Forged Through Fire: War, Peace, and the Democratic Bargain

by Frances McCall Rosenbluth, John Ferejohn

Peace, many would agree, is a goal that democratic nations should strive to achieve. But is democracy, in fact, dependent on war to survive? Considering this question, two of our most celebrated political scientists trace the shocking ways in which governments have mobilized armies since antiquity, discovering that our modern form of democracy not only evolved in a brutally competitive environment but also was quickly excised when the powerful and elite no longer needed their citizenry to defend against existential threats. Bringing to vivid life many of the major battles that shaped our world today, the authors show how centralized monarchies replaced feudalism, why dictatorships can mobilize large forces but often fail at long-term military campaigns, and how drone warfare has already weakened American democracy. In the spirit of Francis Fukuyama and Niall Ferguson, this book promises to have far-reaching implications and become the centerpiece of debate for years to come.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Political Science, War, World History

459 pages, Kindle Edition

First published July 11, 2016

Reviews

[Julian Douglass · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is one of those books that sounds cool when you read the dust jacket, but then when you read the book, it disappoints greatly. It never got around to the central thesis and was a brief 300-page world history of different republics and their ways of governing, with the common theme that wars constantly changed them until the Napoleonic wars. It was not what I expected, and with only 2/3rds of the book actual text, I think that this book was a long walk for a short drink of water.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

The copy of the book that I read was an advance printing that I won from a Goodreads.com giveaway. Some of the editorial problems (like saying an event from the Spanish-American War took place in 1990) might have been fixed by the time it went to full printing. But my evaluation of the book is based on its premise and major content, which would not (should not) have changed.
I rated the book at “three stars,” simply because of the amount of research that obviously went into writing this work. However, the content deserves about two-and-a-half stars.
My problem with the book begins with the fact that much of it is more a general political and military history, not the philosophical discussion of how war affects democracy, which is implied by its title and synopsis. In that sense, I felt that it failed to fully deliver its stated goal. The information presented specifically on this topic, in its clearest and most succinct form was in the beginning portion of the book and then in the conclusion. For that amount of information, this book could have been condensed to a “paper,” or even a series of shorter articles, and avoided padding the discussion with long portions of history that do not fully apply to the main premise.
The idea that governments expand rights for citizens in exchange for citizens’ aid (in war or other areas) is not a new one. Even the idea that war opens the door for social change is not unique to this book. I am by no means a professional historian, but I noticed a form of this theme several years ago through my own personal study. I must assume that someone else had noticed this pattern on their own, as well, so while this book brings these ideas together on “one place,” it does not actually present new information.
This critique does not mean that the book was worthless. The premise was interesting and some of the information aided in understanding the topic. The portion on race in the United States should at least be consulted by everyone teaching American history because of how well the authors discuss this topic. Its largest strength, in my opinion, is its focus on the larger arch of history, not simply one portion of the history of the world.
However, as a whole, this book was disappointing. It was not “bad” but simply presented nothing dramatically new.

[John V · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent scholarly work. Forged Through Fire takes a simple premise – the needs of the state for military manpower are a cause for expansion of the democratic franchise – and traces it throughout Western Civilization. The book is an enjoyable read, albeit for a somewhat narrow audience as it is overflowing with historical/political/military details and descriptions.

I received this book from my partner, Shelli, who received it via Goodreads Giveaways. These circumstances in no way influenced my review.

[Shelli]

Update 6/28/2017: Well it only took a mere two and a half months of unrelenting noodging on my part, but John has finally written his long-awaited (although very brief) review!

Update 3/21/2017: John has finished reading as of tonight, but I have left the date off so it won't count toward my Reading Challenge total. He promises that a review is forthcomong!

I received an ARC of this book, Forged Through Fire: War, Peace, and the Democratic Bargain, via Goodreads Giveaways, and I am particularly grateful to the publisher, Liveright, because when I entered the drawing, I *knew* it would be the perfect Christmas present for my honey! I was absolutely correct in that assessment, as he started it that very night and has been reading it in all his spare time since. He promises to write a full review when he is finished on his own account (and to which I will link here), but so far he is really enjoying it if the depth of his absorption is any indicator! He has also commented on how impeccable and detailed the research is; I suspect after he is finished, I too will read it, as the subject matter is particularly relevant (not to mention its premise a little terrifying) in these increasingly uncertain and frightening times.

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

The overall premise of the authors is that democratic institutions develop within communities and states out of the need of ruling elites to garner support of the populous for military defense against wars of aggression. There is sort of a quid pro quo principal implied by the authors, that seem to suggest that the ruling class gives up power in the form of democratic reforms to recruit the peasant class to support the survival of the state. While the authors mention several notable exceptions to this theory, including Lenin/Stalin, Mao and the ancient Chinese regimes, they lay out a historical panoply of military history dating back to 500BC to the modern era to support the release of governing power to the populous in return for their blood on the battle field. While this premise may have merit, and the book was an interesting read, certainly the exceptions noted throughout history and even today in areas of South America and Africa, would suggest that this link is not very strong. Clearly other currents throughout history in the growth of commerce, technological revolutions, industrialization, all of which strength the importance of 'the people' to the state, play important roles. The book is also marred by the sort of hop-scotch way that different eras in history are presented, that seem to jump centuries back in forth when talking about the ancient work and the middle ages. The strengths of the book are presented in the last chapters that discuss the more modern era, particularly the class struggle in the United States regarding Black Suffrage, which should be read by all, and shown as a lesson of mans inhumanity to man.

[Jeff · Rating 3 out of 5]

The main tenant of the book is that despite the horrors and inhumanity of war, that war is also directly responsible for the creation of modern democracy and democratic values. This relationship is portrayed in a cycle, where the rich and powerful are content to exploit their power, until faced with an external military threat, upon which they require the support of the poor (and many), which leads to them granting political concessions through additional rights and freedoms. The authors then trace this relationship through about 2000 years of history, seeing how different eras (ie. Greek citystates vs Medieval Europe vs Napoleonic Wars, etc) had different causes and took different paths to the same broad conclusion.

In terms of the book itself, it reads a bit more like a history textbook than a full fledged narrative. I thought the thesis (which you can get the gist through an abstract) and parts of the histories were interesting, but overall the history felt all too brief and the arguments (for the thesis) didn’t feel substantial enough (it felt like the reader was left to make the conclusions from the examples, rather than the author using them to prove their point). It was also noticeable how Western focused this history was, it would have been interesting to see more prominent examples of Far East or African history used. Overall, I’d say this is no Guns, Germs, and Steel level of book, but it is a fairly short and interesting read on the history of warfare and its political impact.

[Carl · Rating 4 out of 5]

The hypothesis is this: democracy is the reward for satisfying the manpower needs of central authority, these needs generally being dictated by war. Specifics of these needs vary over time with military technology, geography & terrain to be defended or assaulted, and various other factors. Availability of manpower may be encouraged by the promise of a sharing of power - the vote, democracy - or by intimidation & coercion - as in dictatorships. The hypothesis is defended by an analysis of history dating back to the Greek citystates & proceeding to the present.

The text is somewhat dry & convoluted which to some extent impedes the argument until the example of the US is reached. In this case, the argument developed concerning the tricks & ambivalences employed to make use of African-American manpower for military purposes matched with the unwillingness to fully empower this segment of the population makes for very interesting reading & is highly convincing. My inclination was to award 3 stars to the parts of the book preceding US history & 5 stars to the US sections. Overall I think 4 stars is fair. This is a good & important view of world history.

[Arup · Rating 4 out of 5]

The path to modern representative democracy was neither inevitable nor peaceful. This book takes us through humanity’s experiments with forms of governance and how society fluctuated between aristocracy and autocracy for the most part. Representation was avoided at all costs by the elites out of fear of appropriation by the poor. However, it was the bourgeois who made democracy possible in many ways too. The author focuses particularly on mass mobilization warfare and how the demands for a large army (labor) led to expansion of the suffrage as a concession. Related to military demands of 19th and 20th century Europe is the rise of the nation state which led to the marriage of money and manpower. This truce between money (capital/elites/aristocrats/bourgeois) and manpower (labor/commoner/proletariat) as opposed to class warfare played a role in enfranchisement. Author concedes that war has not always led to representation - Hitler’s Germany or Mao’s China are case in point- where through emotional appeal, fear or deception autocrats have raised large armies and conducted warfare without giving back anything in return to the public.

[Michael Samerdyke · Rating 2 out of 5]

This one was a real disappointment.

The organization of this book was just weird.

It opens with a look at the American military in the "War Against Terror," relying on professional (non-draftee) soldiers and drones. Then it goes back to Ancient Greece, to the defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War, and then backs up to the development of Athens. And the other chapters seemed to leap around as well. A later chapter on the US started with the Battle of the Bulge, then went back to the Revolution.

Certain sentences weren't well-written, or, perhaps, this book needed another edit before publication. Also, I took objection to some things, like the flat statement that the Franks were a Celtic tribe. Really, I thought they were Germanic. Probably, this was a sloppy error that wasn't caught in time.

Ultimately, this was just a disappointing book.

[Alexandra · Rating 5 out of 5]

Starting with ancient Greece, the book makes the argument that democratic inclusiveness goes hand-in-hand with wars in which states use conscripted rather than mercenary soldiers. When countries are forced to spill the blood of large numbers of their own people, rather than people they pay for that purpose, there are significant pressures to include these fighters into the category of citizen and extend political rights to them. In the United States, this was the case in the Civil War and the two World Wars. This is a well-written and well-argued book worth reading.

[Andrew Garrie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely excellent read. Well researched, well thought out premise and thesis. Very thought provoking. Worth a read by anyone

[Hadrian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Broad historical look at the link between military mobilization and political representation, starting with the Peloponnesian War and moving to the Second World War, concluding that certain aspects of technological development (e.g. the invention of firearms) and the need for larger armies have provided the political impetus for concentration of state power and expansion of the voting franchise.

[Leonard Singer]

Didn't finish. Gets great reviews. I couldn't relate to it.