its natural rights to abuse its subjects at will. Crimes Against Humanity opened the field up to conflicts that weren't conventional State vs state matters, but rather an international community set against the internal actions of a perpetrator State against its own citizens. Soon, the concept of the "global civil war" would make its appearance. Unsurprisingly, Schmitt is quoted periodically at this point. Borders become scumbled, if not collapsing completely after decolonialization. The quest for peace brings more military intervention, not less. And the reader is uncomfortably reminded that peace has been earlier defined negatively(from Hobbes, of course) as being "the absence of war", regardless of what Spinoza might later write. Armitage states that our era is the age of the civil war. It is the war of choice now, though they are far more frequent, less manageable and containable, last longer, and often reoccur. The attempt to quantify a working definition of civil war has also led to charges of cynicism, if not inefficiency or inaccuracy. By the end of the book the reader is sufficiently disturbed to discover our present age of "global civil war" resembles all too much Hobbes' heinous state of nature; though one that's undoubtedly on the whole better armed. An interesting, yet hardly uplifting book.
This is a small, fairly dense book that examines the idea of civil war throughout history. Armitage asserts its beginnings as a concept with the Romans. Sounds arbitrary, but the concept does originate from the Latin. Ancient Greece had internal disruptions, of course, though Armitage would retort internal disruptions within the process of democracy aren't really disruptions at all, but rather the political process itself. Armitage touches on Greek stasis and just as quickly leaves it alone. Armitage contends that our knowledge of the concept of civil war for two thousand years has mostly been sourced almost exclusively from poets and historians. Appian and Lucan are favorites of the author cited early and often. This reliance makes for a persistently shifting and often creative definition. A common invariant, however, seems to be that a civil war involves conflict amongst civilized people; this is opposed to "exterior" conflicts with competing states uncivilized, or barbarians. In fact, civil war has frequently been associated with the family war, one of the most horrific events with its inevitable tragic consequences. The irony of a completely uncivilized civil war is a constant ugly pillar on Armitage's stage. Civil war potentially encompasses what should never be encompassed legally: patricide, fratricide, and filicide. Armitage moves his survey along chronologically. He notes Hobbes' state of nature, though awful, is clearly not a civil war. Not for Hobbes, anyway. He pushes on to the jurist and philosopher Vattel, who courageously attempted to internationalize civil war by claiming internal factions became separating if not totally separate entities endowed with their own legitimate sovereignty. This allows the law of nations to potentially enter into a conflict existing inside a state in ostensible war with existing internal faction(s). Vattel hoped that civil war participants seeking either outside military assistance or arbitration would prompt more peaceful resolutions and conditions in the European political theatre. Certainly America's bid for independence was hastened along by France's direct assistance. Speaking of France, its revolution(and the United States') opened up the concept of civil war into something more positive, more hopeful than had ever been connected with the term in the past. Political independence and a people's self determination began to outweigh(at least in theory) the stark ledger losses accrued during a civil war. Unfortunately, idealism often promotes its own degree of cynicism. Revolution and rebellion found little to separate them now, other than corporal success. But cynicism didn't really march in its forces until the American civil war and its Union lawyers put pen to paper. Lincoln tossed out the term civil war whenever he desired to emphasize the United States' need for regaining lost unity, utilizing the term rebellion on all other occasions to specifically denote criminal culpability of an internal policing variety. The Lieber Code was hand tailored to outfit the Union's cause against southern secessionism, according to Armitage. The twentieth century continued the march of idealism with the created concept of human rights. No longer was the Hobbesian sovereignty within its natural rights to abuse its subjects at will. Crimes Against Humanity opened the field up to conflicts that weren't conventional State vs state matters, but rather an international community set against the internal actions of a perpetrator State against its own citizens. Soon, the concept of the "global civil war" would make its appearance. Unsurprisingly, Schmitt is quoted periodically at this point. Borders become scumbled, if not collapsing completely after decolonialization. The quest for peace brings more military intervention, not less. And the reader is uncomfortably reminded that peace has been earlier defined negatively(from Hobbes, of course) as being "the absence of war", regardless of what Spinoza might later write. Armitage states that our era is the age of the civil war. It is the war of choice now, though they are far more frequent, less manageable and containable, last longer, and often reoccur. The attempt to quantify a working definition of civil war has also led to charges of cynicism, if not inefficiency or inaccuracy. By the end of the book the reader is sufficiently disturbed to discover our present age of "global civil war" resembles all too much Hobbes' heinous state of nature; though one that's undoubtedly on the whole better armed. An interesting, yet hardly uplifting book.
May 1, 2017
Excellent.
May 2, 2017
Civil wars is one of those terms that seem easy to identify and understand. Recent conflicts have shown otherwise as it is not straight forward to identify one as a civil war and that becomes more difficult with the political and legal, let alone violent, consequences of such identification.
David Armitage does a good job rounding up the meanings and controversies surrounding the term and its implications. The start is distinctly from the Roman civil wars as the Greeks (and others) have had not concept of civil war as it was understood between Rome and now. The war among citizens started in Rome and is today nearly global.
The historical examples used are many but certainly non-exhaustive. Armitage starts with the Roman civil wars, then the English ones, and then goes to the American civil wars before coming to talk about the end of the Twentieth Century. Many modern civil wars are not even mentioned such as the Russian civil war of 1918-21 and others, like the Spanish civil war, are only mentioned in passing. I don't consider this a specific weakness unless you are looking for an exhaustive history of civil war which this book is not.
I enjoyed the book but found the last chapter to be the most significant for my understanding as he lays down the thought into civil war as a global civil war today. This is certainly one way of looking at the current conflicts that has merit at least to allow further analysis.
David Armitage does a good job rounding up the meanings and controversies surrounding the term and its implications. The start is distinctly from the Roman civil wars as the Greeks (and others) have had not concept of civil war as it was understood between Rome and now. The war among citizens started in Rome and is today nearly global.
The historical examples used are many but certainly non-exhaustive. Armitage starts with the Roman civil wars, then the English ones, and then goes to the American civil wars before coming to talk about the end of the Twentieth Century. Many modern civil wars are not even mentioned such as the Russian civil war of 1918-21 and others, like the Spanish civil war, are only mentioned in passing. I don't consider this a specific weakness unless you are looking for an exhaustive history of civil war which this book is not.
I enjoyed the book but found the last chapter to be the most significant for my understanding as he lays down the thought into civil war as a global civil war today. This is certainly one way of looking at the current conflicts that has merit at least to allow further analysis.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews