What do you think?
Rate this book
Razboiul. Cum ne-au modelat conflictele
Margaret MacMillan a scris inca o carte de referinta... Are dreptate cand afirma ca trebuie, mai mult ca niciodata, sa reflectam la razboi. Si ne-a aratat cum sa o facem, in aceasta carte stralucita, elegant scrisa. - H.R. McMaster
Este pacea un nonsens? Autoarea bestsellerurilor Fauritorii pacii, Razboiul care a pus capat pacii si Oamenii istoriei ne ofera o perspectiva provocatoare asupra razboiului ca o componenta esentiala a umanitatii.
Un istoric eminent exploreaza una dintre fortele centrale ale istoriei omenirii. Aceasta lucrare, ce ofera o lectura placuta si convingatoare, este inca un tur de forta semnat Margaret MacMillan! - Joseph S. Nye, Jr.
Clausewitz a scris Despre razboi pentru a-i instrui pe militarii de profesie; Margaret MacMillan a scris Razboiul pentru a explica acest "mister tulburator si nelinistitor" celorlalti dintre noi. Ea investigheaza, cu franchete si umanitate, teroarea si fascinatia pe care o emana acest subiect, precum si anvergura si persistenta lui. Numai un istoric cu stiinta ampla, cunoasterea aprofundata a surselor istorice, claritatea de gandire si maiestria stilistica a lui MacMillan ar putea reusi sa cuprinda atat de stralucit o tema atat de vasta intr-un singur volum. - Robert B. Zoellick
O discutie erudita despre modul in care cultura si societatea au fost modelate de razboi de-a lungul istoriei... plina de culoare si dens tesuta precum o carpeta persana... MacMillan scrie cu o extraordinara usurinta si practic fiecare pagina a cartii este interesanta, captivanta chiar... Marile delectari ale acestei lucrari sunt anecdotele istorice, episoadele si citatele pe care MacMillan le invoca aproape la fiecare pagina pentru a-si ilustra argumentatia. - The New York Times Book Review
Margaret MacMillan analizeaza modalitatile in care razboiul a influentat societatea umana si cum transformarile ce au marcat organizarea politica, tehnologia sau ideologiile au afectat felul in care - si ratiunile pentru care - luptam. Lucrarea de fata exploreaza o serie de chestiuni mult dezbatute si controversate: Cand au inceput razboaiele? Suntem destinati, prin natura noastra umana, sa ne luptam unii cu altii? De ce a fost razboiul descris ca fiind cea mai organizata activitate umana? De ce razboinicii sunt in marea lor majoritate barbati? Este razboiul intotdeauna sub propriul nostru control? Bazandu-se pe lectiile oferite de razboaiele din trecut, de la istoria clasica pana la ziua de azi, MacMillan reveleaza multiplele fatete ale razboiului - felul in care ne-a determinat trecutul, viitorul, viziunea asupra lumii si propria conceptie despre noi insine.
Autoarea de origine canadiana Margaret MacMillan este un istoric de renume mondial, profesor emerit de istorie internationala la Universitatea Oxford si profesor la Universitatea din Toronto. Si-a obtinut doctoratul la St Antony's College, Oxford, unde mai tarziu a ocupat pozitia de rector. Anterior a mai fost rector al Trinity College din cadrul Universitatii din Toronto, precum si la Universitatea Ryerson. Eminent expert in istorie si relatii internationale, MacMillan este si un frecvent comentator in mass-media. Este autoarea unor lucrari de mare succes, traduse in mai multe limbi si incununate cu premii prestigioase, precum Razboiul care a pus capat pacii: Drumul spre 1914, Fauritorii pacii: Sase luni care au schimbat lumea si Oamenii istoriei, publicate si in limba romana de Editura Trei.
Este pacea un nonsens? Autoarea bestsellerurilor Fauritorii pacii, Razboiul care a pus capat pacii si Oamenii istoriei ne ofera o perspectiva provocatoare asupra razboiului ca o componenta esentiala a umanitatii.
Un istoric eminent exploreaza una dintre fortele centrale ale istoriei omenirii. Aceasta lucrare, ce ofera o lectura placuta si convingatoare, este inca un tur de forta semnat Margaret MacMillan! - Joseph S. Nye, Jr.
Clausewitz a scris Despre razboi pentru a-i instrui pe militarii de profesie; Margaret MacMillan a scris Razboiul pentru a explica acest "mister tulburator si nelinistitor" celorlalti dintre noi. Ea investigheaza, cu franchete si umanitate, teroarea si fascinatia pe care o emana acest subiect, precum si anvergura si persistenta lui. Numai un istoric cu stiinta ampla, cunoasterea aprofundata a surselor istorice, claritatea de gandire si maiestria stilistica a lui MacMillan ar putea reusi sa cuprinda atat de stralucit o tema atat de vasta intr-un singur volum. - Robert B. Zoellick
O discutie erudita despre modul in care cultura si societatea au fost modelate de razboi de-a lungul istoriei... plina de culoare si dens tesuta precum o carpeta persana... MacMillan scrie cu o extraordinara usurinta si practic fiecare pagina a cartii este interesanta, captivanta chiar... Marile delectari ale acestei lucrari sunt anecdotele istorice, episoadele si citatele pe care MacMillan le invoca aproape la fiecare pagina pentru a-si ilustra argumentatia. - The New York Times Book Review
Margaret MacMillan analizeaza modalitatile in care razboiul a influentat societatea umana si cum transformarile ce au marcat organizarea politica, tehnologia sau ideologiile au afectat felul in care - si ratiunile pentru care - luptam. Lucrarea de fata exploreaza o serie de chestiuni mult dezbatute si controversate: Cand au inceput razboaiele? Suntem destinati, prin natura noastra umana, sa ne luptam unii cu altii? De ce a fost razboiul descris ca fiind cea mai organizata activitate umana? De ce razboinicii sunt in marea lor majoritate barbati? Este razboiul intotdeauna sub propriul nostru control? Bazandu-se pe lectiile oferite de razboaiele din trecut, de la istoria clasica pana la ziua de azi, MacMillan reveleaza multiplele fatete ale razboiului - felul in care ne-a determinat trecutul, viitorul, viziunea asupra lumii si propria conceptie despre noi insine.
Autoarea de origine canadiana Margaret MacMillan este un istoric de renume mondial, profesor emerit de istorie internationala la Universitatea Oxford si profesor la Universitatea din Toronto. Si-a obtinut doctoratul la St Antony's College, Oxford, unde mai tarziu a ocupat pozitia de rector. Anterior a mai fost rector al Trinity College din cadrul Universitatii din Toronto, precum si la Universitatea Ryerson. Eminent expert in istorie si relatii internationale, MacMillan este si un frecvent comentator in mass-media. Este autoarea unor lucrari de mare succes, traduse in mai multe limbi si incununate cu premii prestigioase, precum Razboiul care a pus capat pacii: Drumul spre 1914, Fauritorii pacii: Sase luni care au schimbat lumea si Oamenii istoriei, publicate si in limba romana de Editura Trei.
304 pages, Paperback
First published October 6, 2020
1097 people are currently reading
11974 people want to read
About the author
Margaret MacMillan
67 books756 followersMargaret Olwen MacMillan OC D.Phil. (born 1943) is a historian and professor at Oxford University where she is Warden of St. Antony's College. She is former provost of Trinity College and professor of history at the University of Toronto. A well-respected expert on history and current affairs, MacMillan is a frequent commentator in the media.
-Wikipedia
-Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 569 reviews
March 11, 2025
Pretty basic. The writing is pedestrian and monotonous, and although the book promises fresh revelations, the author's findings are a pale rehash of secondary sources and pop anthropology. For instance, in the first chapter alone she talks about: bonobos vs. chimps; who was right, Rousseau or Hobbes; and how Margaret Mead was a fraud. Save your money and read War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage by Lawrence Keeley, a more interesting book on a similar subject.
(I should have known this would be a dud when she wrote, on the very first page, "if Hitler had won the Second World War, would the world have been different? We know that it would although we can only guess how much." Wow, you don't say.)
(I should have known this would be a dud when she wrote, on the very first page, "if Hitler had won the Second World War, would the world have been different? We know that it would although we can only guess how much." Wow, you don't say.)
September 11, 2020
First and foremost, a large thank you to NetGalley, Margaret MacMillan, and Random House for providing me with a copy of this publication, which allows me to provide you with an unbiased review.
War gets a bad rap, according to historian Margaret MacMillan. In this piece, she effectively argues that war is about more than bloodshed and body counts, but serves as a significant influence on society. This quasi-academic piece presents arguments in a clear and somewhat concise manner, permitting the reader to see substantiation of her thesis before coming to a conclusion for themselves. Perusing many blatant, but oft forgotten, aspects of war, MacMillan is able to tie things all together in a riveting conclusion at a time when the next great battle seems only a tweet away!
While MacMillan does concede that wars can be horrific events where large losses of life negatively impact families, she offers the flip side and explores how this spurs the economic engine to begin production. With war comes the need for more supplies and additional armaments, production ramps up, and money flows freely. This includes the development of new weapons and technologies, which may not have been available during past battles. MacMillan explores this at length and shares how some technology is better suited to certain regions than others. Tied to the economy is the addition to the labour market, which means more work for citizens. Unemployment numbers fall and people find themselves more productive, which can also lead to a stronger citizen core. With higher employment comes less gender disparity in the workforce, at least when MacMillan looks to past conflicts. The Great War (and Second World War) opened the workforce up to women, permitting them to play a significant role in adding to the burgeoning economy.
Financial benefits are but one richness that people feel when it comes to war. There is a stronger sense of nationalism during wartime, no matter which country a person calls home. MacMillan explores the strong sense of connection that war brought to people around the world. While not entirely positive, German sentiment during the Second World War was high as the Nazis espoused their form of nationalism. Many of the Western countries went into the Great War with a strong sense of nationalism and sought to strengthen that as they fought to bring about the glory from past victories. MacMillan presents countless examples of this, both on the battlefield and at home. Newspapers sought to drum up support for ‘the boys’ as families waited at home. There is no doubt that nationalism comes into play when war rages on. This may be a temporary bump, but it serves as something to unite people around a common cause. Tied to nationalism is the boost that artistic expression gets with war. MacMillan dedicates an entire chapter on this, but it is worth noting not only that a country’s victories can be exemplified through the arts, but that there is open interpretation when it comes to war, as with many pieces of art in any medium.
MacMillan offers an interesting perspective about how wars are seen through the eyes of the soldier—on the battlefield with bullets sailing all around them—and the individual at home. While there are countless examples, one might best focus on the Vietnam War for this topic, where MacMillan hints that the sentiment of soldiers who were fighting for freedom felt strongly in the jungles of Asia, while general sentiment at home was completely opposite. The distance from the frontline and the synthesising of truths through media representation changes things quite substantially. MacMillan offers this up in two contrasting chapters, almost begging the reader to draw their own conclusions.
Perhaps one of the most interesting chapters in the book is the discussion surrounding rules of war. MacMillan looks at how there have long been ‘agreed sentiments’ when in battle, but these gentleman’s agreements began not to be enough. Around the early part of the American Civil War, documented rules for how prisoners ought to be treated and negotiated ceasefires came into place. This led to a number of key agreements into the 20th century, which were finalised in the Geneva Convention after the Second World War. While these agreements hold no real punitive countermeasure in the moment, there are strong and strict parameters that most nation-states will follow. Into the 21st century, the world has seen that grey area when enemy combatants are not aligned with a recognised nation, though MacMillan and the courts have begun addressing these at some length.
While this is only a small segment of MacMillan’s entire argument, the book is full of so many perspectives sure to pique the interest of the curious reader. MacMillan has used much of her academic life exploring war and the history surrounding regions in conflict, with a number of well-documented books. Her arguments are made in a clear and effective manner, providing proof to support what she presents to the reader. While war is generally seen as a battle of blood and gore, MacMillan tries to show the other perspectives that may be evident, but receive little mention during the most heated moments. In a book broken down into nine chapters, MacMillan is able to effectively prove her thesis and educate the reader at the same time, providing the reader with the most information possible, without inundating them at any point. The book is fairly digestible, though there is no doubt that it has an academic flavour to it. This provides much needed mental stimulation for those who are tired of reading newspaper articles or pieces aimed at the general public. I found this more than refreshing and cannot wait to see what else Margaret MacMillan has to say in the years to come!
Kudos, Madam MacMillan, for another stunning tome. You make Canada proud and are surely one of the best when it comes to war history.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
War gets a bad rap, according to historian Margaret MacMillan. In this piece, she effectively argues that war is about more than bloodshed and body counts, but serves as a significant influence on society. This quasi-academic piece presents arguments in a clear and somewhat concise manner, permitting the reader to see substantiation of her thesis before coming to a conclusion for themselves. Perusing many blatant, but oft forgotten, aspects of war, MacMillan is able to tie things all together in a riveting conclusion at a time when the next great battle seems only a tweet away!
While MacMillan does concede that wars can be horrific events where large losses of life negatively impact families, she offers the flip side and explores how this spurs the economic engine to begin production. With war comes the need for more supplies and additional armaments, production ramps up, and money flows freely. This includes the development of new weapons and technologies, which may not have been available during past battles. MacMillan explores this at length and shares how some technology is better suited to certain regions than others. Tied to the economy is the addition to the labour market, which means more work for citizens. Unemployment numbers fall and people find themselves more productive, which can also lead to a stronger citizen core. With higher employment comes less gender disparity in the workforce, at least when MacMillan looks to past conflicts. The Great War (and Second World War) opened the workforce up to women, permitting them to play a significant role in adding to the burgeoning economy.
Financial benefits are but one richness that people feel when it comes to war. There is a stronger sense of nationalism during wartime, no matter which country a person calls home. MacMillan explores the strong sense of connection that war brought to people around the world. While not entirely positive, German sentiment during the Second World War was high as the Nazis espoused their form of nationalism. Many of the Western countries went into the Great War with a strong sense of nationalism and sought to strengthen that as they fought to bring about the glory from past victories. MacMillan presents countless examples of this, both on the battlefield and at home. Newspapers sought to drum up support for ‘the boys’ as families waited at home. There is no doubt that nationalism comes into play when war rages on. This may be a temporary bump, but it serves as something to unite people around a common cause. Tied to nationalism is the boost that artistic expression gets with war. MacMillan dedicates an entire chapter on this, but it is worth noting not only that a country’s victories can be exemplified through the arts, but that there is open interpretation when it comes to war, as with many pieces of art in any medium.
MacMillan offers an interesting perspective about how wars are seen through the eyes of the soldier—on the battlefield with bullets sailing all around them—and the individual at home. While there are countless examples, one might best focus on the Vietnam War for this topic, where MacMillan hints that the sentiment of soldiers who were fighting for freedom felt strongly in the jungles of Asia, while general sentiment at home was completely opposite. The distance from the frontline and the synthesising of truths through media representation changes things quite substantially. MacMillan offers this up in two contrasting chapters, almost begging the reader to draw their own conclusions.
Perhaps one of the most interesting chapters in the book is the discussion surrounding rules of war. MacMillan looks at how there have long been ‘agreed sentiments’ when in battle, but these gentleman’s agreements began not to be enough. Around the early part of the American Civil War, documented rules for how prisoners ought to be treated and negotiated ceasefires came into place. This led to a number of key agreements into the 20th century, which were finalised in the Geneva Convention after the Second World War. While these agreements hold no real punitive countermeasure in the moment, there are strong and strict parameters that most nation-states will follow. Into the 21st century, the world has seen that grey area when enemy combatants are not aligned with a recognised nation, though MacMillan and the courts have begun addressing these at some length.
While this is only a small segment of MacMillan’s entire argument, the book is full of so many perspectives sure to pique the interest of the curious reader. MacMillan has used much of her academic life exploring war and the history surrounding regions in conflict, with a number of well-documented books. Her arguments are made in a clear and effective manner, providing proof to support what she presents to the reader. While war is generally seen as a battle of blood and gore, MacMillan tries to show the other perspectives that may be evident, but receive little mention during the most heated moments. In a book broken down into nine chapters, MacMillan is able to effectively prove her thesis and educate the reader at the same time, providing the reader with the most information possible, without inundating them at any point. The book is fairly digestible, though there is no doubt that it has an academic flavour to it. This provides much needed mental stimulation for those who are tired of reading newspaper articles or pieces aimed at the general public. I found this more than refreshing and cannot wait to see what else Margaret MacMillan has to say in the years to come!
Kudos, Madam MacMillan, for another stunning tome. You make Canada proud and are surely one of the best when it comes to war history.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
June 6, 2024
جنگها چگونه ما را تغییر دادند؟ کتابی ایست از مارگارت مکمیلان، نویسنده ، تاریخ نگار و استاد دانشگاه که بیشتر به خاطر تخصصش در تاریخ جنگ شناخته شده . او در این کتاب تاریخچهای عمیق و فلسفی از جنگ ارائه داده و به بررسی ماهیت درگیریهای انسانی پرداخته. او جنگ را از زوایای مختلف بررسی کرده، از علل ریشهای آن تا پیامدهای گستردهاش بر جوامع و افراد.
کتاب او فراتر از یک تاریخ صرف جنگ است. این کتاب کاوشی نسبتا عمیق در ماهیت درگیریهای انسانی و بررسی تأثیر آنها بر جوامع و افراد در طول تاریخ است . مکمیلان با ظرافت، رشتههای مختلف دانش را در هم آمیخته و از تاریخ، فلسفه، روانشناسی، جامعهشناسی و علوم سیاسی برای ارائه تصویری جامع از جنگ استفاده میکند.
مکمیلان در کتابش به بررسی جنبههای مختلف جنگ میپردازد، از جمله : رقابت بر سر منابع، اختلافات ایدئولوژیک، بیثباتی سیاسی و ساختارهای قدرت نابرابر. او نشان میدهد که چگونه این عوامل در هم تنیده میشوند و به ایجاد شرایطی میانجامند که در آن جنگ به عنوان یک راهحل منطقی تلقی میشود. او کوشیده پیامدهای ویرانگر جنگ را بر افراد، جوامع و محیط زیست به تصویر کشد تا شاید این گونه خواننده عمق تراژدی مرگ، آوارگی، فقر و آسیبهای روانی ناشی از جنگ را درک کند .
نویسنده نشان میدهد که چگونه ماهیت جنگ با گذشت زمان تکامل یافته است. او از جنگهای تن به تن در دوران باستان تا جنگهای فراگیر مدرن با استفاده از سلاحهای کشتار جمعی را شرح داده. او همچنین به بررسی تحولات تاکتیکها، استراتژیها و نقش فناوری در جنگ پرداخته.
این کتاب پیامدهای گسترده جنگ بر جوامع را شرح می دهد . مکمیلان نشان میدهد که چگونه جنگ میتواند هویت، ارزشها، نهادها و ساختارهای قدرت یک جامعه را دگرگون کند. او همچنین به بررسی چگونگی تداوم میراث جنگ نسلها پس از پایان درگیریها میپردازد. مکمیلان نقش زنان را در جنگ، هم به عنوان قربانی و هم به عنوان عامل، به تصویر میکشد. او از نقش زنان در خط مقدم، در پشت جبهه و به عنوان امدادگران ، پرستاران و یا کارگران ساخت مهمات جنگی می گوید.
به طور خلاصه، مکمیلان معتقد است که جنگها ما را به روشهای مختلفی تغییر میدهند، از جمله جنگها میتوانند هویت جمعی یک جامعه را به شدت تحت تأثیر قرار دهند و ارزشها و باورهای آن را دگرگون کنند. تجربه خشونت، آوارگی و فقدان میتواند منجر به احساس ترس، خشم و بیاعتمادی شود. جنگ همچنین میتواند باعث شود که مردم به ملیگرایی، میهنپرستی یا افراطگرایی روی بیاورند. جنگها ساختارهای قدرت را در جوامع تغییر می دهند و به ظهور رژیمهای جدید یا رهبران قدرتمند کمک می کنند. جنگ همچنین میتواند منجر به نابرابری بیشتر اقتصادی و اجتماعی شود.
جنگها نقشهای سنتی زنان و مردان در جامعه را به چالش می کشند وهمزمان با افزایش خشونت علیه زنان و سوء استفاده از آنها می توانند فرصتهای جدیدی برای زنان ایجاد کنند. تجربیات خشونت و درگیری در جنگ میتوانند نسلها پس از پایان جنگها نیز ادامه داشته باشند. این تروما میتواند منجر به مشکلات سلامت روان، خشونت خانگی و سایر مسائل اجتماعی شود.
مکمیلان در کتاب خود به بررسی نمونههای متعددی از تاریخ پرداخته تا استدلالهای خود را در مورد تأثیرات جنگ بر جوامع و افراد نشان دهد. او معتقد است که درک عمیقتر از تأثیرات جنگ بر بشریت برای جلوگیری از وقوع جنگهای آینده و کاهش پیامدهای ویرانگر آنها بر جوامع و افراد ضروری است.
کتاب حجیم او در برخی قسمت ها فاقد انسجام و هدف مشخص به نظر می رسد . نویسنده در تلاش برای ارائه تصویری جامع از جنگ، مجبور به بررسی موضوعات مختلفی می شود که ممکن است گاهی به نظر خواننده بیربط با موضوع اصلی باشند . مکمیلان به جای تمرکز بر یک جنبه خاص از جنگ، تلاش می کند تا تمامی ابعاد آن را بررسی کند . این رویکرد جامع، در حالی که به درک عمیقتر خواننده کمک میکند ، ممکن است کتاب را فاقد انسجام و هدف مشخص نشان دهد.
کتاب او فراتر از یک تاریخ صرف جنگ است. این کتاب کاوشی نسبتا عمیق در ماهیت درگیریهای انسانی و بررسی تأثیر آنها بر جوامع و افراد در طول تاریخ است . مکمیلان با ظرافت، رشتههای مختلف دانش را در هم آمیخته و از تاریخ، فلسفه، روانشناسی، جامعهشناسی و علوم سیاسی برای ارائه تصویری جامع از جنگ استفاده میکند.
مکمیلان در کتابش به بررسی جنبههای مختلف جنگ میپردازد، از جمله : رقابت بر سر منابع، اختلافات ایدئولوژیک، بیثباتی سیاسی و ساختارهای قدرت نابرابر. او نشان میدهد که چگونه این عوامل در هم تنیده میشوند و به ایجاد شرایطی میانجامند که در آن جنگ به عنوان یک راهحل منطقی تلقی میشود. او کوشیده پیامدهای ویرانگر جنگ را بر افراد، جوامع و محیط زیست به تصویر کشد تا شاید این گونه خواننده عمق تراژدی مرگ، آوارگی، فقر و آسیبهای روانی ناشی از جنگ را درک کند .
نویسنده نشان میدهد که چگونه ماهیت جنگ با گذشت زمان تکامل یافته است. او از جنگهای تن به تن در دوران باستان تا جنگهای فراگیر مدرن با استفاده از سلاحهای کشتار جمعی را شرح داده. او همچنین به بررسی تحولات تاکتیکها، استراتژیها و نقش فناوری در جنگ پرداخته.
این کتاب پیامدهای گسترده جنگ بر جوامع را شرح می دهد . مکمیلان نشان میدهد که چگونه جنگ میتواند هویت، ارزشها، نهادها و ساختارهای قدرت یک جامعه را دگرگون کند. او همچنین به بررسی چگونگی تداوم میراث جنگ نسلها پس از پایان درگیریها میپردازد. مکمیلان نقش زنان را در جنگ، هم به عنوان قربانی و هم به عنوان عامل، به تصویر میکشد. او از نقش زنان در خط مقدم، در پشت جبهه و به عنوان امدادگران ، پرستاران و یا کارگران ساخت مهمات جنگی می گوید.
به طور خلاصه، مکمیلان معتقد است که جنگها ما را به روشهای مختلفی تغییر میدهند، از جمله جنگها میتوانند هویت جمعی یک جامعه را به شدت تحت تأثیر قرار دهند و ارزشها و باورهای آن را دگرگون کنند. تجربه خشونت، آوارگی و فقدان میتواند منجر به احساس ترس، خشم و بیاعتمادی شود. جنگ همچنین میتواند باعث شود که مردم به ملیگرایی، میهنپرستی یا افراطگرایی روی بیاورند. جنگها ساختارهای قدرت را در جوامع تغییر می دهند و به ظهور رژیمهای جدید یا رهبران قدرتمند کمک می کنند. جنگ همچنین میتواند منجر به نابرابری بیشتر اقتصادی و اجتماعی شود.
جنگها نقشهای سنتی زنان و مردان در جامعه را به چالش می کشند وهمزمان با افزایش خشونت علیه زنان و سوء استفاده از آنها می توانند فرصتهای جدیدی برای زنان ایجاد کنند. تجربیات خشونت و درگیری در جنگ میتوانند نسلها پس از پایان جنگها نیز ادامه داشته باشند. این تروما میتواند منجر به مشکلات سلامت روان، خشونت خانگی و سایر مسائل اجتماعی شود.
مکمیلان در کتاب خود به بررسی نمونههای متعددی از تاریخ پرداخته تا استدلالهای خود را در مورد تأثیرات جنگ بر جوامع و افراد نشان دهد. او معتقد است که درک عمیقتر از تأثیرات جنگ بر بشریت برای جلوگیری از وقوع جنگهای آینده و کاهش پیامدهای ویرانگر آنها بر جوامع و افراد ضروری است.
کتاب حجیم او در برخی قسمت ها فاقد انسجام و هدف مشخص به نظر می رسد . نویسنده در تلاش برای ارائه تصویری جامع از جنگ، مجبور به بررسی موضوعات مختلفی می شود که ممکن است گاهی به نظر خواننده بیربط با موضوع اصلی باشند . مکمیلان به جای تمرکز بر یک جنبه خاص از جنگ، تلاش می کند تا تمامی ابعاد آن را بررسی کند . این رویکرد جامع، در حالی که به درک عمیقتر خواننده کمک میکند ، ممکن است کتاب را فاقد انسجام و هدف مشخص نشان دهد.
September 6, 2020
This is an interesting look at mankind's history of warfare and how it shapes our societies. MacMillan covers a wide variety of topics from our reasons to the way it has been conducted; from the role of warriors in society to they way they fought to civilians and other non-combatants; from the role of government to the attempts to ban war. This is not a light history, although it seldom dives deep into any particular war or battle. Nor does it seem biased one way or the other; while MacMillan rightly abhors war, she seems to take a middle road in acknowledging that war is a complex subject and that judgments are fraught with personal perspectives.
"We should be careful about condescending to those who lived in the past. The dead had ideas and beliefs just as we do. We may not agree with them, but we should respect them. Those who went off to the First World War did think they were fighting for something worthwhile, more usually their loved ones than abstractions such as democracy or empire."
MacMillan largely avoids the simplistic trap of blaming all wars (at least older ones) on religion. Instead, she acknowledges that the causes and justifications for war are complex and rarely straight-forward. She does, however, highlight the rise in nationalism and the Industrial Revolution as making wars more destructive - at least in total numbers and the number of nations involved, if not always percentages of total population.
To be completely honest, my enthusiasm for this book quickly evaporated after I started, and reading it became an unpleasant chore - I constantly looked for anything else to read. And I'm not sure why that was so, but what little reading I did was sporadic and only a few pages at a time. Probably it was because the chapters and paragraphs are lengthy to extremes, with little structure beyond the chapter heading. Also, it seemed to mention battles only as anecdotes, jumping from one historical example to another at the change of each sentence, the overall topic meandering as the pages pass. But when I committed myself to finishing it a few days ago - often reading entire chapters at a time (which sometimes took an hour) - suddenly what had seemed chaotic and unorganized began to gel together and make complete sense. More than that, even: it became a pleasure to read.
If you're looking for a deep look at war as a general topic, I highly recommend this book. (I rec'd an advance electronic copy of this book from NetGalley.)
"We should be careful about condescending to those who lived in the past. The dead had ideas and beliefs just as we do. We may not agree with them, but we should respect them. Those who went off to the First World War did think they were fighting for something worthwhile, more usually their loved ones than abstractions such as democracy or empire."
MacMillan largely avoids the simplistic trap of blaming all wars (at least older ones) on religion. Instead, she acknowledges that the causes and justifications for war are complex and rarely straight-forward. She does, however, highlight the rise in nationalism and the Industrial Revolution as making wars more destructive - at least in total numbers and the number of nations involved, if not always percentages of total population.
To be completely honest, my enthusiasm for this book quickly evaporated after I started, and reading it became an unpleasant chore - I constantly looked for anything else to read. And I'm not sure why that was so, but what little reading I did was sporadic and only a few pages at a time. Probably it was because the chapters and paragraphs are lengthy to extremes, with little structure beyond the chapter heading. Also, it seemed to mention battles only as anecdotes, jumping from one historical example to another at the change of each sentence, the overall topic meandering as the pages pass. But when I committed myself to finishing it a few days ago - often reading entire chapters at a time (which sometimes took an hour) - suddenly what had seemed chaotic and unorganized began to gel together and make complete sense. More than that, even: it became a pleasure to read.
If you're looking for a deep look at war as a general topic, I highly recommend this book. (I rec'd an advance electronic copy of this book from NetGalley.)
January 10, 2021
This book reads more like a series of descriptions than any kind of argument. It raises questions, and suggests few if any answers. MacMillan’s writing often mentions incidents from many different wars in the same paragraph, as many observers give their views. But sometimes asking a good question is more helpful that giving an answer. After all the times and places where people have felt confident that war was a thing of the past, as humanity had evolved beyond resorting to killing contests, why has the practice and the appeal of war returned with renewed force? What about that do we need to understand, as we face a future of designing ever-more automated “defense systems”?
August 19, 2020
I love this book. I can't wait to buy a physical copy to put on my shelf. I've always been fascinated by the sociological factors behind wars, and this book gives a well-rounded picture of the positives and negatives of war, as well as the human desire to begin wars as a means of defending honour, territorial expansion, or other causes. This is the kind of thoughtful book that makes you stop in the middle of a paragraph and consider what the author has just said. It made me look at things from a new angle.
This book shows how the many different levels of society from the civilians, to the members of the military to the upper levels of the government are involved in wars and how there are often technological developments as a result of conflict. I enjoyed the writing, as it was scholarly but not overly so and could be enjoyed by the layperson. This book has a nice tone. You feel as if you are learning from it, but it is not stuffy and boring.
I'd recommend this to anyone interested in conflict and how it changes the world we live in.
This review is based on a complimentary copy from the publisher, provided through NetGalley. All opinions are my own.
This book shows how the many different levels of society from the civilians, to the members of the military to the upper levels of the government are involved in wars and how there are often technological developments as a result of conflict. I enjoyed the writing, as it was scholarly but not overly so and could be enjoyed by the layperson. This book has a nice tone. You feel as if you are learning from it, but it is not stuffy and boring.
I'd recommend this to anyone interested in conflict and how it changes the world we live in.
This review is based on a complimentary copy from the publisher, provided through NetGalley. All opinions are my own.
February 24, 2021
War: How Conflict Shaped Us, by Margaret MacMillan, is an interesting book outlining how war has shaped modern human systems, including its politics, economies, social relations, and so forth. Many of the ideals, systems and politics we face everyday have been the result of warfare. In Canada, where I live, our income tax, working week, political structures and systems, and so forth, have all been heavily shaped by our experiences mobilizing for the World Wars of the 20th century. This is common is most societies across the world, whether it be older conflicts (like our 20th century wars, almost 100 years old at this point) or newer conflicts or cold conflicts (think Chinese preparedness RE: Taiwan, or Iran developing nuclear weapons, etc.). Our societies today are the product of a long history of mobilization for warfare, followed by a slow implementation of greater rights for a nations citizens or subjects, and a continuation from there. Welfare, voting rights and the like have all been implemented largely as a way to placate soldiers returning from war - those who have given much of themselves, up to and including there lives, for their state.
This was a fascinating book that examines a large amount of what war has meant in society. It is largely a refutation of Steven Pinker's the Better Angels theory, where human society is getting more peaceful. By the numbers, more people died in the 20th century from warfare then in any other century, and long periods of peace, such as the Concert of Europe era, have existed in human societies in the past. Human's have developed better systems of morals and ethics, to be sure. We abhor violence, warfare is no longer entirely acceptable as a form of international diplomacy, and so forth. While these statements are in no way universal, the 21st Century is looking bright so far, but even still, warfare exists. Iraq and Afghanistan were both terrible wars at the beginning of this century that have killed untold thousands. Violence continues daily in Yemen, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Syria. Cold conflicts, like the Korean War, the Ukraine-Russian War, and civil conflicts in Sudan, South Sudan, Libya and between India-Pakistan, or India-China, China-Taiwan or the like, could become hot at any point. And with the prevalence of modern weaponry, nuclear arms and weapons of mass destruction in most states, warfare will have a horrid cost on the civilian population. I agree with MacMillan here - the 21st century is not over, and human violence, although better understood, is still present within all of our systems and societies.
This was a fascinating read, concise, quick and interesting. It is a broad strokes overview, providing information that may be well known to most students of history or politics. Even so, it is an excellent read to brush up on the topic, and an interesting, if rather straightforward, theory about wars influence on human systems and societies. Definitely worth a read.
This was a fascinating book that examines a large amount of what war has meant in society. It is largely a refutation of Steven Pinker's the Better Angels theory, where human society is getting more peaceful. By the numbers, more people died in the 20th century from warfare then in any other century, and long periods of peace, such as the Concert of Europe era, have existed in human societies in the past. Human's have developed better systems of morals and ethics, to be sure. We abhor violence, warfare is no longer entirely acceptable as a form of international diplomacy, and so forth. While these statements are in no way universal, the 21st Century is looking bright so far, but even still, warfare exists. Iraq and Afghanistan were both terrible wars at the beginning of this century that have killed untold thousands. Violence continues daily in Yemen, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Syria. Cold conflicts, like the Korean War, the Ukraine-Russian War, and civil conflicts in Sudan, South Sudan, Libya and between India-Pakistan, or India-China, China-Taiwan or the like, could become hot at any point. And with the prevalence of modern weaponry, nuclear arms and weapons of mass destruction in most states, warfare will have a horrid cost on the civilian population. I agree with MacMillan here - the 21st century is not over, and human violence, although better understood, is still present within all of our systems and societies.
This was a fascinating read, concise, quick and interesting. It is a broad strokes overview, providing information that may be well known to most students of history or politics. Even so, it is an excellent read to brush up on the topic, and an interesting, if rather straightforward, theory about wars influence on human systems and societies. Definitely worth a read.
January 15, 2021
A very different book than her “Paris 1919” which I gave five stars to. I rate this 3.5
This book is a result of MacMillan being invited to give the Reith Lectures for the BBC. Perhaps as a result of coming from a series of lectures, it seems to lack a real central narrative and to wander around among certain themes.
MacMillan looks at the ways in which war has influenced human society and sees war and progress as linked. For all the horrors and negative outcomes, war is also a driver of change.
Her discussion of WHY wars start was very good - the complexities, causes versus the reasons often given. Her historical anecdotes can be thoughtful, insightful and chilling. Pancho Villa: “What is the difference between civilized war and any other kind of war. A French commando leader during theAlgerian war for independence told his men: “You are allowed to rape, but do it discreetly.”
The chapters on war and civilians and War in Imagination and Memory were both very good. But I can’t see the NY Times picking this as one of the 10 Best of 2020.
And now for a gripe- MacMillan retells an old canard that has been well refuted. “Joe Rosenthal photograph Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima (which was posed sometime after a smaller flag had been raised)”. Rosenthal, after he sent pictures to states, was told that his picture was on front pages of newspapers. He had, after the flag raising posed a group photo that included the flag raisers. He thought that was the best shot he had taken, and said something about how he posed it. Once he found out which picture it was, he explained the statement, identified which picture he had thought they had usd. The flag raising was NOT staged, it was also filmed. For MacMillann to repeat a 75 year old canard was disappointing.
This book is a result of MacMillan being invited to give the Reith Lectures for the BBC. Perhaps as a result of coming from a series of lectures, it seems to lack a real central narrative and to wander around among certain themes.
MacMillan looks at the ways in which war has influenced human society and sees war and progress as linked. For all the horrors and negative outcomes, war is also a driver of change.
Her discussion of WHY wars start was very good - the complexities, causes versus the reasons often given. Her historical anecdotes can be thoughtful, insightful and chilling. Pancho Villa: “What is the difference between civilized war and any other kind of war. A French commando leader during theAlgerian war for independence told his men: “You are allowed to rape, but do it discreetly.”
The chapters on war and civilians and War in Imagination and Memory were both very good. But I can’t see the NY Times picking this as one of the 10 Best of 2020.
And now for a gripe- MacMillan retells an old canard that has been well refuted. “Joe Rosenthal photograph Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima (which was posed sometime after a smaller flag had been raised)”. Rosenthal, after he sent pictures to states, was told that his picture was on front pages of newspapers. He had, after the flag raising posed a group photo that included the flag raisers. He thought that was the best shot he had taken, and said something about how he posed it. Once he found out which picture it was, he explained the statement, identified which picture he had thought they had usd. The flag raising was NOT staged, it was also filmed. For MacMillann to repeat a 75 year old canard was disappointing.
November 8, 2020
Slow and meandering. The author follows their own meandering path through history pointing out talking points slow the way. It felt like a slow and boring guided walk through a museum. If you are into that, this may be a good book. But if you want a point and a supporting argument, the author fails.
August 28, 2023
تتناول المؤرخة الكندية مارجريت ماكميلان تاريخ الحرب وتأثيرها على المجتمعات البشرية.
ترى ماكميلان بأن الحرب كانت ولا تزال جزءًا لا يتجزأ من تاريخ البشرية وأنها مسؤولة عن تشكيل العديد من جوانب حياتنا، بما في ذلك التكنولوجيا والسياسة.
يتألف الكتاب من ثلاثة أجزاء. في الجزء الأول، تناقش المؤلفة كيف نشأت الحرب وكيف تطورت عبر التاريخ. وتناقش المؤلفة بأن الحرب ليست مجرد نزاع بين الأفراد أو الدول، ولكنها أيضًا صراع بين الأفكار والمعتقدات.
في الجزء الثاني، تناقش المؤلفة تأثير الحرب على المجتمع. وتقدم أمثلة بأن الحرب يمكن أن تؤدي إلى تغيرات اجتماعية واقتصادية عميقة، ويمكن أن تؤدي أيضًا إلى ظهور أفكار جديدة وقيم جديدة.
في الجزء الثالث، تتناول ماكميلان الحرب في العالم الحديث. تناقش المؤلفة بأن الحرب لا تزال تشكل تحديًا كبيرًا للإنسانية، وأنه من المهم أن نفهم تاريخ الحرب وتأثيرها حتى نتمكن من إيجاد طرق لمنع نشوبها في المستقبل.
يقدم كتاب ماكميلان تحليلًا شاملًا وغنيًا بالمعلومات للحرب وتأثيرها على البشرية.
ترى ماكميلان بأن الحرب كانت ولا تزال جزءًا لا يتجزأ من تاريخ البشرية وأنها مسؤولة عن تشكيل العديد من جوانب حياتنا، بما في ذلك التكنولوجيا والسياسة.
يتألف الكتاب من ثلاثة أجزاء. في الجزء الأول، تناقش المؤلفة كيف نشأت الحرب وكيف تطورت عبر التاريخ. وتناقش المؤلفة بأن الحرب ليست مجرد نزاع بين الأفراد أو الدول، ولكنها أيضًا صراع بين الأفكار والمعتقدات.
في الجزء الثاني، تناقش المؤلفة تأثير الحرب على المجتمع. وتقدم أمثلة بأن الحرب يمكن أن تؤدي إلى تغيرات اجتماعية واقتصادية عميقة، ويمكن أن تؤدي أيضًا إلى ظهور أفكار جديدة وقيم جديدة.
في الجزء الثالث، تتناول ماكميلان الحرب في العالم الحديث. تناقش المؤلفة بأن الحرب لا تزال تشكل تحديًا كبيرًا للإنسانية، وأنه من المهم أن نفهم تاريخ الحرب وتأثيرها حتى نتمكن من إيجاد طرق لمنع نشوبها في المستقبل.
يقدم كتاب ماكميلان تحليلًا شاملًا وغنيًا بالمعلومات للحرب وتأثيرها على البشرية.
February 9, 2021
This was an interesting kaleidoscopic view of war, how it shapes us, how it influences society, and how we interpret collectivized violence. Sometimes it felt a bit staccato, like I was just being hammered by volley after volley of facts and anecdotes without a coherent structure or narrative arc, but it's a non-fiction book so that seems like a fair expectation. I wouldn't say it was particularly revelatory, but interesting nonetheless.
July 18, 2021
Sad to say I wasn't a fan of this one. Series of short chapters on various aspects of war - e.g. art inspired by it, justifications for it, the development of technology. But there is little new here. I could see this as a series of introductory readings on a topic. Not for me, but MacMillan is so capable a writer that it is easy to imagine someone getting a lot of this.
December 30, 2020
I like Margaret MacMillan. She and Barbara Tuchman are my two favorite ladies who write about war and its wide-reaching impact on societies and the shape of history. I preferred her "Paris: 1919" to this one, primarily because that book was more focused and this one was a very broad survey. I feel as if I already knew or could intuit most of what was covered in this book. There were interesting tidbits about war art and artists, and I enjoyed her writing.
I thought the chapter about women in war was well done; so many historians seem to want to remake the past in the image of a glorious not-yet-realized future, but MacMillan is eminently practical. She acknowledges the vital role women played in the total wars of the 20th century, highlights some historical instances where individual women or the women of larger cultures participated actively in combat, and points out interesting examples of both pro- and anti-war movements spearheaded by women's groups. However, she does not shy away from plainly saying that overwhelmingly war has been the business of men; I respect a historian that does not frame an exception as a rule.
The most thought-provoking part of this book, to me, was her opening discussion about the nature of thinking about war. I studied a lot of diplomatic history at school, which is a polite way of saying that I studied war, the interludes between, and the efforts to forestall the next one. It never occurred to me that the discipline was referred to as such because academics might have been embarrassed to say that they taught "war history" on their CV. MacMillan is very familiar with the academic circles she discusses, and I found this to be a very eye-opening concept. Her premise is that many people are too prim to study war for the reason that they fear it makes them look like they approve of it or like they are aiding in the planning of future conflict. I wouldn't really believe that to be true if I didn't see shades of that mentality permeating quite a few different historical disciplines. One feels uncomfortably like an ostrich if she's right.
All in all, this was an enjoyable survey that sweeps across centuries of wars with lucidity and a sure touch.
I thought the chapter about women in war was well done; so many historians seem to want to remake the past in the image of a glorious not-yet-realized future, but MacMillan is eminently practical. She acknowledges the vital role women played in the total wars of the 20th century, highlights some historical instances where individual women or the women of larger cultures participated actively in combat, and points out interesting examples of both pro- and anti-war movements spearheaded by women's groups. However, she does not shy away from plainly saying that overwhelmingly war has been the business of men; I respect a historian that does not frame an exception as a rule.
The most thought-provoking part of this book, to me, was her opening discussion about the nature of thinking about war. I studied a lot of diplomatic history at school, which is a polite way of saying that I studied war, the interludes between, and the efforts to forestall the next one. It never occurred to me that the discipline was referred to as such because academics might have been embarrassed to say that they taught "war history" on their CV. MacMillan is very familiar with the academic circles she discusses, and I found this to be a very eye-opening concept. Her premise is that many people are too prim to study war for the reason that they fear it makes them look like they approve of it or like they are aiding in the planning of future conflict. I wouldn't really believe that to be true if I didn't see shades of that mentality permeating quite a few different historical disciplines. One feels uncomfortably like an ostrich if she's right.
All in all, this was an enjoyable survey that sweeps across centuries of wars with lucidity and a sure touch.
December 30, 2020
Excellent book about human war history and how it is part of human culture. It deals on why war happens, how war changes over time, weapons development and when weapons. Women roles in war, how war is depicted in art and art affected by war. How it is recorded in writing and verbally. I thought this was a great book.
December 30, 2021
Should be required reading for every voting adult. A well written series of lectures that presents the "Why" human beings love war.
November 26, 2025
Margaret MacMillan’s The War That Ended Peace is very probably my third-favourite piece of nonfiction that I have read as an adult, and not terribly far down the list of just favourite books in general. So when I found out she had another relatively recent mass-audience book out, I put in a hold on it basically sight-unseen. That was unfortunately something of a mistake – it’s not a bad book? But there’s absolutely nothing about it really vital, and for a book with such lofty ambitions I came out of it having barely learned a single thing at all.
Adapted from a lecture series MacMillan gave in the mid/late-2010s, the book’s title is more or less accurate. Which also gets across very well just how broad and difficult the subject is; not a war or a type of wars, but just war, the general phenomenon. Each chapter is a largely stand-alone essay, clearly adapted from a different lecture and focused on a different facet of war or how it affects and is affected by the rest of human enterprise going on around it. Massively and fundamentally in both directions, is more or less the book’s thesis – that insofar as a unified ‘human nature’ exists, we’re somewhere between bonobo and chimp, and have been feuding and killing each other in groups over causes grand and small since basically the moment you can separate humanity out from its surroundings.
My biggest problem with the book is, I suppose, that I am too much of a nerd to be in its target audience. I agreed with the broad thrust of each essay, but problematically I already agreed with them, or when I didn’t then they were articulating a perspective I had very much already heard before. There are, I’m sure, people for whom it contains revelatory insights. The messy link between the demands of total war and the development of (more or less, for their state-bearing peoples) inclusive and participatory states in the 20th century is an interesting topic! So is how war-making has been a foundational part of masculinity in ~every historical culture to leave us descriptions of itself in its own words but a large majority of men require quite a lot of training and conditioning to actually be any good at it (and, given the same conditioning, quite a lot of women prove just as capable of discipline and bloodlust)! But the book introduces these ideas, rolls them back and forth as it ruminates, and then just stops and moves on. I was mostly left going ‘okay, and?’.
If the actual content of the essays is nothing new, they are at least filled with all manner of really charming (or else haunting) and colourful anecdotes. The eye for really evocative or entertaining examples is one of MacMillan’s best qualities as a writer, and she has such a variety of them that I’m sure she’s a delight to hear speak publicly and pull some extemporaneously. That said, you can absolutely tell from which of the anecdotes you have read in a dozen other places and which are entirely novel where her focus and expertise lies. Which is rather unfortunate, because what is ostensibly a book about War writ large in fact ends up reading mostly like a book about Europe and America from the French Revolution (from the latter 19th century, if we’re being honest) through a bit after World War Two. Combined with the tone and slant of most of the examples, you get a somewhat awkwardly precise idea of MacMillan’s exact politics, too.
As said, not a bad book. Really very readable when I was getting back into the habit after a bit of a slump. But it suffers incredibly from the ‘this is basically just posting’ disease a great deal of pop-nonfiction does – it may be the inevitable result of being repackaged from a lecture series? But this sort of limited-but-pretending-at-generality essays about some huge facet of human existence just feel more at home on tumblr or reddit than they do bound into a whole book. Or I suppose another way to put it is that I’m just too advanced a pseudo-intellectual to really get much out of this, and none of its theses are contrarian or crankish enough to be entertaining reading for the sake of it. For people who aren’t me and haven’t marinated their brain in the same solution of different social science thinkers, it might be more rewarding, though.
Adapted from a lecture series MacMillan gave in the mid/late-2010s, the book’s title is more or less accurate. Which also gets across very well just how broad and difficult the subject is; not a war or a type of wars, but just war, the general phenomenon. Each chapter is a largely stand-alone essay, clearly adapted from a different lecture and focused on a different facet of war or how it affects and is affected by the rest of human enterprise going on around it. Massively and fundamentally in both directions, is more or less the book’s thesis – that insofar as a unified ‘human nature’ exists, we’re somewhere between bonobo and chimp, and have been feuding and killing each other in groups over causes grand and small since basically the moment you can separate humanity out from its surroundings.
My biggest problem with the book is, I suppose, that I am too much of a nerd to be in its target audience. I agreed with the broad thrust of each essay, but problematically I already agreed with them, or when I didn’t then they were articulating a perspective I had very much already heard before. There are, I’m sure, people for whom it contains revelatory insights. The messy link between the demands of total war and the development of (more or less, for their state-bearing peoples) inclusive and participatory states in the 20th century is an interesting topic! So is how war-making has been a foundational part of masculinity in ~every historical culture to leave us descriptions of itself in its own words but a large majority of men require quite a lot of training and conditioning to actually be any good at it (and, given the same conditioning, quite a lot of women prove just as capable of discipline and bloodlust)! But the book introduces these ideas, rolls them back and forth as it ruminates, and then just stops and moves on. I was mostly left going ‘okay, and?’.
If the actual content of the essays is nothing new, they are at least filled with all manner of really charming (or else haunting) and colourful anecdotes. The eye for really evocative or entertaining examples is one of MacMillan’s best qualities as a writer, and she has such a variety of them that I’m sure she’s a delight to hear speak publicly and pull some extemporaneously. That said, you can absolutely tell from which of the anecdotes you have read in a dozen other places and which are entirely novel where her focus and expertise lies. Which is rather unfortunate, because what is ostensibly a book about War writ large in fact ends up reading mostly like a book about Europe and America from the French Revolution (from the latter 19th century, if we’re being honest) through a bit after World War Two. Combined with the tone and slant of most of the examples, you get a somewhat awkwardly precise idea of MacMillan’s exact politics, too.
As said, not a bad book. Really very readable when I was getting back into the habit after a bit of a slump. But it suffers incredibly from the ‘this is basically just posting’ disease a great deal of pop-nonfiction does – it may be the inevitable result of being repackaged from a lecture series? But this sort of limited-but-pretending-at-generality essays about some huge facet of human existence just feel more at home on tumblr or reddit than they do bound into a whole book. Or I suppose another way to put it is that I’m just too advanced a pseudo-intellectual to really get much out of this, and none of its theses are contrarian or crankish enough to be entertaining reading for the sake of it. For people who aren’t me and haven’t marinated their brain in the same solution of different social science thinkers, it might be more rewarding, though.
January 15, 2023
first book of the year. i was left rather cold by the earlier chapters - which deal with the impacts of war on society (and vice versa) and the proximal and distal causes of war. owing, i suppose, to the manifold nature of each of these subjects the writing seemed to flit about somewhat without ever delving into interesting depths.
but where macmillan begins to write about the human side of war, the book flourishes. the chapters on the experience of battle and the experience of war from the civilian's point of view are especially engaging, and select from a delightfully varied set of accounts. macmillan is also especially successful in probing the ways we talk about war and the assumptions that lie behind our warlike discourse, that then bleed into society. (for example, she identifies war as a large factor behind the valorisation of traditional masculine values like foolhardy perseverance and brutality when it is necessary... and makes the good point that if these manly virtues were as ingrained in the male genome as traditionally held, people like the Spartans would scarcely have to put as much effort as they had to into _inculcating_ these values into its boys. that we persist nonetheless in constructing a war-impressed image of maleness says much about how little, perhaps, gender roles have really shifted in most societies)
macmillan is a fine guide of the art, music, and writings surrounding war too. tying all her knots up and speaking about rememberance, she closes with a poem by wislawa szymborska i like very much.
"Those who knew / what was going on here / must make way for / those who know little. / And less than little. / And finally as little as nothing.
In the grass that has overgrown / causes and effects, / someone must be stretched out / blade of grass in his mouth / gazing at the clouds."
but where macmillan begins to write about the human side of war, the book flourishes. the chapters on the experience of battle and the experience of war from the civilian's point of view are especially engaging, and select from a delightfully varied set of accounts. macmillan is also especially successful in probing the ways we talk about war and the assumptions that lie behind our warlike discourse, that then bleed into society. (for example, she identifies war as a large factor behind the valorisation of traditional masculine values like foolhardy perseverance and brutality when it is necessary... and makes the good point that if these manly virtues were as ingrained in the male genome as traditionally held, people like the Spartans would scarcely have to put as much effort as they had to into _inculcating_ these values into its boys. that we persist nonetheless in constructing a war-impressed image of maleness says much about how little, perhaps, gender roles have really shifted in most societies)
macmillan is a fine guide of the art, music, and writings surrounding war too. tying all her knots up and speaking about rememberance, she closes with a poem by wislawa szymborska i like very much.
"Those who knew / what was going on here / must make way for / those who know little. / And less than little. / And finally as little as nothing.
In the grass that has overgrown / causes and effects, / someone must be stretched out / blade of grass in his mouth / gazing at the clouds."
July 10, 2024
I'm struggling a bit with my thoughts about this book. On the one hand, did I enjoy it? Yes, I did. On the other, did I really get much out of it? I'm not sure.
I saw this was coming out when I made my last order of books. I was already getting one book by Margaret MacMillan so I didn't want to commit myself to two. But I also thought, aren't there already other books that cover this topic? I could probably name a handful just off the top of my head. Not identical books, but similar. But, lucky for me, we got this as an ebook at work so I gave it a go.
There was a reviewer on Amazon who said something like this is just a book of examples. And yeah, that's kind of my own issue with it. MacMillan breaks the book up into nine thematic chapters and then loads them up with short examples and anecdotes on different topics within the given theme. Does she present any new ideas or arguments with this book? I didn't think so.
Like I said at the beginning of my review, this is an enjoyable and interesting read. In looking generally at warfare, MacMillan draws from many different sources and time periods. Her writing is clear and concise; this was a breeze to read. And are the examples she chose interesting and appropriate? Absolutely. I highlighted lots of them as I read.
But the question she's asking with this book is: why should we study war, or continue to study war? MacMillan was off to a good start with the introduction, but then it starts to slip away when it's just example after example - and I don't think it all necessarily related directly back to her question. But she is able to show what came from war - developments in art, writing, technology; societal changes and changes in government; medical advancements, and much more. I think I just would've liked to hear more from MacMillan than reading through all those examples.
If you've never thought critically about the study of warfare or the history of war, this could be a good starting point. And if you have, it's still an enjoyable book. I don't think much of what is presented here is new, but it's fine to give a read through.
I saw this was coming out when I made my last order of books. I was already getting one book by Margaret MacMillan so I didn't want to commit myself to two. But I also thought, aren't there already other books that cover this topic? I could probably name a handful just off the top of my head. Not identical books, but similar. But, lucky for me, we got this as an ebook at work so I gave it a go.
There was a reviewer on Amazon who said something like this is just a book of examples. And yeah, that's kind of my own issue with it. MacMillan breaks the book up into nine thematic chapters and then loads them up with short examples and anecdotes on different topics within the given theme. Does she present any new ideas or arguments with this book? I didn't think so.
Like I said at the beginning of my review, this is an enjoyable and interesting read. In looking generally at warfare, MacMillan draws from many different sources and time periods. Her writing is clear and concise; this was a breeze to read. And are the examples she chose interesting and appropriate? Absolutely. I highlighted lots of them as I read.
But the question she's asking with this book is: why should we study war, or continue to study war? MacMillan was off to a good start with the introduction, but then it starts to slip away when it's just example after example - and I don't think it all necessarily related directly back to her question. But she is able to show what came from war - developments in art, writing, technology; societal changes and changes in government; medical advancements, and much more. I think I just would've liked to hear more from MacMillan than reading through all those examples.
If you've never thought critically about the study of warfare or the history of war, this could be a good starting point. And if you have, it's still an enjoyable book. I don't think much of what is presented here is new, but it's fine to give a read through.
September 23, 2024
Відчуття, ніби ще раз пробіглась шкільною програмою з всесвітньої історії, але на цей раз з користю)
Це не депресивний наукпоп. Для мене він виявився навіть дещо терапевтичним. Принаймні в страшних подіях, що відбуваються в Україні я тепер бачу не Апокаліпсис, а частини стратегій, які були успішними в тій чи іншій війні. Це звільняє ментальний ресурс і увага зосереджується більше на собі і на тому, де можливий мій вплив для пришвидшення перемоги
Перевага книжки ще й в частих згадках про роль жінок на війні. Цього не вистачає в багатьох подібних книжках від авторів чоловіків
Проте не можу поставити цій книжці високу оцінку. Авторка, яка ніби так добре розбирається в темі війни, на момент виходу книжки (2020) не бачила серйозної загрози для Європи в діях росії. Не було згадок про окупації в Україні, Грузії, Чечні...
(в передмові вона визнає цю помилку)
В цілому можу радити книжку для того, щоб краще розуміти, що коїться зараз
Це не депресивний наукпоп. Для мене він виявився навіть дещо терапевтичним. Принаймні в страшних подіях, що відбуваються в Україні я тепер бачу не Апокаліпсис, а частини стратегій, які були успішними в тій чи іншій війні. Це звільняє ментальний ресурс і увага зосереджується більше на собі і на тому, де можливий мій вплив для пришвидшення перемоги
Перевага книжки ще й в частих згадках про роль жінок на війні. Цього не вистачає в багатьох подібних книжках від авторів чоловіків
Проте не можу поставити цій книжці високу оцінку. Авторка, яка ніби так добре розбирається в темі війни, на момент виходу книжки (2020) не бачила серйозної загрози для Європи в діях росії. Не було згадок про окупації в Україні, Грузії, Чечні...
(в передмові вона визнає цю помилку)
В цілому можу радити книжку для того, щоб краще розуміти, що коїться зараз
Read
December 4, 2020This book is a survey of the effects of war on human society. It asserts, uncontroversially, that war has shaped the development of political rights, technology, and art, among other things. The problem is that such an assertion is not an argument---it's a basic statement of fact. Accordingly, the book fails to advance an original thesis. That isn't to say that the book is unenjoyable. MacMillan is capable of summoning a huge range of illustrative anecdotes, passages, and statistics to engage the reader over the course of the book's nine topical chapters. However, these illustrations are evidence in search of an argument, one which the author never really makes.
December 7, 2020
Series of common facts. History of war for teenagers or adult sleepwalkers.
February 4, 2021
Few real insights. Mostly just a long list of war things.
September 2, 2020
I was very pleased when those nice people at Netgalley and Random House made an electronic copy of this book available to me for free because I had previously read and enjoyed the author's fascinating Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World.
I didn't enjoy this book quite as much as Paris 1919, but that's mostly because I prefer histories about events rather than histories about ideas. However, the two books shared many excellent qualities: they were both good reads with lots of interesting anecdotes and a wide breadth of learning, and the author has a great gift for clear expression.
The book caused me to think some thoughts. If some of my thoughts imply a criticism of the author, please be assured that I know the author is a scholar of great reputation and impressive learning. I'm sure she could, using only the force of intellect, pound me into the ground like a nail.
– thesis statement. Location 30: “I hope to persuade you of one thing, however. War is not an aberration, best forgotten as quickly as possible.” Although I am not a published author myself, I have tried to teach young people how to write, and we have wrestled with the thesis statement, which is always problematic. In this case, it is a negative statement that means… what? War is not an aberration, then it must be …. what? War is normal? A normal state of events? There is always war? It's a big world, and there's always war somewhere, I guess, but there's not war everywhere at all times, literally, although God knows it sometimes feels that way. If war is not an aberration, then, maybe, it's a normal state of affairs, and does that mean … for example … that attempts to eliminate or at least lessen war are doomed to failure? I think that some attempts to delay and/or lessen war have actually been successful, at least partially.
After thinking and reading some more, I think what the author means that the forces of political correctness on university campuses these day are treating war as something shameful and worthy only of the dustbin of history, shunning those who study it as hopelessly old-fashioned. Perhaps the study of military history is not receiving the funding it should as queer theory and gender studies vacuum up the discretionary budget. While it is undeniable that university campuses are often hotbeds of anti-military feeling, there are loads of military educational institutions, both government-backed and not, still in existence today. While the study of war may not have the fashionable cache that it once had, I don't think that the field is likely to lack scholarship any time soon. Maybe even a short period outside the charmed circle of most prestigious topics of study might do the subject of war some good, weeding out the intellectual lightweights and causing the mere attention-seekers to light out to a different area of study.
– This paragraph is about rape. I'm afraid that I will be accused of treating the subject with insufficient seriousness. It is very serious subject. In any event, the reason I bring it up is that there is a part of the book where the author catalogs the many, many occasions where men soldiers and scholars declare women to be unsuitable material for the military life. Some of these people were, in all probability, simply knuckleheads. But others, I felt, may have made knuckleheaded statements advocating the exclusion of women from the military simply because they could not bring themselves to speak clearly about the thing they were really worried about, which was: rape. They may have felt – with some justification – that the introduction of women into the company of some of the men who they had known and perhaps been forced to tolerate in the ranks of the military would simply be disastrous. It doesn't really take more than a very small percentage of horrible individuals in a large population to create an intolerably large amount of morale-sapping cases of violation. To say so plainly might have brought down on the heads of the soldiers or scholars much more approbation than they were ready to bear. Perhaps, instead of being considered hopelessly backward in their outlook, the worst they can be accused of is wanting to have a quiet life, unburdened by excessive controversy.
– Declarations of war. Location 3303: “Since 1945, however, in one of those inexplicable shifts in fashion, declarations of war have fallen completely out of favor.” True: declarations of war have fallen out of favor. False: It is inexplicable. It is, in fact, very explicable. Nothing is easier to see or understand as a naked grab for power. Once executives (here in the US of course, but I think in other countries also) saw that the public opinion could be easily whipped up so any political opponents could be accused of being unpatriotic, the world's war-makers were free to see declarations of war as they see ceremonial swords: at best a useless ornament, at worst a nuisance to doing whatever it is you want to do anyway.
– Grant's Tomb. Location 150: “Grant's tomb is a popular meeting place in New York's Riverside Park.” As one born and raised in New York, I must dispute this. Grant's Tomb is impressive and worth a visit. But it is not a popular meeting place. It is, however, an excellent place for New Yorkers to dispatch pesky visiting relatives for a day trip on their own. It is, as they say there, a schlep.
– The art and literature of war. Location 3660: “The First World War brought great novels and poems in several languages, as well as great paintings and music. It is hard to think of a comparable outpouring from the Second World War. Vasily Grossman's Life and Fate is the great novel, but where are the others?” There are plenty of others. Each will have his or her own favorite: mine is Catch-22.
– World War I in the popular imagination. Location 3945: “The popular view today, and not just among the British, is that those who fought in the First World War were dupes, lured to the battlefields by irresponsible elites ….” The author goes on to accuse people who feel this way of “condescending” to those who fought and often died. This concluding item shares a little in common with the first item in this list, in that the assertion is not really supported by a great number of examples. The only example of this “popular view” cited in the text is the 1989 television series Blackadder Goes Forth. All viewers of this series, I think, knew that the situation was played for (grim) laughs and no one really looked at it as a serious historical critique. As a counter-example, also from British television, the wildly popular and more recent TV series Downton Abbey (whatever your opinion about it generally) portrayed WWI as a serious, complex, and difficult period, with no condescension either toward the common soldier or the officers. Just last year (2019), the World War I drama “1917” opened to great acclaim and many awards. I just don't think the author's representation of public opinion in this case is correct.
After all of this carping, I wish to repeat that I enjoyed this book greatly – disagreeing with it was a pleasure. It made me resolve to go back and try more entries in the author's back-catalog.
I didn't enjoy this book quite as much as Paris 1919, but that's mostly because I prefer histories about events rather than histories about ideas. However, the two books shared many excellent qualities: they were both good reads with lots of interesting anecdotes and a wide breadth of learning, and the author has a great gift for clear expression.
The book caused me to think some thoughts. If some of my thoughts imply a criticism of the author, please be assured that I know the author is a scholar of great reputation and impressive learning. I'm sure she could, using only the force of intellect, pound me into the ground like a nail.
– thesis statement. Location 30: “I hope to persuade you of one thing, however. War is not an aberration, best forgotten as quickly as possible.” Although I am not a published author myself, I have tried to teach young people how to write, and we have wrestled with the thesis statement, which is always problematic. In this case, it is a negative statement that means… what? War is not an aberration, then it must be …. what? War is normal? A normal state of events? There is always war? It's a big world, and there's always war somewhere, I guess, but there's not war everywhere at all times, literally, although God knows it sometimes feels that way. If war is not an aberration, then, maybe, it's a normal state of affairs, and does that mean … for example … that attempts to eliminate or at least lessen war are doomed to failure? I think that some attempts to delay and/or lessen war have actually been successful, at least partially.
After thinking and reading some more, I think what the author means that the forces of political correctness on university campuses these day are treating war as something shameful and worthy only of the dustbin of history, shunning those who study it as hopelessly old-fashioned. Perhaps the study of military history is not receiving the funding it should as queer theory and gender studies vacuum up the discretionary budget. While it is undeniable that university campuses are often hotbeds of anti-military feeling, there are loads of military educational institutions, both government-backed and not, still in existence today. While the study of war may not have the fashionable cache that it once had, I don't think that the field is likely to lack scholarship any time soon. Maybe even a short period outside the charmed circle of most prestigious topics of study might do the subject of war some good, weeding out the intellectual lightweights and causing the mere attention-seekers to light out to a different area of study.
– This paragraph is about rape. I'm afraid that I will be accused of treating the subject with insufficient seriousness. It is very serious subject. In any event, the reason I bring it up is that there is a part of the book where the author catalogs the many, many occasions where men soldiers and scholars declare women to be unsuitable material for the military life. Some of these people were, in all probability, simply knuckleheads. But others, I felt, may have made knuckleheaded statements advocating the exclusion of women from the military simply because they could not bring themselves to speak clearly about the thing they were really worried about, which was: rape. They may have felt – with some justification – that the introduction of women into the company of some of the men who they had known and perhaps been forced to tolerate in the ranks of the military would simply be disastrous. It doesn't really take more than a very small percentage of horrible individuals in a large population to create an intolerably large amount of morale-sapping cases of violation. To say so plainly might have brought down on the heads of the soldiers or scholars much more approbation than they were ready to bear. Perhaps, instead of being considered hopelessly backward in their outlook, the worst they can be accused of is wanting to have a quiet life, unburdened by excessive controversy.
– Declarations of war. Location 3303: “Since 1945, however, in one of those inexplicable shifts in fashion, declarations of war have fallen completely out of favor.” True: declarations of war have fallen out of favor. False: It is inexplicable. It is, in fact, very explicable. Nothing is easier to see or understand as a naked grab for power. Once executives (here in the US of course, but I think in other countries also) saw that the public opinion could be easily whipped up so any political opponents could be accused of being unpatriotic, the world's war-makers were free to see declarations of war as they see ceremonial swords: at best a useless ornament, at worst a nuisance to doing whatever it is you want to do anyway.
– Grant's Tomb. Location 150: “Grant's tomb is a popular meeting place in New York's Riverside Park.” As one born and raised in New York, I must dispute this. Grant's Tomb is impressive and worth a visit. But it is not a popular meeting place. It is, however, an excellent place for New Yorkers to dispatch pesky visiting relatives for a day trip on their own. It is, as they say there, a schlep.
– The art and literature of war. Location 3660: “The First World War brought great novels and poems in several languages, as well as great paintings and music. It is hard to think of a comparable outpouring from the Second World War. Vasily Grossman's Life and Fate is the great novel, but where are the others?” There are plenty of others. Each will have his or her own favorite: mine is Catch-22.
– World War I in the popular imagination. Location 3945: “The popular view today, and not just among the British, is that those who fought in the First World War were dupes, lured to the battlefields by irresponsible elites ….” The author goes on to accuse people who feel this way of “condescending” to those who fought and often died. This concluding item shares a little in common with the first item in this list, in that the assertion is not really supported by a great number of examples. The only example of this “popular view” cited in the text is the 1989 television series Blackadder Goes Forth. All viewers of this series, I think, knew that the situation was played for (grim) laughs and no one really looked at it as a serious historical critique. As a counter-example, also from British television, the wildly popular and more recent TV series Downton Abbey (whatever your opinion about it generally) portrayed WWI as a serious, complex, and difficult period, with no condescension either toward the common soldier or the officers. Just last year (2019), the World War I drama “1917” opened to great acclaim and many awards. I just don't think the author's representation of public opinion in this case is correct.
After all of this carping, I wish to repeat that I enjoyed this book greatly – disagreeing with it was a pleasure. It made me resolve to go back and try more entries in the author's back-catalog.
March 7, 2022
This is a general overview of war.
1. War is so important, every tribe/city/state must prepare for it or risk annihilation. Yet no one likes to study it.
2. War drives technological breakthroughs. The states with superior technology can win against overwhelming numerical odds (Spaniards in America).
3. War used to be fought by mercenaries. Now it is by citizens. Citizens fight better because they have more to lose. Professional soldiers and drones however diminish the impact of wars.
4. From the world wars the whole state has become involved. War time production is geared towards war supplies. Civilians have unfortunately become targets as the whole nation is considered a war target by enemies.
5. War has liberated women as they realized they can do the same jobs as men. People of color often joined but are seldom mentioned in histories.
6. War is just terrible as normal people must be trained to be able to kill another person. This in general the enemy must be dehumanized.
7. Rape, pillage torture and slave taking used to be considered normal in wars. New rules such as the Convention of Geneva try to change that. However, civilian property is still often treated as potential spoil, even now. Many countries including America still uses torture.
8. War has many dimensions and different soldiers in the frontline have many different experiences. In general, however, many states want to glorify the honor and glory of their wins and downplay their defeats. Many states still can’t come to terms with the atrocities their troops have committed (Japan in Asia).
9. Even now, war is prominent in movies, books and games.
A poignant book for the turbulent time of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
1. War is so important, every tribe/city/state must prepare for it or risk annihilation. Yet no one likes to study it.
2. War drives technological breakthroughs. The states with superior technology can win against overwhelming numerical odds (Spaniards in America).
3. War used to be fought by mercenaries. Now it is by citizens. Citizens fight better because they have more to lose. Professional soldiers and drones however diminish the impact of wars.
4. From the world wars the whole state has become involved. War time production is geared towards war supplies. Civilians have unfortunately become targets as the whole nation is considered a war target by enemies.
5. War has liberated women as they realized they can do the same jobs as men. People of color often joined but are seldom mentioned in histories.
6. War is just terrible as normal people must be trained to be able to kill another person. This in general the enemy must be dehumanized.
7. Rape, pillage torture and slave taking used to be considered normal in wars. New rules such as the Convention of Geneva try to change that. However, civilian property is still often treated as potential spoil, even now. Many countries including America still uses torture.
8. War has many dimensions and different soldiers in the frontline have many different experiences. In general, however, many states want to glorify the honor and glory of their wins and downplay their defeats. Many states still can’t come to terms with the atrocities their troops have committed (Japan in Asia).
9. Even now, war is prominent in movies, books and games.
A poignant book for the turbulent time of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
March 10, 2025
300 stranová obkecávačka, ktorá neprináša na stôl nič nové, ba naopak, občas obsahuje chyby, ktoré ukazujú autorkinu plytkú (alebo skôr divne zameranú?) znalosť témy.
Autorka skáče od jednej témy k druhej a využíva zvláštne prepojenia so Shakespearom a podobné úchylky, ktoré, ak sú pre efekt, tak skôr negatívny.
Ak ste ale nikdy nepočuli o tom, čo je to vojna a dejepisu ZŠ ste sa vyhli oblúkom, kniha môže byť prínosom.
Autorka skáče od jednej témy k druhej a využíva zvláštne prepojenia so Shakespearom a podobné úchylky, ktoré, ak sú pre efekt, tak skôr negatívny.
Ak ste ale nikdy nepočuli o tom, čo je to vojna a dejepisu ZŠ ste sa vyhli oblúkom, kniha môže byť prínosom.
February 16, 2021
As someone who does not know much about military history, I found this book a really good starting point for a general history of war as well as the complexities surrounding our study of it. It asked some thought provoking questions and for those readers seeking more information, the bibliography is very strong.
July 12, 2024
"Схоже, що ми переросли війну" - от і все, книжку можна закривати)))
Насправді, все, що описане в цій книжці 2020 року видання про контроль та врегулювання озброєнь та правил війни остаточно перекреслене 24 лютим 2022 року.
Не актуальне, наївне і викликає лише злість через тотальну безнаказаність.
Не тратьте часу
Насправді, все, що описане в цій книжці 2020 року видання про контроль та врегулювання озброєнь та правил війни остаточно перекреслене 24 лютим 2022 року.
Не актуальне, наївне і викликає лише злість через тотальну безнаказаність.
Не тратьте часу
November 14, 2020
Margaret MacMillan is a great historian. Her book on the 1919 Paris Peace Conference after WW1 is as close to a masterpiece as one can get in a long one volume history. So when I read that she had written a book about war, I paid attention.
But how does one write a single volume book about war? OK, she focuses largely on war in the modern era, but still that seemed like an overly broad domain to survey - one that literally encompasses thousands of conflicts, including some major global ones, 300 wars since 1945, and a number of wars that could have happened but did not. What can be said about all of these without trivializing them all and reducing war to just a word? The breadth of the realm of war was well known to me, but it hit home strongly when I visited Europe in 1914 at the beginning of the WW1 centennials, where I recognized how little I knew about what had happened.
It turns out that Professor MacMillan has a lot to say about war and that this extraordinary book is well worth reading. Her perspective in the book is that war is not an exception to regular social life but rather a fundamental part of it - irrespective of particular long stretches of peace for some nations and populations. War is a regular part of human experience and is an instrument readily available for use by governments and their policy wonks. This follows from the general works of others such as Clausewitz. More than that, beyond the cost and consequences of particular conflicts, the response of society and governments to wars in turn changes how they operate. The requirements of mass mobilization and for logistical capabilities leads to changes in society that enact those capabilities, including innovation, improved infrastructure, investments in research and development, improved communications, and the like. What we call modern society is in part the result of adaptations made in response to past armed conflicts threatening that society. That is her point in the book’s title about how conflicts shape us. Not only that — war changes the culture (taken broadly) of a society in terms of which cultural products are produced, which are read, listened to, or otherwise consumed by the public, and how the memory of conflict develops and is maintained or changed as the active participants in past wars grow old and pass on.
This set of general arguments is developed through a series of chapters that focus on different general aspects of war, including: war aims and causes; the conduct of war; how soldiers are recruited and trained, and deployed; how war is paid for; how modern war (post-Napoleon) differs from past wars; how the experience of combat has changed; and how civilians are affected. There is even a chapter reviewing the history of efforts to control wars - and how those efforts worked out (spoiler not well).
In addition to the rich arguments, MacMillan’s book also can be seen as an extraordinary literature review and update, such that if a reader wants to learn more about a topic. The book’s argument is worthwhile on its own terms. It adds further value but allowing readers to combine it with other more specific treatments that they have read or planned to read.
But how does one write a single volume book about war? OK, she focuses largely on war in the modern era, but still that seemed like an overly broad domain to survey - one that literally encompasses thousands of conflicts, including some major global ones, 300 wars since 1945, and a number of wars that could have happened but did not. What can be said about all of these without trivializing them all and reducing war to just a word? The breadth of the realm of war was well known to me, but it hit home strongly when I visited Europe in 1914 at the beginning of the WW1 centennials, where I recognized how little I knew about what had happened.
It turns out that Professor MacMillan has a lot to say about war and that this extraordinary book is well worth reading. Her perspective in the book is that war is not an exception to regular social life but rather a fundamental part of it - irrespective of particular long stretches of peace for some nations and populations. War is a regular part of human experience and is an instrument readily available for use by governments and their policy wonks. This follows from the general works of others such as Clausewitz. More than that, beyond the cost and consequences of particular conflicts, the response of society and governments to wars in turn changes how they operate. The requirements of mass mobilization and for logistical capabilities leads to changes in society that enact those capabilities, including innovation, improved infrastructure, investments in research and development, improved communications, and the like. What we call modern society is in part the result of adaptations made in response to past armed conflicts threatening that society. That is her point in the book’s title about how conflicts shape us. Not only that — war changes the culture (taken broadly) of a society in terms of which cultural products are produced, which are read, listened to, or otherwise consumed by the public, and how the memory of conflict develops and is maintained or changed as the active participants in past wars grow old and pass on.
This set of general arguments is developed through a series of chapters that focus on different general aspects of war, including: war aims and causes; the conduct of war; how soldiers are recruited and trained, and deployed; how war is paid for; how modern war (post-Napoleon) differs from past wars; how the experience of combat has changed; and how civilians are affected. There is even a chapter reviewing the history of efforts to control wars - and how those efforts worked out (spoiler not well).
In addition to the rich arguments, MacMillan’s book also can be seen as an extraordinary literature review and update, such that if a reader wants to learn more about a topic. The book’s argument is worthwhile on its own terms. It adds further value but allowing readers to combine it with other more specific treatments that they have read or planned to read.
May 15, 2021
An appetizer with no main course
I find myself struggling with Margaret MacMillan’s latest. A slip of a volume divided up into nine essays, “War” appears to be a call to action to study the armed conflicts of humanity and reflect on their impact. The initial chapters read as if there is a widespread academic refutation of war as a course of study, and MacMillan highlights the dearth of college courses dedicated to the study of war. By the end, we have reviewed a series of overlapping case studies leveraging many of the same anecdotes and evidence to arrive at the conclusion that war should be studied and pondered for its significance.
I struggle, I suppose, because I don’t see a problem with the current state of affairs. My experience with academic curriculum and with the study of history is that they often appear as a chronicle of military achievements. As time removes nuance, we begin to understand entire time periods for the wars fought and the leaders who fought them. If a name of a given course does not explicitly call out the study of war, I believe it is because the fundamental assumption of most history students is that the syllabus will boil down to a series of Battles and Generals. Thus I am unsure what MacMillan’s concern is. It feels like we are already obsessed with martial derring-do.
There is nothing wrong with “War” in my opinion. I just don’t see that there is a purpose or reason for it. It takes few stands and acts as a way to aggregate various elements of conflict. It reads as the introduction to prep students for an overview of a survey course on war, which it probably is. It is well written, if not a bit repetitive. Despite its length, I found it an overly long appetizer to what should have been a more principled analysis. Perhaps a follow-up volume to dig into one of these areas would be in the offing?
I find myself struggling with Margaret MacMillan’s latest. A slip of a volume divided up into nine essays, “War” appears to be a call to action to study the armed conflicts of humanity and reflect on their impact. The initial chapters read as if there is a widespread academic refutation of war as a course of study, and MacMillan highlights the dearth of college courses dedicated to the study of war. By the end, we have reviewed a series of overlapping case studies leveraging many of the same anecdotes and evidence to arrive at the conclusion that war should be studied and pondered for its significance.
I struggle, I suppose, because I don’t see a problem with the current state of affairs. My experience with academic curriculum and with the study of history is that they often appear as a chronicle of military achievements. As time removes nuance, we begin to understand entire time periods for the wars fought and the leaders who fought them. If a name of a given course does not explicitly call out the study of war, I believe it is because the fundamental assumption of most history students is that the syllabus will boil down to a series of Battles and Generals. Thus I am unsure what MacMillan’s concern is. It feels like we are already obsessed with martial derring-do.
There is nothing wrong with “War” in my opinion. I just don’t see that there is a purpose or reason for it. It takes few stands and acts as a way to aggregate various elements of conflict. It reads as the introduction to prep students for an overview of a survey course on war, which it probably is. It is well written, if not a bit repetitive. Despite its length, I found it an overly long appetizer to what should have been a more principled analysis. Perhaps a follow-up volume to dig into one of these areas would be in the offing?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 569 reviews