'War in European History' by Michael Howard

Hello Hivers and Book Clubbers,

I'm keeping up the tempo. Over the recent 2 months, I've been able to write two to three reviews a week, which is really high pace for me. I'm still surprised by people on this platform who are able to post every day. I wouldn't know what to talk about. Of course I also don't read THAT fast. Though the book I'm talking about today could be finished in an afternoon, if you're in a hurry.

The book I'm talking about here is titled 'War in European History', written by Michael Howard in 1976. My English copy dates from 1993, and the story proper amounts to almost 150 pages. For those daunted by how big many non-fiction books are, this might be one you have to look into. Let's get into it.

Mankind's favourite activity

The chosen subtitle might sound cynical, but Howard points out a simple truth: war has always been part of human history, and human society. And, morals aside, it probably will be. In this book, Howard looks at how wars are fought, what the army consists of, how it is fincanced etc.

For this, he categorizes European history into eight distinct time-zones:
-The wars of the Knights
-The wars of the Mercenaries
-The wars of the Merchants
-The wars of the Professionals
-The wars of the Revolution
-The wars of the Nations
-The wars of the Technologists
-The Nuclear Age

I'll talk about a couple of them in this review, and leave the rest as an appeal to read this book yourself.

The wars of the Knights

The book starts with the almost romantic appeal of the knight. Because that's what you wanted to be on a European battlefield in the (early to middle) Middle Ages: heavy cavalry, fully armored and well-armed. In a time where infantry wasn't designed to stop a cavalry charge (pikes became popular later on), knights coulddoe severe damage on a battlefield.

But armor of the quality necessary was expensive, and so, for that matter, was a horse. How do you pay for all this: through owning land, and through the peasants that worked that land, and weren't allowed to leave it.

The institution of feudalism is the core of medieval knighthood; a knight promised his sword to his lord, and in return he received a 'fief', a certain plot of land from which he could derive his income. This practice was first perfected in France, and from there spread to nearby countries, simply through influence, necessity, or war itself.

It spread through war in the Norman Conquest of England (1066). The Normans, learning from the French, had adopted knights as a part of their army. Contrast this to the Anglo-Saxons, who were still fighting the way they had for centuries; a shield-wall of infantry. Since the Anglo-Saxons mostly fought Vikings in the preceding times, who fought in exactly the same way, this seemed adequate for the future. The Normans showed them otherwise.

The Germans adopted the knight in time to deal with troubles on its eastern frontier. The Magyars (i.e. Hungarians) had invaded Europe, and were raiding and fighting everywhere. Their light cavalry, armed with bows, was an issue that the Germans didn't know how to deal with with their mostly infantry-based armies. But the heavily armored knight on horseback did the trick. They defeated the Hungarians at Lechfeld in 955, and thus stopped the westward expansion of the Hungarians.

The wars of the Revolution

The Revolution in question is, as you might have guessed, the French Revolution. The appeal to the people as a political force, instead of throne and altar, had a massive impact on military history.

Wars were fought by relatively small, professional armies before that. The Revolution brought the Citizen's army into being. Helped by the fact that muskets were becoming easier to use, and not requiring a lot of training, these armies were remarkably effective.

The French army became stronger through its overwhelming size, and was able to deal with remaining French Royalist forces this way. After that, through the intervention of European history's most famous general, Napoleon Bonaparte, France made a bid to become Europe's most dominant power. It took 20 years for France to be defeated and settle down.

Wars of the Future?

It's hard for historians to predict the future. It's a completely diffent field, though the past and future are connected in ways. This book was written in the 1970s, during the Cold War. The idea prevailed that if war ever broke out, everyone would just start throwing atomic bombs, and large parts of the world would end up a wasteland.

This did not turn out to be the case. The Cold War in its official form ended in 1991, with the implosion of the Soviet Union. Yet there are still wars today, as can be seen between the Ukraine and Russia.

There is a lingering restraint in not using the most lethal weapons we have in these wars. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad for it. But this IS in contrast with earlier ages, where we used the most lethal weapons at our disposal.

Conclusion

This book is a great introduction, and ties up the loose ends that might exist in your view of European warfare. It combines the military with the cultural; not only in how the army looked and fought, but also in how society adapted to create such an army. In that way it is a very complete book. As mentioned, it's under 150 pages, so it can be a quick read. I'll be back with more reviews in the future. Until then,

*-Pieter Nijmeijer

(Top image; self-made photo of book cover)