Summary Of The Western Approach To War By Victor Davis Hanson

No, Victor Davis Hanson’s thesis about the “Western approach to war that was superior to and distinct from that of the people of the ancient Near East” is not correct, but it is mixed. He definitely makes good points to why it could be correct, but there is way too much information that does not support his thesis. I don’t think his thesis is really far off, but it is partly correct and partly wrong. Some facts point that his thesis being right, while many facts say otherwise. He went out on a limb to say that the western way of war was superior and to and distinct from the Near East. Warfare in the North East before the Persians, didn’t seem to be very much warfare. It seemed like they didn’t have a real war until the Battle of Kadesh. Up

This is by far the best supporting evidence I see to where the west is superior to the Near East. The Macedonians have a professional army that has fought together for over twenty years that really helps them win. They also use many heavy infantry and cavalry in the conquest. Under king Phillip the Macedonians really change how they fight in battle, they show a distinctive way they fight and it seemed to be superior to the Near East at the time. They make a torsion catapult, and develop a new plan for the infantrymen. He moves from the heavy infantry that are pretty slow with swords, to men holding 18-foot-long pikes and a lighter shield. They end up packing their phalanx closely together, which creates a wall of spears when the put them in the ground. This supports Hanson’s constant adaptation part of theory, but lacks to explain that the use of cavalry. The cavalry was so important in unifying Greece, and he doesn’t say that the use of cavalry is big for the west. They annihilate Greece and Persia and are for sure superior in this way. They burn cities to the ground and wreck everything in their