William Mcneill's 1982: The Pursuit Of Power

Victor Davis Hanson is a former classics professor, an American military historian, a scholar of ancient warfare and a columnist. He graduated from Selma High School, he also received a BA from the University of California in 1975 and later got his Ph.D. in Classics from Stanford University. His rich education background and experience, therefore, qualifies him for his work, especially his book: Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power. In the book, Victor Hanson intends to shed light on the predominance of the western military as attributed to the western Hellenic culture as well as its legacies. John Lynn is a history professor at the University of Illinois; he is also an adjunct professor at Ohio State

In Carnage and Culture Victor David Hanson expressed a slanted perspective about the crucial battles in western history in order to support his theory that western militaristic strategies are superior to alternative forms of warfare. He fostered his sentiments by explaining how specific battle tactics can unify or divide a nation in a matter of moments. However, his reference to the concept that western warriors continuously triumph in war, is expressed in a manner that does not fully evaluate both perspectives of the conflict. Hanson alluded to the message behind Carnage and Culture when he stated “a sense of personal freedom, superior discipline, matchless weapons, egalitarian camaraderie, individual initiative, constant tactical adaptations, and flexibility, preference for shock battle of heavy infantry— were themselves the murderous dividend of Hellenic culture at large… Yet for the past 2,500 years— even in the Dark Ages, well before the “Military Revolution,” and not simply as a result of the Renaissance, the European discovery of the Americas, or the Industrial Revolution— there has been a peculiar practice of Western warfare, a common foundation and continual way of fighting, that has made Europeans the most deadly soldiers the history of civilizations (Hanson 5-6).” Although Hanson is able to give an overview of valuable battles that express western confidence and reflect the west’s brutal military tactics that established the region as an unstoppable

* “Chinese soldiers would fight the Americans for Stalin in exchange for Soviet technology and equipment” (Chang and Halliday 373).

In the first essay Fear, Ambition, and Politics by Robert Dallek, he talks about the way that the United States started to really conflict with Vietnam and how some of Lyndon Johnson’s issues led the U.S. into it. One thing was clear and it was that Lyndon Johnson did not want communism to spread. Johnson’s advisors would continuously report to him that things were starting to become more serious in Saigon. Johnson did not want to send troops though, saying the he would “not permit the independent nations of the East to be swallowed up by Communist conquest, and it would not mean sending American boys 9 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing themselves.” Clearly his word did not last though. Dallek seems to have a rather negative view of Johnson because he wasn’t taking the precautionary steps to prevent certain events, and he could not keep his word. Johnson seemed to disagree with his own actions about what we should do in Vietnam because it was so unpredictable. He did not want American involvement, but the pressure ended up getting the best of him. He sent one of his advisors, McGeorge Bundy, to Vietnam to talk about what we should do to help alleviate South Vietnam. Bundy thought that U.S. action was a must or “defeat would be inevitable and there is still time to turn it around.” Johnson then decided to start bombing the North on February 8th, but he was not pleased with having to make this decision. This is known as the Rolling

Ever since the beginning of time, there has been conflict and conflict will always play a role in the development of history. The world has experienced hundreds of wars with countless casualties, these wars date back to the 10th Century and forward to the present. The United States of America is no stranger to war having participated in over 100 wars either it being a small war or a world war. Michael C. C. Adams “The Best War Ever” gives a rational explanation on the events that led the U.S to become the powerhouse country after sacrificing so much for the war, or did they? In this paper we will support the argument made in Adams “The Best War Ever” Chapter four, appropriately titled “The American War Machine”, other primary sources used will be such as Harry S. Truman first speech to congress in April 1945 and General George S. Patton’s praise speech to the Third Army. The argument being that the U.S did in fact play an impacting role in the outcome of World War 2 but how it also used appearances as an advantage to further develop itself as an international force, just like the tale from the Trojan War, the Trojan horse was all about appearances but with a precise objective.

Although, their conclusions can still be questioned, they have applied intensive and through analysis to their material, widening their subjects and have given legitimate reasoning for their views. While Brown has proven how terms such as War Hawks can be misleading, Horsman has provided enough evidence to prove that the War Hawks did exist and has successfully defined the term War Hawk with greater accuracy than other historians. Both the essays exhibit how historians should be aware of the material they use and careful about their generalizations when explaining such broad

Through separate publications, Geoffrey Parker and Victor Hanson describe principal foundations (Parker) and a prominent element (Hanson) that serve as the basis for their argument in defining a Western Way of War. However, both men fall short in clearly describing what is a true Western Way of War. Both the principal foundations by Parker and the prominent element by Hanson, while insightful, only delineate a single type of warfare that was used by the armies of Europe and the United States, however they fail to capitalize on the basis of their argument because neither man legitimately compares that type of warfare to any other method of fighting that was used, or is currently used, by other nations around the world. Hence, there is no

Yet for the past 2,500 years— even in the Dark Ages, well before the “Military Revolution,” and not simply as a result of the Renaissance, the European discovery of the Americas, or the Industrial Revolution— there has been a peculiar practice of Western warfare, a common foundation and continual way of fighting, that has made Europeans the most deadly soldiers the history of civilizations. (Hanson 5-6)

There has been a great deal of military scholarship written on the greatest battles of the world and has influenced these armed forces fighting in these grand battles. Two of these scholarships are discussed by Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian specializing on classical warfare and a current professor at California State University, and John A Lynn, a military historian specializing in early modern Europe and is a current professor at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Both books discuss cultural linkage in terms of successful armies and how the victor’s culture resulted in victory, but thesis is problematic because he creates a staunch dichotomy of western battle virtues versus every other armed force in the world. An

Title: Exploring the concept of power relations and its oppressive nature in 1984 and The Kite Runner Referencing Format: MLA Word Count: 2. Referring to two texts and your personal experience, explain why power is so attractive and how people are oppressed by those who are invested in maintaining their power. Introduction In 1984, by George Orwell and The Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini, are two excellent novels that provide a representation of power and its influence on one’s life, livelihood, and well-being.

The Chinese Civil War was one of the most destructive conflicts in history, leading to upwards of 7 million deaths within a few decades. This conflict featured two main contenders— the Guomindang (Nationalist Party) and the Chinese Communist Party. The latter is often cited as an underdog, as this army rose from some hundred thousand to one million, prevailing in face of daunting opposition. The two parties had contrasting motivations and standings, causing them to have their own separate virtues and values. It will be argued that the CCP’s political strengths were, to a great degree, the determining factor in the outcome of the Chinese Civil War; therefore, more significant than the failings of the GMD. This essay will examine and analyze

With East Asia at peace, there was a “marked deficiency of military readiness” as observed by European foes (Andrade, 2016). Not only did this pertain to technology, but in drills where infantry soldiers went through the motions with drudgery. Furthermore, Chinese infantry soldiers did not entirely incorporate their arms to guns, and preferred to use bow and arrows due to tradition. The persuasion method of risking their lives for the country may have worked, but it seemed that breaking the tradition of archery for the sake of the country was something that many were reluctant to do—and hence the compliance to convert the entire army into guns was not reached. Importantly, the blame may have well been rested in the Chinese government and leaders that suppressed firearm usage (Andrade, 2016). And with those that do incorporate firearms, drills remain ineffective. China’s military might was summed up to be a rusted sword stuck in its scabbard, while Europe continued to foster and grow their

Drunk off of the wine of nationalist fervor, men wrought with power built upon the bricks of global exploitation, we have here a cyclic, seemingly self-sustaining machine which propels our society into a limitless future. By its very definition, self-sustainability can and will continue as a result of its own ability to bear its weight, but here we ask, do the rewards of imperialism lend itself to this limitless future as a self-sustaining entity? After all, one can successfully argue that global conquest has resulted in unprecedented human innovation, that not only Europe but the world, has ever seen. Though, had it not been for the prevailing ideologies, natural resources, and innovations of the “inferior” inhabitants of these “lesser” continents,

This idea of a natural harmony of interests in international political and economic relation came under challenge in the early part of the twentieth century. The fact that Britain and Germany had highly interdependent economies before the Great War (1914-18) seemed to confirm the fatal flaw in the association of economic interdependence with peace. From the turn of the century, the contradictions within European civilisation, of progress and exemplarism on the one hand and the harnessing of industrial power for

Intrigue, assassination, spies, and prostitutes make for captivating reading in Kautilya’s Arthishastra. One could easily dismiss this extensive composition as amusing literature from ancient times, seemingly relevant today only in fiction or action-adventure movies. Kautilya, an ancient Indian military theorist and advisor to Chandragupta Maurya, is known as an extreme realist who by comparison makes Machiavelli appear tame due to the brutality of his methods. Kautilya’s Arthashastra is a comprehensive compendium containing fifteen books providing kings and ministers procedures for conquering, maintaining control of, and running states in the dangerous and uncertain environment of ancient India. Of the fifteen books, three relate to war and national security and contain several concepts relevant to modern times. Like Kautilia over two thousand years ago, the United States (U.S.) military today faces a dangerous and uncertain global environment and therefore must prepare for a wide array of contingencies. A brief review of three books contained in the Arthashastra that relate to war and national security provide insight to key issues that challenged Kautilya in his time and also challenge the U.S. military today; these issues are not addressed by other military theorists and for this reason I believe that Kautilya’s Arthashastra best explains the nature and character of war in the 21st century.