“Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World”, by Jack Weatherford

312 pages, Broadway Books, ISBN-13: 978-0609809648

Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World a well-written book that gives a good overall insight into the life of Genghis Khan and his conquests – but it suffers from an overly positive view of the man and overstatement of the Mongol empire’s effect on history and the modern world. Surely, Genghis Khan is one of history’s greatest conquerors and military tacticians, but going as far as to say that his empire was a precursor to the Renaissance in Europe (which owes a whole lot more to ancient Rome and Greece) and the subsequent “modern civilization” is going way overboard. Also, the author too easily excuses the unprecedented mass murder, plundering, rape, and destruction that the Mongols left in their wake. These oversights sour what is otherwise a well-researched and well-written book about the great conqueror. Genghis Khan is certainly a great historical figure with a fascinating story, rising as he did from enslavement to a rival tribe to uniting all the Mongol tribes and amassing the largest contiguous land empire in the history of mankind. Genghis was one extremely determined individual with an iron will and extraordinary charisma to lead a nation of illiterate nomads to conquer so many nations and cultures in a relatively short period of time…but in the macro view of world history, the Mongol empire’s legacy simply isn’t all that great – certainly not comparable to the empires established by Alexander the Great or the Romans.

What I find irksome amongst the Genghis Khan biographers and historians is that they always point out how much larger his empire was than that of Alexander or the Romans as though how much territory Genghis Khan overran and plundered is the sole overriding factor for who the “greatest” conqueror was. Things have to be observed and analyzed in the context of the times, the geography, and political situations of the surrounding areas, and upon doing so it becomes obvious that what Genghis Khan achieved definitely isn’t quite in the league of Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon (it’s akin to saying that Canada and Russia are both larger countries than the United States or China’s population is much greater than that of the United States and Europe combined – hence, they must be greater).

In the great scheme of things, the Mongols were simply marauders on the grandest scale with Genghis Khan at the helm organizing them into an efficient and disciplined fighting organization. As the book itself makes quite clear, the motives were simply to acquire luxuries like silk and jewelry that the Mongols had never ever seen before they embarked on their initial conquests. Once they tasted this kind of booty, their appetite and the means to acquire even more booty knew no bounds, and if a distant kingdom refused to submit and hand over their goods and treasures, the Mongol cavalry would come and kill every single inhabitant to acquire them. No matter how you look at it, this is all that the Mongol conquests boiled down to. What positive things did the Mongols really have to offer to those that they conquered? There is no doubt that the effects of the Mongol conquests were felt for centuries to come and the greatest benefit was that they speeded up the trade and cultural exchanges between the West and the Far East; this was first documented by Marco Polo, for Christ’s sake. Still, Weatherford too often extrapolates exchanges like these into something far greater through circumstantial evidence and conjectures. While I agree that Genghis Khan was a pivotal figure in history, the claims of just how far-reaching the effects of his empire were are overwrought and exaggerated to the point of absurdity.

Like other conquering historical figures, historical evidence for or against Genghis Khan is often scarce and difficult to substantiate, but it isn’t too difficult to disseminate the flow of history before or after that particular figure’s era. When examining Genghis Khan, we see that his main legacy is of plunder for plunder’s sake; he was the ultimate businessman who made a simple request: your booty or your life. Once that “transaction” was established, Genghis Khan and his offspring organized something more sophisticated to keep the booty flowing into their coffers. There were no ideals of spreading Mongol literature, philosophy, culture, arts, education, religion, or goods to the lands and cities they conquered (indeed, there is debate if there is, in fact, such a thing as Mongol literature, philosophy, culture, arts, education, religion, or goods).

I am taking a rather cynical view here of Genghis Khan and the legacy of his empire, but if you look at it all afar from a macroperspective covering many centuries right before or after his era, it’s evident that the Mongol empire has had very little lasting effect except the legacy of plunder and murder on an unprecedented scale. Weatherford too often twists historical facts and opinions alike into something that puts Genghis Khan in an overly positive light. This effort by Weatherford is only too evident as you read page after page of gushing about what amazing feats the Mongols accomplished and how they were the very first to do this and that and how those tactics and inventions were adopted by so and so at a later date by so and so, etc. It’s an interesting book but not something I’d recommend for someone looking for a more balanced and unbiased look at Genghis Khan. The largest contiguous land empire in history was hardly the greatest.

“The First Total War: Napoleon’s Europe and the Birth of Warfare as We Know It”, by David Avrom Bell

432 pages, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, ISBN-13: 978-0618349654

We have grown accustomed to viewing the World Wars of the 20^th Century as the first total wars in modern history, for they required the total mobilization and militarization of the societies involved. Their accompanying ideologies – Fascism, Nazism, Communism – were appropriately called totalitarian since they left no aspect of society unaffected. But historian David Avrom Bell in The First Total War: Napoleon’s Europe and the Birth of Warfare as We Know It has written a new and different history of the Napoleonic Wars (1792 – 1815) arguing that they were in fact the first total wars.

In his introduction, Bell tells us that he is borrowing techniques from intellectual history to write a military history. Traditionally military historians have restricted themselves to accounts of battlefield tactics and weapon systems, but in his book Bell is attempting to go further in showing that the ideals of the Enlightenment played a role in what he calls the first total war. He believes that the French Revolution – the apotheosis of the Enlightenment – radicalized people’s ideas about how and why wars should be fought. During the time of the Ancien Régime (which is Bell's main standard of comparison) wars were limited and short-lived and were fought according to established rules and usually to defend the honor of this or that aristocrat; in fact, many times the armies involved were made up of mercenaries who fought for pay rather than honor or, much less, patriotism. The philosophes of the Enlightenment such as Kant, Diderot, d’Alembert, and the Marquis de Condorcet were certain that with the advent of reason wars would be a thing of the past. As late as 1790 Robespierre was declaring in the Assembly that the French nation had no desire to engage in war, that to invade another country and make it adopt their laws and constitution was the furthest thing from their minds.

Much changed in two years: by 1792 there was growing opposition to the revolutionary government in Paris, especially in the Vendée region of western France. The government decided to put down this rebellion with a degree of brutality not seen before and conducted a scorched-earth policy that spared no one, making no distinction between combatants and non-combattants. The dogs of war had been unleashed to save the revolution and to obliterate any dissent. Bell explores the nature of total war and how it feeds on itself. Once the military becomes front and center of the government, war becomes unstoppable, and in the case og Ferance, all of the nation’s resources and efforts went to the Grande Armée to create an empire in places as far as Egypt and Russia.

In his retelling of the Spanish campaign, Bell attempts to draw a parallel with America’s intervention in Iraq, and to an extent there are some parallels. Napoleon claimed to be bringing Enlightenment ideals and reform to Spain, yet the insurgency would have none of it. This, however, is a distraction from Bell’s thesis; whatever else it did in Iraq, America didn’t conducting a total war; it was, rather, a very restrained and cautious use of military power. In fact, Napoleon’s excursion into Spain was somewhat cautious to be called total war.

When contrasted with what transpired in the preceding century and what the philosophes predicted, the Napoleonic Wars were barbaric and total, but it is still not clear how they were different from, say, the Mongol invasions of the Middle Ages or the military expeditions of Alexander the Great. Its seems that the so-called total wars of Napoleon have been conducted before. The total mobilization of people and resources is as old as human history. Mutual and absolute hatred for the enemy is a timeless emotion. Bell’s argument that hell hath no fury like a citzen’s army is reminiscent of Victor Davis Hanson’s thesis in Carnage and Culture, and it is as unconvincing.

Bell’s book provides much food for thought on how quickly circumstances can change from permanent peace to permanent war without pinpointing exactly what triggers the change. Paranoia, perceived threat, and survival are all factors in the devolution of high ideals to base hostility – and why armies of citizens driven by Enlightenment ideals fight more effectively than previous armies is still unanswered. However, Bell makes a robust effort with this original work.

“The Last Witch of Langenburg: Murder in a German Village”, by Thomas Robisheaux

432 pages, W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN-13: 978-0393065510

The Last Witch of Langenburg is a fascinating look at the mechanics of witch trials, as well as an interesting account of one of the latest convictions of a woman for witchcraft in Europe. A blessing for readers is how well-documented the trial is and author Thomas Robisheaux delivers this bounty of information in a very engaging narrative. While it is historical non-fiction, it reads, at times, like an historical thriller.

Robisheaux makes the smart move of diving immediately into the story, beginning with the miller’s daughter, Eva Küstner, traveling around her village delivering small cakes for Shrove Tuesday (Mardi Gras’ tamer cousin). From court testimony, we learn of her neighbor’s deep suspicions about the delivery of the cakes, which would help lead to the accusation of witchcraft, while the sudden death of villager Anna Fessler the evening after eating one of these cakes seals the deal. It is only then that Robisheaux goes into some of the more dry background details of the holiday of Shrove Tuesday, the tradition of baking cakes for it, and why witchcraft, rather than simple murder by poisoning, was Küstner’s neighbors’ conclusion. A wise decision, I think, to begin with the dramatic, involving the reader before moving on to some of the more academic material.

Robisheaux continues in this vein, giving the reader a bit of the story and a bit of the background as the town’s leaders and citizens become embroiled in the investigation of witchcraft. Most fascinating to the modern reader is the contrast between the rising notion of justice, fair trials, forensics, and the consultation of scientific experts, versus the almost medieval notion of witchcraft. How the contemporary town leaders reconciled the two makes for a great narrative and one that Robisheaux explores to its fullest. Luckily for the reader, it is also this commitment to the proper legal process that produces all the documents that make this account such a full story. Rather than relying on speculation and reconstruction based on typical attitudes of the time, we get to hear the opinions and statements of the persons involved in their own words, a treat not often found in accounts of persons not royal of very famous in their times.

I also appreciate that Robisheaux mostly sticks to information relevant to the case. Although some of the information about the Thirty Years’ War, for instance, was a little dry, it was also very necessary background information. However, because of this, I would not recommend this book to anyone who does not usually enjoy reading historical non-fiction. While as a reader of both historical fiction and nonfiction I appreciated the narrative portions of the story and the attempt to create a more dramatic development, this book is firmly rooted in the world of practical, academic information. For those who are interested in history, witchcraft, the justice system, or simply looking for a great history book, The Last Witch of Langenburg is a very satisfying story that will certainly fit the bill.