Father of Us All

by Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson has long been acclaimed as one of our leading scholars of ancient history. In recent years he has also become a trenchant voice on current affairs, bringing a historian's deep knowledge of past conflicts to bear on the crises of the present, from 9/11 to Iran. "War," he writes, "is an entirely human enterprise." Ideologies change, technologies develop, new strategies are invented-but human nature is constant across time and space. The dynamics of warfare in the present age still remain comprehensible to us through careful study of the past. Though many have called the War on Terror unprecedented, its contours would have been quite familiar to Themistocles of Athens or William Tecumseh Sherman. And as we face the menace of a bin Laden or a Kim Jong-Il, we can prepare ourselves with knowledge of how such challenges have been met before. The Father of Us All brings together much of Hanson's finest writing on war and society, both ancient and modern. The author has gathered a range of essays, and combined and revised them into a richly textured new work that explores such topics as how technology shapes warfare, what constitutes the "American way of war," and why even those who abhor war need to study military history. "War is the father and king of us all," Heraclitus wrote in ancient Greece. And as Victor Davis Hanson shows, it is no less so today.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Military History, War, Military Fiction, Politics, Philosophy

272 pages, Paperback

First published April 27, 2010

About the author

Victor Davis Hanson was educated at the University of California, Santa Cruz (BA, Classics, 1975), the American School of Classical Studies (1978-79) and received his Ph.D. in Classics from Stanford University in 1980. He lives and works with his family on their forty-acre tree and vine farm near Selma, California, where he was born in 1953.

Reviews

[Sud666 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dr. Hanson is one of America's preeminent Classical scholars and Military historians. In this book is a selection of essays written by Dr. Hanson covering a wide swath of topics.

There are four main sections, each with three of four essays under the main section. The four parts are:
(1) Military History: The Orphaned Discipline
(2) War Writing
(3) The Postmodern meets the Premodern.
(4) How Western Wars are lost-and won.

Well thought and superbly argued, this is a great look at the importance of war and how it has always been a part of human society. A wonderful book that helps to explain the place war has in our "modern" societies. It also shows just how much of Leftist extremist ideology is no more "real" than a completely religious worldview (whether Christian, Islamic, etc) wherein assumptions about human nature are not really anchored in any form of objective reality.

[Kevin Scott Olson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This collection of essays will probably be read only by students of history, but its wisdom would benefit us all.

The author, a Stanford professor and renowned scholar, examines the question of why wars exist: Why did wars occur in the past? The present? Most important, will they continue to exist in the future?

With remarkable breadth of knowledge, Hanson reaches back to ancient times, to the Peloponnesian War between Greece and Sparta, then walks us through history—Caesar, Napoleon, the American Civil War, the World Wars of the twentieth century, the present-day war on terror—and draws correlations that provide us the answers.

There is far too much here to touch on in a blog post or review, but I can list a few select highlights:

–The field of military history itself is of vast importance, yet it is increasingly isolated and hard to find in today’s college environment. As a formal academic discipline it is atrophied, shunned by political correctness that finds the subject distasteful. Yet only by objectively studying past military conflict can we prevent or minimize future conflict.

–The balance between war and democracy, freedom and security. Are dictatorships, with their command structure, innately superior in fighting wars? Fortunately, no. The political and economic freedoms of the United States, and the resulting innovation and dynamism, have produced the world’s finest fighting forces.

–The rise of “utopian pacifism.” This is the belief that wars are the result of a misunderstanding, and that future wars can be eliminated through reason, education, and diplomacy. Such a myth has cycled throughout history, as it appeals to the romantic yearning for the perfectibility of human nature. Such beliefs are prevalent again today, despite the disconnect from reality.

The truth is that war has always been a part of the human condition, and always will be. War should always be a last resort, but will always be necessary for the survival of civilization. As the author points out, the United States of America was “born through war, reunited in war, and saved from destruction by war.” Moreover,

“Our freedom is not entirely our own, in some sense it is mortgaged by those who paid the ultimate price for its continuance.”

America today, with its prosperity and its principles of personal freedom, market capitalism, and constitutional government, is ipso facto envied and hated by the various warlords, dictators, and tribalists that litter the globe. For this reason, our continued existence is best assured by military preparedness, deterrence-based diplomacy, and the courage to fight and defeat our enemies.

[Kate · Rating 2 out of 5]

I got 68% through this book, which I had great hope for, but it is so filled with opinions that are so far out there, that I could not go on. Presented as an overview of war from the time of the Greeks through present and the ways wars have changed. taken from this historian's lectures and articles.
I began to have problems with the chapter How we fight...which was about American Exceptionalism, how we saw in Europe innovations and brought them home from the wars and created the greatest nation with the greatest infrastructure, excelling in transportation, manufacturing, innovation and utilities...as though this was still true, our infrastructure is getting close to third world stature. He believes firmly that our all volunteer military is the best fighting force in the world because our 16 year olds get to have and work on cars, which allows them at a young age to drive and work on Abram tanks...and because we are a gun culture our youth are so familiar with the use of guns that they have a head start over our European allies youth. It is obvious that he has not served in this volunteer military which is pulled primarily from lower income families, ones whose children don't get new cars on their 16th birthday, and he obviously has never worked on cars, because newer cars unlike vehicles of old are not things you can tinker with, as we did in our youth...you cannot adjust the carburetor with a hairpin....most young lower middle-class kids do not have gun arsenals at home where they get all of this pre-enlistment training.
Then where I couldn't go on anymore was his look at the Iraq war where his revisionist history was something I almost choked on and infuriated me to the extent that I couldn't turn another page. He implied that our military was the impetus of the concept of nation building and "might see democratization as a means of reducing the likelihood of its own deployment in dangerous foreign wars to come." Our military has been very clear that they are not the tool to implement nation building.
He believes that "For a full generation now, the all volunteer American military has trained an entire cadre of officers who have received advance degrees in our finest academic institutions and thus possess proconsul skills that far exceed those necessary to command men in battle." My son an retired officer would be very interested to hear this, that the military is training men to become proconsuls ruling the citizens of defeated enemies and leading them to democratization.
But the straw that broke the camels back was after his defense of Bush his belief that "...military liberalism's failure to democratize Iraq has made 'nation building' the new slur." First it was civilian neo-con belief that drove the concept of democratizing Iraq, in spite of many Generals telling them that their 'shock and awe war" conducted by a force that did not have enough strength to insure law and order after the regime fell would lead to failure. Wolfowiz, Chenney, Rumsfeld and the neo-con cadre knew that they knew better than any of our best military minds and shuttled these men aside. I was really paying attention to every utterance of any Bush spokesmen as a mother of a soon to be deployed officer...knowing full well that their 3 month war with overwhelming victory which could take as little as a few weeks, a war which would easily pay for itself from the revenues of the oil profits, as we intended to bill the Iraqis for their liberation and on and on, was going to be an abysmal failure as it was asking of our military the near impossible task, that was more political in nature than is within their purview. It was not the 'military liberalism' that failed in Iraq...we don't have a liberalized military...a concept that is laughable at best.
Almost everything that went wrong in Iraq can be laid at the feet of the neo-con civilians who bought into a dogma which sounded so good on paper and in theory and had no precedent in the real world, a group who denigrated the Generals who objected to their folly and dismissed them. How this person is touted as a 'historian' is quite beyond me.

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I would recommend this book to any of my progressive friends who want a look behind "enemy lines" at some of the philosophical underpinnings of the right and our views of the world & human nature as relates to conflict.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Victor Davis Hanson’s The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern is a provocative, sweeping, and at times uncomfortably sharp-edged meditation on war and its unyielding presence in the human story.

I read this in 2011 and was immediately struck by its unapologetic classical rigour and the analytical elegance with which Hanson threads history, military theory, and cultural critique into one powerful narrative. The book doesn’t read like a distant academic tome. It feels more like sitting in a war room with Thucydides in one corner, Clausewitz in another, and Hanson calmly drawing lines on the map of civilisation's soul.

At its core, the book is a blend of historical analysis and cultural commentary. Hanson lays out a thesis that war is not an aberration of civilisation but rather an enduring and defining feature of it. To deny war is to deny a part of human nature. It is not a celebratory stance—he does not glorify war—but one that calls for an honest reckoning. We fight, he argues, because we are human. And while peace is desirable, it is rarely natural or permanent.

Hanson explores conflicts from the Greco-Persian wars to Iraq, drawing lessons from ancient battlefields to illuminate the strategic, ethical, and philosophical conundrums of modern combat. He takes us through the carnage at Delium and the deserts of Iraq with equal confidence, showing how democratic armies have historically fought not just for survival but for ideals—however messy or compromised they may be.

His chapter on preemptive war, for example, is particularly resonant. He draws parallels between Pericles’ Athens and George W. Bush’s America, suggesting that democracies are often pulled into conflict not by imperial ambition but by the moral paralysis that comes from waiting too long. It's not a comfortable argument, and it shouldn't be. Hanson isn't trying to win approval; he's trying to wake readers up.

This is not to say Hanson avoids controversy. His critics often label him as a neoconservative, and there are sections in the book—especially when discussing the Middle East—that veer close to ideological terrain. But even when one disagrees with his conclusions, his method remains admirably rooted in comparative history. He doesn’t rely on abstraction; he brings in tactical details, political consequences, and human cost. It’s in this triangulation that the book's analytical beauty emerges.

Another strength lies in his writing style. It is lean, muscular, and evocative, with a certain oratorical flourish that echoes his classical influences. You feel the cadence of a man who has not only read deeply but taught deeply. He does not write down to the reader, but neither does he obfuscate. His prose commands attention.

One of the book’s more affecting insights is Hanson’s argument that the act of remembering war—telling its stories, studying its errors, and honouring its dead—is a moral duty. To sanitise it is to invite ignorance; to ignore it is to guarantee repetition. He insists that history matters not in an abstract sense but in the decisions nations make today: whether to intervene, whether to arm, whether to withdraw.

In many ways, Hanson is the intellectual heir to the ancient historian-soldiers he so admires. Like Xenophon or Caesar, he views military history not as a subset of politics, but as a vital force that shapes civilisations. Culture, he argues, is as much a factor in military success as weapons. Societies that cherish individual freedom, self-critique, and technological innovation often win wars, but only when they are willing to shed blood for what they believe in.

Reading this in 2011, when the post-9/11 wars were still bleeding into global consciousness, felt timely and unsettling. The optimism of the 1990s had given way to prolonged uncertainty. Hanson’s voice—firm, historical, even a little stern—cut through that fog. He did not offer comfort, but clarity.

There are passages that linger. His reflections on the soldier’s role in a democratic society are some of the most profound in recent military literature. He reminds us that the luxury of safety is not free, and that a culture that forgets its warriors risks losing its soul.

Of course, there are limitations. Hanson's emphasis on Western military tradition may feel exclusionary to some readers seeking a broader global scope. His admiration for classical warfare sometimes downplays the horrors of modern mechanised conflict. And yes, at times his prose strays into polemic. But these are the costs of writing with conviction.

For anyone teaching or thinking about war in the context of history, politics, or ethics, this book is indispensable. It provokes. It educates. It unsettles. And in an era of historical amnesia and soft euphemisms, it demands a certain intellectual courage from its readers.

In the end, The Father of Us All is not merely a book about war. It is about the human condition, viewed through the cracked, blood-smeared lens of conflict. It is about the tension between what we want to be and what we are. And most of all, it is about remembering.

I loved it for its unflinching gaze, its analytical elegance, and the way it made me see the long arc of history—not as a slow drift toward peace, but as a constant struggle to define who we are when pushed to the brink.

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: A collection of essays arguing from history that war is a tragic but persistent feature of human existence that explores some of the particular challenges that democracies from Athens to the present day United States face as we are faced with the prospect or reality of war.

It seems that, along with the poor, we will always have war. Victor Davis Hanson would say that this is in fact one of the lessons of history. Hanson, in this collection of essays draws upon both ancient history going back to the wars between Athens and Sparta, and the wars of a post-9/11 age to make this point.

In his opening essay he sounds themes that recur throughout this collection. Military history is an oft-neglected but useful discipline of study. It shows us that war is indeed a persistent feature of human nature. Efforts of appeasement to avert war often only make the situation worse. The idea of war as a miscommunication is mistaken–the fact is there are adversaries who are only too clear concerning their malevolent intent. Asymmetrical methods, such as IED’s versus Humvees are hardly a new invention, but rather the inevitable resort of an inferior but determined foe. Those who make war must always be aware of political considerations. At the conclusion of this essay, Hanson introduces the unfamiliar reader to the riches of military history writing, from the ancients to contemporary.

The essays, originally articles or presentations, are grouped under four headings. The first part, as already alluded to, explores the “orphaned” discipline of military history. The second considers war writing from Thucydides through the battle of Lepanto in 1571, a critical example of conflict of east versus west. Part three then looks at the contemporary phenomenon of war–how we as a nation like to fight battles, and the result in a post 9/11 war of asymmetrical conflicts between the west and radical terror organizations. The last section explores the unique challenges of democracies in war-making, and that often we are our own worst enemies, and yet also, that a democracy aroused, mobilizing the full resources of free peoples is a fearsome foe.

As you may be able to tell, Hanson speaks against a prevailing progressive notion that if only we communicated better, understood our enemies better, and so forth, we would not fight wars. He would contend we engage in far too much self-criticism, and far to little moral assessment of the evil of the ideologies of radical elements in the world. Paradoxically, he observes that often, Democratic presidents such as Roosevelt have often done a better job of leading in war, explaining both their reluctance to make war, and its necessity rather than engaging in sabre-rattling. What this should reveal to us is the persistent character of war in the world, and like it as little as we do, that if we are confronted with war, the worst thing that can be done is to shrink from it, but rather meet it with resolve.

I do think that Hanson’s essays challenge progressive notions cogently. But I wonder if he insufficiently wrestles with what Barbara Tuchman once called “the march of folly.” Perhaps it is also part of human nature that we often pursue foolhardy courses of bellicosity that make war inevitable, but must we? Is not war often a failure of political leadership, as in our own Civil War, or the bellicosity and incredible build-up of arms that led to World War I? Likewise, the argument that war must be fought such that foes are utterly defeated and humiliated seems to be the argument at the end of World War I that gave us World War II out of the grievances of the German people, played upon skillfully by Hitler.

In the end, Hanson has history on his side in arguing war’s persistence, and that this is a reflection on human nature. What he doesn’t explore here, which I think perhaps is more curious is why we are this mixture of noble ideals as well as malevolent motives? If this is indeed the human condition, then what hope is there for us?

[Zinger · Rating 3 out of 5]

I received my copy of “The Father Of Us All” from Goodreads. It took me awhile to get through because there were so many events in history that I was not familiar with, that I would put the book down and do some Internet searches on those topics. Some of these searches would lead to hours at a time on the Internet.

I thought Hanson did a great job of laying out the reasons that the study of warfare is an important area to study today. It is a very broad subject including topics of politics, leadership, geography, supplies, weather, tactics, sociology and cultures, …
It motivated me to obtain a big box of Military History magazines, which I will now start going through. Hanson also recommended numerous books that cover many aspects of military science and history. Combining his reading list with the list I generated while reading his book generated an impressive book list that will take me years to get through.

While I agreed with many of his points there were some I did not. Some points of disagreement might be due to a brief mention of something where I needed more information to come to his conclusion, or wishing that my concern would have been addressed. There is much to cover from Ancient Rome all the way to our modern day conflicts.

Where I most wanted a discussion on warfare would have been to address some of the issues mentioned in Edward Griffin’s “The Creature From Jekyll Island” and the influence of world bankers, and corrupt governments “good cop bad cop” conspiracies. Antony Sutton wrote several books documenting how U.S. foreign aid has subsidized the Soviet Union all through the Cold War. We were subsidizing the “other” side during the Korea and Vietnam. If Americans was not so betrayed by their own governments in supporting both sides of the war, maybe they wouldn’t have had to happen. America hasn’t constitutionally declared war since WWII, and we haven’t won a war since. I wish this book discussed some of this.

It was a good book to read and think about and I would read some of his other books.

[Dale · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent Series of Essays

Victor Davis Hanson's The Father of Us All is an excellent series of essays about war - why we fight, how we fight, the compromises societies make with themselves as they fight, what causes some countries to keep fighting while others grow weary of it, what types of societies deal best with the stresses of war, the future of war and a look at the American way of waging war.

Many of these essays have been previously published (or substantial parts of them) in magazines but Hanson has re-worked and amplified them. I only recognized one essay and the new version was longer and more substantive.

Hanson is a brilliant essayist - he expands the reader's point of view without talking down to him. Instead, in plain language he discusses large ideas and, happily, he includes plenty of references to other authors and other books that he has found interesting and informative. Reading Hanson is liking talking to an old friend who not only informs, he also entertains and brings along a list of fascinating books, authors and topics and quotes for you to enjoy as well...

Read more at: http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2010/...

[Gary Brecht · Rating 3 out of 5]

Victor Davis Hanson, a historian with a background in Greek literature, has created a compendium of essays touching upon the importance of military history and its relevance to the conflicts of today. He asserts that in spite of the diminished popularity of military history in today’s college curricula, the study of past wars prepares us for the potential outcomes of future armed hostilities. Moreover, the past can enlighten us as to means of preventing the spread of such conflicts. This does not mean that Hanson is utopian in his views; on the contrary, he believes that bellicosity is intrinsic to human nature and will always be thus. To a great extent he blames our softening of resolve on the complacency inherent in an affluent society. This critique he extends to all Western democracies.Therefore, he asserts, it is incumbent upon Western democracies to avoid the danger of appeasing tyrannical rulers.

Although he seems to condone the recent American incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan, he is critical of our nation’s lack of proper preparation and follow-up.

In spite of the pedantic style in which a number of these essays are written, the theory posited by Hanson is worth examining.

[Thorwald Franke · Rating 5 out of 5]

Understanding the Logic of War on the basis of our Ancient Heritage

Victor Davis Hanson's book "The Father of Us All" is one of those books explaining an important aspect of our present world in a timeless and groundbreaking manner, so that this book can be recommeded to everybody. On the basis of our ancient heritage he examines the development of war and discovers basic insights into the logic of war. With these insights it is much easier to understand what is really going on in this world concerning all those troubling wars and conflicts instead of following mainstream media opinions or weird conspiracy theories.

Especially everybody who tries to oppose the "logic of war" should learn first how this logic works before deciding to oppose it. Because: Logic cannot be overturned - you only can use it in the right or wrong way. If you try to overturn something that cannot be overturned the result will be unpredictable and mostly unwanted. So first, you have to understand how the "logic of war" works. Then you will know how to make and keep peace. Victor Davis Hanson supports you in this.

[Jay Hinman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've never had an easy time crafting a coherent, ideologically consistent set of foreign policy positions. As a mostly small-l libertarian, or "classic liberal" (something like that), I'm supposed to be inherently suspicious of the State in all its forms and therefore devoted to small government in all its forms - including that devourer of enormous portions of our GNP, the military. My liberal tendencies have me sometimes making common cause on matters of war & peace with those on the Left whom I otherwise disdain for their utter cluelessness on economic matters, where my own ideology is what I'd like to call "rigidly informed", and in which my mind was made up a long, long time ago. Yet my devotion to the American ideal and for Western Civilization's values in general have led me to realize, on occasion, that war truly is the answer sometimes.

I remember reading Brian Doherty's excellent history of libertarianism "RADICALS FOR CAPITALISM" a few years ago and coming across a strong and very vocal subsection of American libertarians during World War II who were fully and totally against it. Our war was one of imperialism, in their eyes. I tried to come to grips with this view on many levels, rather than look at Hitler's rampage through Europe and Japan's through Asia with the benefit of hindsight. Couldn't do it. Try as I might, I kept coming back to the question, "If that war wasn't worth fighting to the bloody end, then what was?". Hence my suspicion at the reflexively anti-war position. Not because a few ideological Puritans were against fighting Hitler seventy years ago, but because the anti-war left has always had that naive view of humanity, and believes in imagined utopias that will never exist - the ones in which we don't fight, don't compete for resources nor have base, all-too-human instincts for power and dominion.

I'm also the confused and sometimes weak-kneed guy who was gung-ho for the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq upon their commencement, and who, when the going got tough in both, argued for them to be wound down. I still want them wound down - though I'll admit, after reading "THE FATHER OF US ALL: WAR AND HISTORY, ANCIENT AND MODERN" by Victor Davis Hanson, I haven't had my thinking cap turned so backwards by a book in a great while. I can't recommend it highly enough. I came into it with an idea that I might need a stiffening of my ideological spine, because even I was confused by my schizophrenic positions on how to confront "terror" and what particular battles might be worth investing American blood & treasure in to win. I came away from this fairly determined to look at war differently than I had before. Please allow me to explain.

Pure conservatives, like pure liberals, have the luxury of looking at these matters through an all-or-nothing lens. "Might makes right" - "Peace through strength" - "Project power across the globe" etc. It's easy to caricature, isn't it? Particularly when us "elites" see these words mouthed by toxic Republican politicians with Christianity in their foregrounds. Step away from that for a second. If anything, Hanson's book lays out for me, in a series of essays on man's inherently warlike nature and the importance of taking the "long view" in matters of war & security, why it's important to listen to the simplistic conservative approach to military matters.

There's a reason why every liberal Democrat president we've elected, even successful or would-be economic radicals like Roosevelt and Obama, ends up taking the same philosophically consistent approach as Republican presidents do on matters of security. These men are truly defending Western Civilization, and the values we hold dear. This becomes crystal clear once in office and off the campaign trail. They recognize that war is rarely the first option, and is often simply the least-worst of many bad options. This last point is hammered home repeatedly throughout this book.

Hanson argues with much success that the best war, with the best long-term outcome, is the one that is waged decisively and ends with the enemy's humiliation. This is not to say that he is not and cannot be critical of American military and political blunders - he takes the Bush administration to task for many costly errors in the war in Iraq, all the while arguing that comfortable Americans (like me) are so squeamish and short-sighted that they lose their stomachs at setbacks that previous generations would have taken as a reason to redouble efforts.

This book is not about the 20th and 21st century - Hanson reaches well back to Athens vs. Sparta, Rome vs. Carthage and to Crusaders and Ottomans to underscore his points. He's a university professor of history, and his opening essay in this book, "Why Study War?" is one of the best. It makes me think that instead of taking multiple sociology courses from avowed Marxists at my school in the 80s, I'd have done well to add to true open-minded learning and take in a perspective that intelligently looked at war over the continuum of history and as part of our collective DNA, not as simple-minded excuses for "resistance" by pampered American college kids.

I think every war needs to be picked apart and argued before it begins. I am still quite sympathetic to reasonable views about a more "isolationist" America. I'd rather we hadn't started our wars in Iraq and Libya - though I'm open to taking in a longer view on their success or failure once we see what it does to the Arab world and to the longer-term defense of the West, which I support (there are values very much worth fighting for, I'm sure you'd agree). Yet this excellent book is the most intelligent and convincing voice I've ever heard for what we'd probably call the "conservative" approach to foreign policy. My personal politics just became that much muddier, and I have to admit that it might have to be a lifelong project to figure it all out.

[S. · Rating 4 out of 5]

very high 3 or low 4, Professor Hanson lays on the republican party agrarianism pretty thick, but if you can filter out the war drums he keeps beating, actually at times Dr. H gets almost lyrically--a good essay on the Anabasis, for example being almost Paul Fussell in quality.

Hanson remind us, a number of times, that he is a classicist professor, and while Latin and Greek are of course great subjects to study, of course all of us much prefer more modern subjects. yeah sure, ancient greek philosophy can also completely explain the world today, but you know, i like my youtube, i like my google, I'd get glass if it were a little cheaper. I'd photograph short-skrited girls surreptitiously. who is going to do what about this?

20% footnotes. Hanson's thesis: war explains everything. war studies is a great subject. war studiers are discriminated against. classics underlie all other subjects. thank you Hanson.

[kranthi · Rating 1 out of 5]

Incoherent narrative. Inconsistent logic. Half concealed attempt to glorify the American right wing political stance. Starts saying that wars need not be morally justifiable but needs up trying to do the same for all of "The West" and America's wars.

[Rodrigo Pinillos Osnayo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Disfruté muchísimo de este texto. Repartido en 4 partes (apuntes sobre la Historia Militar, Escribir sobre Guerra, encuentros entre premodernidad y postmodernidad, y la actualidad de la guerra occidental a la luz de la forma occidental de hacer la guerra), el conjunto general nos sitúa frente a la guerra como concepto, como hecho humano cuasi-natural y presente en todo tiempo histórico, y nos alerta contra falsas perspectivas que apuntan a que es posible eliminarla como tal. Como repite el autor varias veces en distintos pasajes, al margen de los objetivos, justificaciones, razones o excusas para iniciar una guerra (sean económicas, políticas, religiosas, o casi emocionales - poco racionales - como el honor), al final de todo, si hay una guerra es porque un bando se cree capaz de iniciar un conflicto y vencerlo: de ahí, más allá de consideraciones diplomáticas o filosóficas, es indispensable plantearse (y prevenirse) de esta cruda naturaleza de la guerra. El énfasis actual viene de la formas históricas occidentales de hacer la guerra en contraste con las formas "democráticas" de conducirla: en buen castellano, lo complejo (y evidente en múltiples casos) para una sociedad occidental de llevar a buen término una guerra asimétrica y contra enemigos no convencionales, a miles de kilometros de sus países de origen, en el objetivo de "convertir" tales enemigos en democracias - la sociedad occidental actual no está dispuesta a asumir tales costos.

El texto fue publicado en 2009-2010; tuve un primer intento de lectura en el verano de 2015, y un segundo en 2018.

La primera parte, dedicada a la Historia Militar como disciplina/ciencia se lee de un tirón, y contiene varios pasajes sobre la naturaleza de la guerra que amerita leerse varias veces, con total disfrute en todos los casos. La segunda parte revisa a Tucídides, Jenofonte, el texto de E.B. Sledge "With the Old Breed" y dos pasajes más (Guerra del Peloponeso - especialidad del autor; Lepanto), tampoco tienen pierde. El tercer bloque es más conceptual, con ensayos sobre la dinámica de un conflicto y la casi inexistente posibilidad de una victoria a base de una batalla decisiva (por la naturaleza actual de conflictos asimétricos y contra enemigos no convencionales), el uso de la tecnología (la tecnología por sí sola no gana guerras) y su constante evolución como respuesta al avance de los potenciales rivales. Finalmente, la cuarta parte enfoca en la manera como se ha conducido principalmente EE.UU. en sus conflictos en Afghanistán e Irak, y los desafíos a futuro (posiblemente, desde mi lectura 10 años después de su publicación, cabría una perspectiva del autor sobre hipotéticos conflictos involucrando fuerzas convencionales como China en un escenario tipo Taiwan).

El libro tiene muchas referencias a otros autores y fuentes, y en ausencia de una bibliografía comentada, conviene leerlo con una libreta de notas a mano.

[Miles Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really exceptional collection of essays on modern military history.

[Mike · Rating 2 out of 5]

Mr. Hanson is a smart man, of course. And I like a realist. He says that war has been with us for a long time and will always be around. Okay fair enough. But I guess the notion of a book being an apology for war ultimately doesn't sit well with me. He would claim that I am a comfortable and affluent westerner who can afford to take the intellectual high road and call war barbaric, which it is - but that, because of our human nature, war will always be with us - so if I just root for the good guys - like the U.S. - the ones fighting for democratic principles - and root against the bad guys - the religious extremists and autocrats - I will come to the same conclusion as him and Thucydides, and Xenophon, and Livy, and Donal Kagan - that the good guys aren't perfect, but war ensures our way of life - and the "other" guys are are just gonna have to catch up and catch on so they can be happy and affluent as well.

Okay, he doesn't really say this. He is significantly more nuanced. However, he never for one second supposes that we have any culpability in our most recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are ultimately trying to "do good" so when history is read, we will be right. The problem with that is I don't trust most histories. History is written by the victors. That doesn't make it "right" or accurate ( anybody read Zinn, etc ). I don't believe it is fantasy or utopian to think we can get beyond war. Hanson is right in saying that the affluent west, without conscription, has lost its taste (and somewhat its attention) for war in these far away places. He also asserts that we will change our tune if another terrorist attack comes to our land. Maybe that is part of the problem. Maybe the U.S. military should stay out of these far away places (700 to 800 military bases in places where the U.S. military presence is mostly despised). Why doesn't the military leave these countries so they can lead their lives without our interference? I am not an isolationist. Would you want a foreign military base near your home, with all of the associated issues (read sexual assault, racism, prostitution, etc)? They are fighting us BECAUSE WE ARE ALREADY INVADING THEIR LAND. What people would lay down and not resort to the "asymmetrical" methods that Hanson describes? I think we in the U.S. would do the same thing. And, oh yes, I know we officially have permission to be in these countries, but primarily because we have reduced these peoples to debt peonage, except the oil producing countries that is, and in that case we are the protector of thugs and despots like the house of Saud or watch with apparent disinterest as Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell kill the nationals and indigenous people in Nigeria to help ensure our way of life.

Isn't it great that we have a "way of life" worth killing for? History has determined it, and history has told us that it will never and can never stop. I'm sorry Mr. Hanson, with all respect - I don't believe in this grotesque determinism.

[Jacob · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've been trying to read more history, especially of war, since I've come to the conclusion that I know nothing about history (and, since I'm in college, there seems to a be a strong anti-war sentiment lurking beneath the surface-- I remember being shocked a year ago when one of my older teachers proudly proclaimed to be a Vietnam draft dodger-- and the contrarian in me wants to be able to hold a conversation from the opposing viewpoint).

Victor Davis Hanson's book, a collection of essays really, is a great start. He offers a variety of opinions on a plethora of topics. To make his point he refers not only to what has happened recently, but also, what has happened since ancient times. Indeed, the inevitability of war is perhaps the most important theme he deals with. He also shows a strong grasp of many of the classic writers of war, something that, while occasionally dull, provokes me to read even more than I already have.

I recommend it. I'm not sure how much I agree with since there's still a long way for me to go, and I confess, a decent amount of his references went over my head. But, I recommend it nonetheless. I'll check out his other work, too.

[Richelle · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well, I'm writing my book review now for a class, so I'll save all of my fancy language and thoughts for that. All in all, this was a good book and while I agree with his basic premise that we should teach and learn more military history, I disagreed with pretty much the rest. His characterizations of West v East, his assertion that our cultures aren't different but opposed, that the East hates our freedom, all felt like half-hearted Republican schtick. Also, through much of the book the East simply means the Peloponnesians, the ancient Persians and the modern Middle East with just a dash of WWII era Japan.

Hanson is at his best when discussing the wars, writings and history of the ancients. As a trained classicist, he's brilliant at it.

There is something about the loneliness of the military historian, but I'm not sure it's what he's sure it is.

[Luis Sánchez · Rating 3 out of 5]

El hecho de que sea una compilación de ensayos del autor hace que en la coherencia se pierda un poco. Si bien resulta útil en un principio para entender un tanto la razón de ser de la guerra, esto se va perdiendo poco a poco conforme los ensayos van enfocándose más y más a las problemáticas guerreras estadounidenses, mostrando una clara tendencia a favorecer en sus opiniones a su país de origen, lo que no le impide deslizar, en ocasiones, severas críticas a la forma en que la política exterior y militar de aquel país ha sido conducida.

[Scriptor Ignotus · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Father of Us All is a compilation of essays that Hanson wrote and which appeared, usually in altered or shortened form, in different venues. Those familiar with Hanson's earlier work, Carnage and Culture, will not learn very much from his thoughts on historical battles like Guagamela or Lepanto, as they were discussed in the previous work. His later chapters on the concept of decisive battle, the uniquely American way of war, and the interactions between militaries and civilian governments are highly insightful and worth the price of admission. VDH fans will not be disappointed.

[Dan Hoadley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hanson bounces from Ancient Greece to modern day Afghanistan as he explores various aspects of war and how it has evolved over the ages. He has a special focus on the interaction between the populous and how it has changed over time. He believes that as technology plays a greater role in war the American public is losing it's taste for pursuing a winning military policy.

[Raully · Rating 3 out of 5]

Once I wrapped my head around the fact that this is really a farrago of lectures and book reviews that its author did not want to go unpublished, and not a coherent narrative about war, I began to enjoy this book a little bit more. Let the reader be forewarned.

[Jamie Green · Rating 3 out of 5]

I always enjoy VDH, but most as a classicist than as contemporary commentator.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is one of the most notable and strange aspects of my reading of the author's works that I have liked him least when he was talking about what he considered to be his specialty, namely the classical history of Greece (and to a lesser extent Rome) and its implications for present society.  A great deal of that difficulty comes from the author's obviously Greek boosterism [1], which I am at best ambivalent and at worst hostile to.  Indeed, even though I am a scholar of military history, there is a great deal of disagreement there too, because the author holds to the unscriptural view that the Bible is a pacifist document, rather than one which recognizes the need for force but which commands believers to be peaceful insofar as it depends on them.  Sometimes it does not, which is the author's own point regarding the need to preserve military strength despite our own desires to be peaceful.  The author's persistent and willful misunderstanding of the biblical record and law and approach makes this book less enjoyable to read than it would be otherwise.

In terms of its contents, this book is divided into four parts and thirteen chapters that are based in large part on various book reviews and editorials that the author wrote during the first decade of the twenty-first century.  After a short preface, the author talks about the orphaned status of military history as a discipline (I) because of its unfashionable nature, discussing the worth of studying war (1), some classical lessons on the wars fought after September 11 (2), and the relevance of of the film 300 to today (3).  He then discusses war writing (II) with chapters on Xenophon's Anabasis and how it has been treated by contemporary scholars (4), discusses The Old Breed as a classic in war memoirs, looks at the importance of the conflict between Athens and Sparta, and discusses the similarities between the Western effort at Lepanto and today.  Several chapters examine the encounter between the postmodern and the premodern (III) in looking at the contemporary absence of decisive battle (8), the importance of men to the polis (9), and some qualities that mark the American way of war (10).  Finally, the book concludes with a discussion of how Western wars are won and lost (IV) with chapters on the importance of fighting for victory (11), the strange relationship between war and democracy (12), and an identification of the enemy (13) before an epilogue and index that takes the book to almost 250 pages in length.

Ultimately, my impressions are mixed on this book.  As is often the case, Hanson has some sound insights to make on the harm that leftist behavior has on the well-being of the West as a whole, and points out the parasitic nature of the anti-patriotic and intensely self-critical aspects of academic discourse and the mainstream press.  The author shows himself to be deeply interested in the contemporary portrayal in books and movies of the classical history he has studied and taught for so long.  He demonstrates an interest in military history and its uncomfortable relationship with both the academy and the political philosophy of democracies in both Athens and the present-day United States.  Yet the author persistently and maliciously fails to comprehend the proper relationship between Athens and Jerusalem, and in his desire to bolster his own field of the classics, he lumps biblical culture and the godly perspective with the Oriental heathens of Egypt, Persia, and Mesopotamia, to the extent that it limits his own insight into matters of morality and wisdom.  For all of his pretensions to wisdom and insight, the author ultimately ends up being a blind guide seeking autonomy for mankind rather than repentance and reconciliation.  For it is God and not warfare that is the father of us all.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2010...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2013...

[Sam Schuhler · Rating 5 out of 5]

The authors main goal is to show how its important to study war and history, and he achieved that goal for me. He is trying to fight the modern idea that we have somehow matured past war and that there is no need to study it because we are SO enlightened now and have somehow changed human nature. He asserts that not every conflict can be solved with diplomacy and that when one side desires to use violence to get there way, there needs to be a force to correct.

I am definitely more inspired to read more war books as a result. I actually paused this book and read Black Hawk Down because I wanted more context for a specific chapter. I am not well read in history and specifically war history so this book is really my first venture since AP US History. My lack of prerequisite knowledge was definitely glaring while reading. The author rapid fires war examples to support his assertions and I found myself having to google a lot of different conflicts that I was totally unfamiliar with. Thats not a knock against the book because it forced me to built context for his arguments, but if you have no knowledge of history, be warned that it can get overwhelming at times. If you do have a solid base from the The Peloponnesian War (He talk about that war ALOT) onward, then you will probably get through the book much faster that I did. We've all gotta start somewhere thought, right!

I can understand where some people can recoil at the unapologetic defense of Western Exceptionalism, but he does a good job at substantiating it.


Here are some good quotes I highlighted:

P20
It is an easily definable and timeless military concept of forcing an opponent to cense. fighting, to abandon the real or imagined reasons for his bellicosity and to agree to the conditions set down by those powers demonstrably able to so affect his thinking and behavior.

P46
We have forgotten this ancient truth of Western exceptionalism.

In the age of cultural studies, Americans have often made the common mistake of assuming that our enemies are simply different from us, rather than far different from us. Perhaps the hesitancy to appreciate the singularity of the West results from guilt over European colonial-ism. Or it may be laudable humility. Or it could reflect an ignorance of cultures in general and Western civilization in particular. Or we may live in an interconnected global age where all narratives are complementary rather than antithetical—no one "truth" having any absolute currency.

P48
Apologizing for our past sins may reveal character and for a time lessen anti-Americanism abroad, but if it is done without acknowledging that the sins of America are the sins of mankind, and that our remedies are so often exceptional, then it only earns transitory applause-and a more lasting contempt that we ourselves do not believe in the values we profess.

P?
To suggest that Hezbollah and Israel, Hamas and Israel, or Syria and Israel, when the next Middle East war breaks out, be allowed to fight each other until one side wins and the other loses, and thus the source of their conflict be adjudicated by the verdict of the battlefield, is now seen not only as passé but also as amoral altogether. Who would wish a no-holds-barred showdown? And would not the loser simply try to reconstitute his forces for a second round?

We should remember that both victory and clear-cut defeat often put an end to a power's struggles in a way armistices and timeouts do not. Nazis, Fascists, and most Baathists have presently disappeared from the governments of the world.

P119
A decisive end to war does not necessarily mean greater violence and human losses than what totalitarian governments are capable of in times of peace. Far more perished during Stalin's collectivization, the Holocaust, and the murdering and starvation brought about by Ma's various revolutions— mass genocides outside of formal military engagements-than in all the decisive battles of the twentieth century, which suggests that, at least in Hitler's case, they should have been stopped through force before they were allowed to kill millions more.

P184
Present generations of unprecedented leisure, affluence, and technology no longer so easily accept human imperfections. We seem to care less about correcting problems than assessing blame-in postmodern America it is defeat that has a thousand fathers, while the notion of victory is an orphan. We fail to realize that the enemy makes as many mistakes but probably addresses them less skillfully. We do not acknowledge the role of fate and chance in war, which sometimes upsets our best endeavors. Rarely are we fixed on victory as the only acceptable outcome.

[Terry Tucker · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is broken into four parts for a total of 13 Chapters, an Epilogue and extensive index to find what you might need to look for. Part I is 3 chapters that look at military history as the "Bastard Stepchild of the sciences and humanities. Part II is "Writing about War and consists of four chapters. Part III looks at how the Postmodern meets the Premodern - three chapters and Part IV is on how Western wars are won or lost.
The book as not just readable and engaging history, it expressly demonstrates that history rhymes. The foundation for this rhythm is where the author begins with Thucydides and the classics as he compares both historical and modern events with the events of the Peloponnesian war and the writings of Thucydides, Xenophon, Livy and others.
Themes resonate. Despite what we think is innovation, the character and face of war is unchanging after more than 2500 years. There are only a few events and technologies where there was truly a revolution in military affairs, and, that war is entirely a human event that has caused more lasting change than any period of peace ever has. It is hard to think of any democracy - American, Athenian, German, Italian, Japanese, or ancient Theban that was not an outcome of war.
War has changed physical geographic boundaries, collapsed governments and monarchies, created nations and disrupted the lives of people. By way of example, Louvain, Belgium was noted for an extensive library of over 200,000 books, its gothic architecture and was noted as a center of culture. When the Germans swept through in WW I, the city was razed to the ground. Is it any wonder that we continue to reinvent the so-called wheel, or lament lost knowledge when our history is destroyed? Of course, the ancients did the same with the razing of the great libraries of Alexandria, Athens and Samarkand.
War is inseparable from the human condition and that despite laws, statute, or education it has been impossible - to date - to outlaw war.
The study of War is a stepchild to other academic disciplines, is considered the purview of only the military, is typically viewed in isolation of other domains of study and confined to the study of failed strategy. It is still rarely viewed in conjunction with the real social, economic, political and cultural domains that impacts war and or how war has impacted them. And this is ironic considering that these other domains are hugely Influential in how wars are started, won and lost. And we tend to forget that history itself began with Herodotus and Thucydides as the story of armed conflict - war.
What makes this book great is both the narrative and comparative examples with the ancients and premodern history - without the minutia - on why and how history is important and relatable today, and that we should not study history looking for cookie cutter approaches or easy formulas.
Knowledge of past wars establishes only wide patterns of what we can expect from new ones.
That Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot killed far more people off the battlefield than on it. That western morally cautious views to pursue diplomacy to exasperating ends to save lives has caused more death by genocide and inaction than if Western governments would have intervened quickly and strongly - with the right resources and support - to begin with. One only needs to look to the Russia - Ukraine conflict or 1938 and 1939. Appeasement and magnanimity are poor diplomatic strategies. In a counterfactual, one must ask if the Russia - Ukraine war, or Hitler's adventurism would have been stopped cold if a united and strong western response would have been immediate? Or in the case of Russia, if a strong united response would have been delivered when Russia prepared to invade the Crimea.
I highly recommend this book. it is a valuable reference, is easily read and engaging.

[Margaret Harris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Victor Davis Hanson is surely the most educated being who lives today. His grasp of ancient Greek history and all Western history since the initial Athenian dominance in the B.C. years enables him to enlighten the rest of us about how wars have both changed and stayed similar for three millennia. He knows not just the names, but the personalities, the behaviors, the strategies, the winners and losers (and why) of the ancient peoples and their generals and of their more modern counterparts.

Lamenting that wars are persistently ongoing, he asserts that “conflict will remain the familiar father of us all—as long as human nature stays constant and unchanging over time and across space and cultures.” That it is always tragic seems not to prevent its happenstance. Still, he professes to have written this book to teach us history of past wars that we have forgotten in an attempt to encourage us to restudy the subject, to seek truths about conflict, why wars have been waged in the past, and how they have been won or lost by either tyrannies or more democratic nations. He says such studies in colleges have been neglected since the Second World War and especially since the Vietnam debacle, possibly because of a collective wish to “forget” the horrors, but also due to military education replacement by an academic diversion to more esoteric emphasis upon other human controversies over “race,” “class,” sexual differences, and various other ideological perversions. On the other hand, independent writers continue to produce best-selling books on the histories of particular wars or battles, which indicates general pubic interest in the subject.

Still, Professor Hanson wants us to learn discernment about previous war errors, how or how not they were overcome, as well as about historical war victories and/or defeats and how and why each happened. Fair comparisons over time and circumstances is the objective of real education. He also believes that people who live in freedom should be taught to appreciate such attainment. He asserts that “the United States was born through war, reunited by war, and saved from destruction by war.” Gratitude to those who died for our sake is a moral imperative. He recommends books written by soldiers who survived—first hand stories of their personal experiences. [A few days after finishing this book I happened to re-listen to a John McDermott album called Remembrance, in which the most moving piece is “Christmas In The Trenches,” a poetic rendition of a true incident during WWI.]

In this rather small volume the author cites (and compares) so many wars over the millennia, and gradually brings us up to present time (2010 publication) and the new threat of international jihadism. He fears that complacency in “the West” is not yet prepared to confront it, even as it confronts us, beginning, of course, with the fact that “someone who trained in a cave in Afghanistan ended up at the controls of a sophisticated airliner, ramming it into America’s best-known skyscraper, with a kiloton’s worth of destructive force.”

We must always, he seems to say, distinguish between right and wrong, and maintain the courage to do right.

[Christopher Fuchs · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent military history focused on lessons learned from the Greeks onward that can be applied to the present. Unlike many history books that obsess over dusty details, this book is written with the modern world in mind, specifically how democratic countries can solve (or at least face) problems in the present.
One of the book’s core messages is that the postmodern ideal of eliminating war itself is not only impossible due to human nature, but potentially dangerous for democracies to pursue because, as history shows, they can be weakened, ended, or face worse problems later (e.g., the appeasement of Hitler). The author states “The peril is not in accepting that the innate nature of war lies in the dark hearts of us all, but rather in denying it.”
The author spends much time discussing the necessary but unique limitations of wartime democracies, such as establishing humane foundations for wars, avoiding civilian and even military casualties, continued protection of domestic liberties, continued public support, “utopian demands for perfection,” democratic distrust of the military, and other challenges.
The author demonstrates how both ancient and modern democracies with high affluence, unprecedented leisure, sheltered lifestyle, and other comforts can be lured into the idea that war is always an option, when war is sometimes required to defend free peoples from tyranny. He persuasively argues that, in the modern era, we confuse material improvement with cultural and moral progress.
The author states “Western pieties about the moral limitations of Western arms dissipate when wars are no longer seen as optional, but are deemed existential”, and that this is a cyclical pattern throughout history. He demonstrates that democracies throughout history have sometimes overcome their inherent limitations and challenges to defend themselves and other peoples, while other times they have lost their freedom.
The book also covers traditional military history topics (costly errors, Machiavellian principles, technology evolution, etc) and more modern concepts (proportionality, sensationalism in the media, democratization, and punitive bombing).
The author concludes that, given the varied challenges facing modern democracies and their current place in the above-mentioned cycle, wars in the immediate future wars will most often be Rwandas and Darfurs (underestimating conflict potential, ignoring problems, solutions too costly, no dog in the fight, etc.) rather than Iraqs and Afghanistans (dictator removal, democratization, interventionism, etc.).

[Brian Meadows · Rating 3 out of 5]

As one who is interested in history, but had an engineering career, I found myself a bit weak in my history background to get the most out of this book. It is really a collection of excerpts from lectures and published articles by the author, which made the book a bit disjointed. Since he is a professor, he presumes much knowledge from the audience. I was lost many times, especially in the early parts of the book, and sometimes had to do some online research to try to understand and appreciate what the author was saying. This is especially so when he was referencing ancient history. The style was smooth and not difficult to read but I lacked the prerequisites to be in this advanced course. I typically felt like I was in a college graduate school lecture. The book had reasonably good balance as he was drawing conclusions based on warfare in many different time periods of history - often in the same paragraph. I know it would be a much bigger book, but his efforts could impact a much broader audience if the assumptions about the previous knowledge of the reader were relaxed and the necessary background filled in.

Having said this, I would say that Hanson, at least, is not a head-in-the-clouds professor dreaming of the ideal utopia where we have advanced beyond war. He makes it plain that we are in our human condition and that successfully educating the world's population to resolve differences peacefully is an exercise in futility. He also makes good points talking about the successes of more free democratic forms of government against more autocratic regimes. The advantage is that the free mindset will more quickly adjust as the war progresses to correct errors and anticipate enemy's tactics. However, the military is more subject to popular opinion in a more democratic form of government. At present, the people will support a quick war that devastates the opposition into surrender but finds a more typical, drawn-out war with heavy sacrifices (like Viet Nam, Korea, or the current overall war on terror) distasteful and it takes a lot to get the buy-in of the public. The autocratic regime has no such problem as the support of the public is not necessary as long as the leader(s) support the effort. That scenario is where the West is most vulnerable now.

Insights like these made the book worth reading and it enhanced my understanding. I am glad I read it. It was worth the effort, even if the reading was rather piecemeal.

[Dennis Murphy · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern by Victor Davis Hanson is an appeal for the liberal arts discipline to incorporate military history and the classics into their curriculum. In the view of the author, since war is part of the human condition and efforts to eliminate it have thus far failed, work must be made to ensure that the public is not ignorant of military affairs. This is especially so for democracies, as he notes that “democratic citizenship requires knowledge of war.” The entirety of the book seeks to justify this mission, blending classical warfare with modern warfare in a mix of popularized applied history in order to give a generalized human understanding to war as informed by the past.

Victor Davis Hanson is a Hoover Institute Fellow at Stanford University with a long career in the discipline of military history. Usually, he does this through the study of the classics. His heavy emphasis on the ancient past gives him a different perspective than those who approach military history from early modern period in the strategic studies discipline. Most of his modern examples are chosen to reinforce lessons learned from older campaigns, perhaps in a way similar to Clausewitz’s key lessons being the defining touchstone for most strategic studies research. It is not uncommon for him to juxtapose the past with the present, such as when he speaks of the campaigns of Alexander the Great in one paragraph only to immediately talk about Winston Churchill the next. He has the skill to do this without disorienting the reader, and his body of work has been praised by Max Boot, John Keegan, and others, if the back of the book is to be believed. Previous books written by Victor Davis Hanson include The Western Way of War and Carnage and Culture.

The Father of Us All is part a collection of his prior essays and lectures, and part new content. Victor Davis Hanson states in the preface that what is provided is fresh material and rewritten extensively. These edits were no doubt to improve the flow and make them better suited for the structure of the book. The book is divided into four parts, thirteen chapters, and an epilogue. The first part is dedicated to the study of military history and his impressions of the discipline. The second part seems to lack a clear identity, but can loosely be described as a transition from the classical to the modern, touching on how writers approach war. The third part, titled “Where Post Modern Meets Premodern”, is about the synthesis of classical and modern warfare. The fourth part, where Victor Davis Hanson places most of his persuasive hope, is about how Western Wars are fought, how they are won, and how they are lost.

The structure works more than it does not, but there are some parts that appear less well thought out than others. A number of these essays appear to be placed arbitrarily. This is not to say that they do not find intellectual utility, but simply that rearranging them would not have proven very difficult. While this is less true for the beginning and end, you can skip around in the mid-sections. It also appears to be aimed at a mass (conservative) audience, which makes sense given the circles Victor Davis Hanson usually finds himself in. True to form as a work aimed at general audiences, the book lacks footnotes. However, I would shy away from suggesting that the book is not a serious attempt at establishing influential scholarship in the field. There is a lot of erudition on display, and the vast array of sources he cites can appear intimidating if one were to venture to reproduce the multiplicity on their own. However, while the range of sources is wide, so too is the subject matter. As such, it may seem to be superficial. The book does have an index, which allows for easy referencing as needed.

The Father of Us All is an exceedingly useful book in part, but if there is one recurring criticism that I find enduring, it would be the difficulty the author has in separating his bias from the text. Professor Hanson has an axe to grind with his ideological opponents. It is why he wrote this book, and it is often implicit, and sometimes quite explicit. He wants to defend the exceptionalism of the West, its relationship to war, and he desires to cement the classical identity as the root of our culture. I am often sympathetic to his arguments, but not always. One occasion is the exceptionally distasteful comment he makes about September 11. On page 48, Hanson appears to argue that just months after the twin towers fell, that al-Qaeda was able to perceive “that there is a sort of aristocratic guilt within a minority of influential Americans, who are too often ashamed of, or apologetic, about their culture – or have lost any ability even to articulate it.” This, he continues, allows them to see that we are perhaps weak because of it. He argues against apologizing for our sins, and the sins of our history, because these are the “sins of mankind” and that the good we have brought, our remedies, “are so often exceptional.” There’s something deeply hideous about the implications of that statement. Who are these people who are apologetic about our past? One should be inclined to believe he is referring to wealthy, coastal democrats, as he used similar language to describe them as such on other occasions.

Does the book succeed in what it sets out to accomplish? In some ways, sure. He drives home that war is a regrettable part of the human condition. He is often very persuasive in his arguments that a classical education in warfare centered around Thucydides, Xenophon, and others, particularly when providing the groundwork for a more contemporary approach to war, would better inform our understanding of the continuity of war. At one point he provides a list of books to read in order to better grasp warfare, and influential works and authors are present – such as Huntington and Cohen. It is clear that the classics are his home and his primary area of expertise, but there has been a great care on his part to ensure that what he says in this book can pass at least some rigorous examination. Taken individually, many of these chapters provide good food for thought, and reinforce the lessons Hanson wishes we take about war and its relationship to the human condition. Even some of his hokier juxtapositions provide some useful thoughts for reflection, as he at one-point places the reconstruction of the south after the Civil War in relation to Iraq in order to draw out commonalities and parallels.

If Victor Davis Hanson is an amateur in the modern ways of war who is better suited to studies of antiquity, then this book at least shows he is a gifted amateur. Much of what he has argued deserves some attention. I only wish he would write a more cohesive, less ideologically grieved, text.

82/100