"Opinions on Victor Davis Hanson?" Topic

Does anyone have any particular thoughts or opinions on this author and his work on ancient Greece?

Traditionalist

Started out level-headed;

His book on the Pelop. War is excellent. And his little book on hoplite warfare ditto.

Let's keep this non-political, please.

I've read it a lot ago and I might be wrong but.. is he the one arguing that hoplite phalanxes would charge head on against each others and clash their heads like mountain goats? Always felt weird about that theory..

I first read his book on hoplite warfare right around the time I read Keegan. They seemed to fit well together.
I'm not a scholar on hoplite warfare, but the down and dirty of it made a lot of sense as a wargamer. I don't know if it was original, but it certainly made hoplite warfare a lot less glamorous.

The Western Way of War seemed to be mostly cherry picking, to support his thesis that only Westerners were really "serious" about waging war, serious enough to seek a conclusion. Perhaps I misread it, but it was years ago.

When he lumped Patton, Sherman and Epiminondas together as agrarian freedom fighters against Nazi Germany, the Confederacy and Sparta, it struck me as more than a little bizarro. That's when I stopped buying his books. He probably had some good insights into the Peloponnesian War, but the previous one turned me off to his work.

Now, he's just another serious talking head on TV. I think his analogies to Classical history are a bit stretched.

Started out level-headed

Still level-headed, perhaps some folks don't like his observations…

I think his analogies to Classical history are a bit stretched.

Amidst the sea of pundits and personalities, how many are versed in Classical history to draw any analogies? Just him. And his analogies are based mostly upon the fact that human nature is unchanging, and history offers insights on how people act in similar circumstances. And sometimes its easy for anyone with some historical knowledge to make analogies.

I once took a guided tour of the Hippodrome area of Istanbul. The guide had fun explaining how at one point two of the most powerful factions were the Greens and Blues, named after colors worn by the top chariot racing teams. They controlled parts of the city, and politicians would cozy up to them and pay 'em off to organize protests and mob actions that gave them political advantage. They'd sic the mob on political and economic opponents – a "protest" of some policy or action that turned into a riot that torched a rival's villa or business, smashed a few skulls and intimidated people. Oh, and the occasional death.

"See, Scylla can't control the City! We must address this chaos!!" Oh…Scylla got his head bashed in???

Seemed familiar to me…

He is one of my favorite authors and I have found his observations well thought out even if I do not agree with some of them.

I thought he had some interesting insights until he dismissed Alexander III of Macedon as a murderous thug who succeeded only because of his army.

Alex could definitely be called a murderous thug but he was a well educated thug, visionary, fearless and brilliant general as well.

I enjoyed reading his books even though I sometimes disagree with his conclusions. Disclaimer: he knows way, way more than I ever will.

Alex did murder a lot of soldiers who surrendered to him. That's kind of thuggish. The only reason to resent him being called a thug is hero worship. He's a bit more thuggish than most, and probably only because he won more battles than most.
He's no more automatically "deserving of respect" than the Spartans. Or the Athenians for that matter. They all behaved thuggishly back then, even Hanson's beloved Thebans.

His description of what happened when two phalanxes crashed together also makes sense. Why would blind elders be there unless it was to add a push in the rear rank? And the Corinthian helmet has to be the most vision restricting headgear ever. All you can do wearing one is push forward.

So while I respect his scholarship regarding classical warfare, I don't necessarily think that it applies to modern times. Is that apolitical enough?

I think a lot of what he has written about the relationship of agriculture and warfare is very interesting. There are places where he compares 5th Century BC Greek agriculture and 20th Century American agriculture, and these don't hold up so well. Usually, they are anecdotal, so not required for his arguments.

As to what happens when phalanxes meet, I've seen some newer stuff that frankly sounds better.

Grelber

Hoplites The Classical Greek Battle Experience
by Victor Davis Hanson (Editor)

The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece
by Victor Davis Hanson

These two are worth it for the traditionalist view, and understanding the counter presentations. I find the "Hoplites" compendium the most compelling of any of his works because of the structure as separate topics of interest, by other authors. Such as why the hoplite general was the most dangerous job.

VDH is a farmer in California farming on land his family has lived on for generations. So he does know something about farming in the 20th Century.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

JJartist,

Couldn't agree more. Those were great books.

If you want something that tries to present the conflicting views about hoplites:

Men of Bronze: Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece
by Donald Kagan (Editor), Gregory F. Viggiano (Editor)

It a "conference" book of papers presented in 2008

As mentioned above, VDH's best insights into the classical world come from his blue-collar agricultural background. His books read like they didn't come straight from an Ivy League faculty lounge.

Which is exactly why he is so hated among the "best" people. He committed the unpardonable sin of rising above his station in life.

If you want a stable society that is very hard to conquer either from outside or inside, you want it to consist mostly of small farmers who own their own land, produce most of their own wants, and have weapons and votes. Examples are the Greek polis, the Roman Republic before Hannibal, and the American colonies. Your farmers, citizens, and soldiers should be the same people.

OK, I'm aware that Hanson and his brother have a grape farm in the Central Valley of California. Yes, this is going to produce some interesting insights into ancient Greek agriculture, at least as far as raising grapes goes. Now, Mr. Hanson like you and me, lives in a world that is very mechanized, very data driven, and very electronic. A great deal of the labor on his farm is done by tractors and other mechanical devices. He can track production by field on a computer to determine when the grapes need fertilizer. The average farm in the Valley is 348 acres (141 hectares), the average Athenian farm 5-20 hectares (12-49 acres), and Spartan farms (with all those helots to work them) could be up to 44 hectares (108 acres). The point here is that the modern Central Valley is not Ancient Greece.
Is his background likely to provide Mr. Hanson with some interesting insights into ancient Greek agriculture? Absolutely.
Are these insights worth investigating? Yes.
Are all of them valid? No.
Moreover, Greeks did not live on raisins and wine: they ate bread, and had meat, at least for sacred festivals. Coming from grain producing and cattle raising areas in the US, I come away from some of his comments feeling he doesn't understand those types of farming.
And, yes, I do like his books. I have Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece, The Western Way of War, and The Other Greeks, as well as Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, which he edited.

Grelber

If you want a stable society that is very hard to conquer either from outside or inside, you want it to consist mostly of small farmers who own their own land, produce most of their own wants, and have weapons and votes. Examples are the Greek polis, the Roman Republic before Hannibal, and the American colonies. Your farmers, citizens, and soldiers should be the same people.

That 'logic' does not apply to either the United States or Great Britain, especially after the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Your 'ideas' are just a little too simplified and sweeping to be valid.

Hmmm… Hanson's work on hoplite warfare is interesting and well worth reading; the OFM is right, it fits w/Keegan as an example of what used to be called "the new military history." Hanson has always been much addicted, however, to "the big picture," and as his arguments grow more comprehensive and as he leaves his area of primary competence behind, he gets less persuasive. Much less. I think that professionally, too, his lack of focus -- or maybe lack of a clear area of specialization -- hurt his reputation in the long run. I read his work but with quite a bit of healthy skepticism.

I think that Kagan's recent book, Men of Bronze, would be what I would recommend instead of Hanson, although VDH is a contributor. My preferred book on the hoplites is Hans van Wees, Greek Warfare: Myth and Realities (2005?), for whatever that's worth.

If you want a stable society that is very hard to conquer either from outside or inside, you want it to consist mostly of small farmers who own their own land, produce most of their own wants, and have weapons and votes. Examples are the Greek polis, the Roman Republic before Hannibal, and the American colonies. Your farmers, citizens, and soldiers should be the same people.

That 'logic' does not apply to either the United States or Great Britain, especially after the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

I think the argument can be simplified. What is being described in the previous post is a stable & prosperous middle class, albiet in the argument a rural one. In the post Industrial Revolution period, a stable & prosperous middle class gives the affluence needed to make for an engaged populace that values protecting & expanding their own prosperity. Just like the well-to-do farmers of ancient Rome, if your populace feels engaged in protecting the values & ideals the state espouses, then they will be well motivated to fight (& die) for it, IMHO.

Damon.

Both Keegan and Hanson are all wet. The former makes too many errors, especially in his work on the American Civil War. Hanson lets his 'personal' beliefs influence his writing and conclusions which I believe is innate bias.

I was 'introduced' to Hanson in graduate school and I was not impressed.

I have yet to run across any author without "innate bias". Why else would they write on that topic?
Ah yes. As Doctor Johnson would say, "for money".

Any author who claims to have no bias is only fooling himself, and the reader.

I like Hanson's work a great deal, especially, as others have noted, his exploration of the agricultural basis of hoplite warfare. His broader thesis, which has informed both his later historical writing and also much of his contribution to popular history, strategic thought, and contemporary affairs, addresses what he sees as the superiority of the Western way of warfare, as it evolved from his principal area of historical study.

He is clear, compelling, and often controversial in his views, a very capable writer and public speaker, and someone who has performed the rare feat of transforming his scholarly expertise into a flexible, influential public platform. This is intellectually difficult, and suggests a herculean work ethic that I also admire.

My agreement with his views varies, ranging from full accord to full opposition.

But his work, and the debates to which his work has contributed, are well worth the time. I own, I think, five authored or edited works, and have maybe twenty or so articles, op-eds, and other publications.

Damon, yes, an urban suburban middle class is next best, or maybe as good or better. The burghers of the Dutch Republic are a good example. Between small farmers and urban citizens, you would be trading a high degree of economic self-sufficiency for the obvious advantages of urban culture (superior in almost every case except plagues and famines, when you want to be on a farm).

A lot of his work has been outmoded and is no longer taken seriously by scholars of the period. (Source: Am a Classics grad student currently taking classes that have largely dismissed him)

His big issues are his endless comparisons between antiquity and today, and this construction of a "west" that the ancients would've laughed at to justify his "the west is best" philosophy. He also has some kooky ideas about masculinity.

A lot of his work has been outmoded and is no longer taken seriously by scholars of the period. (Source: Am a Classics grad student currently taking classes that have largely dismissed him)

That was generally the opinion when I was in grad school for military history in 2007-2009. If writing on the ancient Greeks and they 'way of war' I would not use him as a reference.

I thought he was interesting, and with good ideas, until the silliness of "The Soul of Battle". That's when I decided that maybe I didn't have to buy every book he came out with.

"I thought he was interesting, and with good ideas, until the silliness of "The Soul of Battle". That's when I decided that maybe I didn't have to buy every book he came out with."

----> Exactly. The "Western Way of War" was good as far as it went to dissect the idea of why the Greeks (i.e. west) developed massed close combat tactics that defeated the stand off fire power of the east (i.e. Persia). I did not agree with the conclusions, but I always felt that first book was a well presented argument, that stimulated discussion. By Soul of battle it had devolved from history writing to philosophy. Which is ok, but I got off the Davis train.
But not quite, I did read half of "A War like no Other" and found it truly repetitive and profoundly boring, nothing that would pry me away from Donald Kagan' works, and "Men of Bronze: Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece."

If somebody new to the subject was to ask where to start, I say get this: "Hoplites at War: A Comprehensive Analysis of Heavy Infantry Combat in the Greek World, 750-100 bce Paperback – by Paul M. Bardunias (Author), Fred Eugene Ray Jr. (Author). And you can go off to the othismos races.

I'll be more interested in VDH when he writes a set of wargaming rules that make hoplite battles interesting to play.

"Each generation writes its own history." VDH has been writing a long time. I'm trying to think of historians whose appeal transcends several generations. Who today reads Bruce Catton? Going further back, Arnold Toynbee? Frederick Jackson Turner? This is a pretty normal thing.

It strikes me that there is a tension between a "technocratic" approach to history, in which younger scholars have the advantage: recent research, open to new ideas, more in tune with societal changes, versus the "master and apprentice" model in which an older scholar shares more of himself and whatever accrued wisdom he has gained.

I was privileged, in 1966-68, to get weekly saber lessons from a man who had been US national champion in the 1930s and competed in the Berlin Olympics. I learned some neat tricks and won a few tournaments. But when I started a fencing team ten years later and was coaching my own students, I discovered that I was trying to teach them saber techniques from the 1930s, and the game had changed profoundly; I was two generations behind in my knowledge.

Similarly, my main history professor was Frank Vandiver, who knew as much about the Civil War as any man alive. I doubt anyone reads his THEIR TATTERED FLAGS: THE EPIC OF THE CONFEDERACY today (though I believe his biography of Pershing, BLACK JACK, is still being read). But he was a gentleman and a scholar who shared HIMSELF with his students -- our seminar met in his home -- and was a great influence on me. My philosophy course (1965) was taught by a Ukrainian who got his PhD in 1910, and fled to this country in 1920. Talk about perspective!

In other words, there is far more to being a teacher than the material.

VDH has been cancelled. His politics are at odds with the prevailing orthodoxy of his class. It has little to do with his scholarship. If he had just written about Feminist Astronomy, he would have been adored.

Joe Collins

Note. What I tried to say in my post is no worse than many of the opinions expressed above.

VDH has been cancelled. His politics are at odds with the prevailing orthodoxy of his class. It has little to do with his scholarship. If he had just written about Feminist Astronomy, he would have been adored.

Oh, get a grip. I thought he was reaching and incoherent back in 1999 when I read "The Soul of Battle". I had no idea what his politics were 22 years ago, and find them irrelevant today.
"Canceled" is a fine excuse to use to let someone off the hook. My irritation had nothing to do with his politics.
And I won't go into his current politics which as looney as they are, have nothing to do with why I stopped reading him 22 years ago.

Speaking of "canceled", where you when Toby Keith practically drove the Dixie Chicks out of country music for being politically incorrect?

Hoplite warfare is hard to understand, and Hanson provided an original and intriguing avenue towards understanding. One can disagree, and certainly his use of sources was selective, but his arguments advanced scholarship and for that reason alone are worthwhile.

The whole "Western Way of War," stuff, however, is just bad history, involving gross and misleading generalizations and oceans of special pleading. And that has nothing to do w/his politics. For pete's sake no one ever accused Donald Kagan of being a "woke" liberal (not since the 1960s anyway) and his status as a giant in the field has somehow survived.

VDH's politics have nothing to do with why his work is bunk. That said, I think his wacky theories vis a vis "the west" and "the east" inform his politics in unhealthy ways. Particularly his diatribes about effeminate easterners vs manly westerners.

How many op-eds has he written saying how modern America is EXACTLY like "ancient situation x/y/x"

Also, othismos literalism is bad. Nothing in the sources indicates a literal rugby scrum push.