Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons, and Aggression

With a theme of intraspecies lethal predation vs. intraspecies ritual nonlethal combat, this is an excellent review of war, weapons, and fighting throughout Earth history (animal warfare initiates the discussion). Even though I didn't completely agree with the author's viewpoints, the detailed presentation of the history of weapons and fighting was clear and vivid. (Especially the bit about the Duke of Parma having lunch during a siege, when a cannonball rips right across the table killing some guests, and he insists on finishing the meal once the table is tidied up.)
The author discusses phalanxes, pikemen, archers, infantry, cavalry, arquebuses, muskets, guns, rifles, ramming ships, sailing ships, battleships, aircraft carriers, show more machine guns, and fighter planes.
A big point is made of the transition to "chemical-based" weaponry, by which he means guns and bombs, and how this initially led to a volume of slaughter that wasn't intended, that fighting between members of the same species is naturally just of the bluff and show variety, like two rams hitting their heads against each other, or gorillas beating their chests. show less

Why do humans make war? Is it genetically pre-determined? What lessons of early warfare can we apply to present day conditions?
Robert O'Connell attempts to answer these and many other questions

0' Connell argues that man's creation of weapons is biologically defensible. Most animals developed some form of self-defense mechanism, be it fangs, claws or, in the case of crustaceans, body armor. Intraspecies combat is characterized by symmetrically balanced weaponry and battle follows a specific set of rules. Man's history of weaponry is an attempt to overcome symmetry in battle: the ever-increasing search for the ultimate, or better weapon which will provide the edge in combat. Deterrence itself has biological parallels in the increased show more ritualization of battle and the insertion of bluff, i.e. animals who try to appear larger than life when faced with aggression. This parallels a country's desire to appear (if not actually be) stronger than the opponent to prevent attack, at least in theory.

War, itself, began some 7000-9000 years ago largely as a result of changes in the nomadic lifestyle, the development of agriculture and a more village-oriented society. O'Connell postulates that about this time the concept of property arose as people had more food than they needed. Control implied ownership. Thus politics and property became the keys to societal conflict.

Ironically many of the civilizations we now admire for their cultural achievements (Greece, Rome, etc.) were acclaimed by their contemporaries for their war-making abilities. It was not until the 17th century that dominance by one state over another was achieved by some means other than war (economics and commercial trade.) Despite O'Connell's overemphasis on biological comparisons, the book makes intriguing parallels between ancient war and that of today; the desire for bigger and better weapons for example. Ptolemy V built a gargantuan warship which totally outclassed anything at the time. It was 450 feet in length, had a 57 foot beam, carried 4000 oarsmen, 400 deckhands, and 2800 marines but was worthless militarily. It reminds one of the nuclear airplane of the 50's or perhaps the Stealth bomber.

Another interesting parallel is the 1139 Edict of the 2nd Ecumenical Lateran Council which outlawed the use of the crossbow, (except in its use against Muslims, of course,) perhaps the first attempt at arms control. The crossbow was an extremely effective weapon, strong enough to penetrate the armor of a mounted knight. As it was relatively inexpensive, it enabled the lowly foot soldier to destroy the mounted aristocracy threatening the power structure supported by the church. The current attempts to prevent small nations from obtaining nuclear weapons raises similar issues.

Revised 5/9/09 show less