This post’s summary of The Great Illusion gets the book’s predictions backwards. Norman Angell does indeed argue that even victory in war is economically unprofitable and that offensive war is stupid, but he does not argue that this means war can’t happen. Just the opposite, in fact:
“It is evident that so long as the misconception we are dealing with is all but universal in Europe, so long as the nations believe that in some way the military and political subjugation of others will bring with it a tangible material advantage to the conqueror, we all do, in fact, stand in danger from such aggression. Not his interest, but what he deems to be his interest, will furnish the real motive of our prospective enemy’s action. And as the illusion with which we are dealing does, indeed, dominate all those minds most active in European politics, we (in England) must, while this remains the case, regard an aggression … as within the bounds of practical politics.”
I’m aware that this isn’t central to the post’s point, but it’s one of the few claims in the post that I’m already familiar with, so seeing this makes me wonder if some of the other claims (especially the characterization of Renaissance warfare as “something of a gentleman’s sport”) might also be misleadingly glib.
Thank you so much for pointing this out, this is what I get for skimping on research in places, the next drafts of this post will be edited to change this.
I don’t think war was a gentleman’s sport, or at least not many people felt like one. In antiquity wars were already so deadly that one wondered if civilizations could rise again. The Second Punic War, for example, or even the conquest of Caesar can be seen as total wars. During the Middle Ages or the Renaissance, the Battle of Azincourt or Marignan are also examples of the violence and fierceness with which fighting took place. But while it is true that the number of deaths is not comparable, the effects on the parties involved are.
For my part, this question has to be qualified: in my opinion, the deadliest war will remain the Second World War for a very long time. The reason for this is that the war has changed shape, it is no longer a question of battlefields for contemporary wars, but of strategic points, targeted bombings, strategic assassinations. Wars are now more or less explicit cold wars, precisely because fighting on the ground has become too murderous.
This post’s summary of The Great Illusion gets the book’s predictions backwards. Norman Angell does indeed argue that even victory in war is economically unprofitable and that offensive war is stupid, but he does not argue that this means war can’t happen. Just the opposite, in fact:
“It is evident that so long as the misconception we are dealing with is all but universal in Europe, so long as the nations believe that in some way the military and political subjugation of others will bring with it a tangible material advantage to the conqueror, we all do, in fact, stand in danger from such aggression. Not his interest, but what he deems to be his interest, will furnish the real motive of our prospective enemy’s action. And as the illusion with which we are dealing does, indeed, dominate all those minds most active in European politics, we (in England) must, while this remains the case, regard an aggression … as within the bounds of practical politics.”
I’m aware that this isn’t central to the post’s point, but it’s one of the few claims in the post that I’m already familiar with, so seeing this makes me wonder if some of the other claims (especially the characterization of Renaissance warfare as “something of a gentleman’s sport”) might also be misleadingly glib.
Thank you so much for pointing this out, this is what I get for skimping on research in places, the next drafts of this post will be edited to change this.
I don’t think war was a gentleman’s sport, or at least not many people felt like one. In antiquity wars were already so deadly that one wondered if civilizations could rise again. The Second Punic War, for example, or even the conquest of Caesar can be seen as total wars. During the Middle Ages or the Renaissance, the Battle of Azincourt or Marignan are also examples of the violence and fierceness with which fighting took place. But while it is true that the number of deaths is not comparable, the effects on the parties involved are.
For my part, this question has to be qualified: in my opinion, the deadliest war will remain the Second World War for a very long time. The reason for this is that the war has changed shape, it is no longer a question of battlefields for contemporary wars, but of strategic points, targeted bombings, strategic assassinations. Wars are now more or less explicit cold wars, precisely because fighting on the ground has become too murderous.