Hans van Wees

In order to cash in on this widely overpriced work, Cambridge University Press dropped all quality standards: Sloppy editing (one contributor repeatedly refers to his non-existent subtitle), sloppy fact-checking (Victor Davis Hanson being Victor Davis Hanson), outdated and language restricted sources, a flawed overall research design and a general non communication among the contributors. In the end, it's a collection of essays of mixed quality, some truly awful, some quite enlightening.

The most critical aspect is the flawed research design that breaks down Greek warfare into two periods (classical and Hellenistic) which forces the topic into a bed of Prokrustes. The second flaw of the research design is the presentation of the Greek (and later Roman) side only, a kabuki approach that ignores modern research paradigms and is not helpful in understanding the dynamic element of warfare. Greek warfare did not evolve in a vacuum.

Why the editors let Victor Davis Hanson write about "The modern historiography of ancient warfare" is a mystery to me. Azar Gat has written two books about the topics covered and would certainly have written a better essay. Instead, the space is given to Hanson's badly structured, sloppily researched and biased essay. Hanson whose command of the German language (if he reads German at all) and the literature is not proportional to his wide-ranging statements he makes about the German historical school. Hanson being Hanson, he strays from his topic to modern times, only to blunder about "the (20th century) demilitarization oft he Danube" (the last time the Danube was militarized was during the Habsburg Ottoman wars) and "post-Marxist discussion of ancient warfare" (whatever this means, no sources supplied, which seems to be the general approach Hanson takes to opposing views).

Overall, a very disappointing result. Cambridge University Press should hang their collective heads in shame.… (mais)