If this episode is a good sample of the series, then it's a magnificent series. It's hard to imagine how this survey of warfare -- from the Greek City States like Athens and Thebes, to the conquests of Alexander the Great, about 330BC -- could be improved in an hour-long show. It IS Eurocentric and might better have been called "War and Western Civilization."
As an anthropologist I had a passing knowledge of Greek history and of warfare among primitive tribes -- the Zulu buffalo, the Jivaro ambush, counting coup, that sort of stuff. But the chief contributing talking head, John Keegan, pointed out that the overall structure of a fighting force was descended from hunters and gatherers. Of course, he's guessing, but it's plausible that men who hunt in bands develop habits of leadership and coordination. And the more skilled the leader is at tactics, the more his directives are followed. Some of the generalizations may be less accurate but every TV show has a time limit and winds up oversimplifying.
But I don't want to get into theory too much because I don't know much about it. The approach here is developmental. From primitive warfare, to the Greek Hoplites, and winding up with Phillip's and Alexander's Macedonian phalanxes that conquered pretty much all of the known world at the time. He made it to India where he died of some disease at thirty-three. (Alexander was young, smart, and brutal. He probably didn't look like the golden-haired Colin Farrell.)
I was surprised at the continuity between conflicts in Greece and some of the conditions of modern warfare. The ordinary Greek citizen warrior carried about 70 pounds of armor, supplies, and weapons. So does a modern infantryman. But there are constant arguments over the balance within the burden. Armor protects you, supplies allow you to stay on the field longer, and weapons allow you to inflict damage on the enemy. But what proportion do these elements take? The problem was especially acute for paratroops in World War II.
I'm not sure I'd recommend this splendid series, with its avuncular narration by Walter Cronkite, for everyone. A lot of people are likely to be bored or otherwise turned off by the content. I'm fascinated by it. It's wasteful in its use of resources, often pointless, and horrible in its effects. But that's what makes it fascinating, in the way that a particular disease might fascinate a physician, or a wrecked airplane might fascinate the National Transportation Safety Board.
If I look at "war", I wonder not which side is right, but what went wrong. I have a feeling that we won't find the answer until we disentangle the midbrain's hard wiring. But none of that affects the quality of this series.
As an anthropologist I had a passing knowledge of Greek history and of warfare among primitive tribes -- the Zulu buffalo, the Jivaro ambush, counting coup, that sort of stuff. But the chief contributing talking head, John Keegan, pointed out that the overall structure of a fighting force was descended from hunters and gatherers. Of course, he's guessing, but it's plausible that men who hunt in bands develop habits of leadership and coordination. And the more skilled the leader is at tactics, the more his directives are followed. Some of the generalizations may be less accurate but every TV show has a time limit and winds up oversimplifying.
But I don't want to get into theory too much because I don't know much about it. The approach here is developmental. From primitive warfare, to the Greek Hoplites, and winding up with Phillip's and Alexander's Macedonian phalanxes that conquered pretty much all of the known world at the time. He made it to India where he died of some disease at thirty-three. (Alexander was young, smart, and brutal. He probably didn't look like the golden-haired Colin Farrell.)
I was surprised at the continuity between conflicts in Greece and some of the conditions of modern warfare. The ordinary Greek citizen warrior carried about 70 pounds of armor, supplies, and weapons. So does a modern infantryman. But there are constant arguments over the balance within the burden. Armor protects you, supplies allow you to stay on the field longer, and weapons allow you to inflict damage on the enemy. But what proportion do these elements take? The problem was especially acute for paratroops in World War II.
I'm not sure I'd recommend this splendid series, with its avuncular narration by Walter Cronkite, for everyone. A lot of people are likely to be bored or otherwise turned off by the content. I'm fascinated by it. It's wasteful in its use of resources, often pointless, and horrible in its effects. But that's what makes it fascinating, in the way that a particular disease might fascinate a physician, or a wrecked airplane might fascinate the National Transportation Safety Board.
If I look at "war", I wonder not which side is right, but what went wrong. I have a feeling that we won't find the answer until we disentangle the midbrain's hard wiring. But none of that affects the quality of this series.