Wayne E. Lee, Barbarians and Brothers: Anglo-American Warfare, 1500-1865 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011)
Author: Wayne E. Lee is Dowd Distinguished Professor of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Lee served in the U.S. Army from 1987 to 1992. He specializes in early modern military history, with a particular focus on North America and the Atlantic World, but he teaches military history from a full global perspective
Overview: In the formative years of the British Empire and early American colonies Anglo-Americans sometimes fought against brothers with similar cultures and attitudes but also against barbarians without a shared racial or cultural background. As a result, wars against brothers were often characterized by restraint whereas wars against barbarians often featured high levels of frightfulness, destruction and atrocity. He uses case studies from the periods in question, arguing that “the events of one campaign, and the choices of one leader and his soldiers . . . reveals more about the nature and experience of the war, and the restraints on violence within it, than a fly-over view of the entire war.” (73)
Central Thesis: “War is defined by both violence and restraint, consciously and unconsciously, materially and mentally.” Lee argues that the severity of war hinges on whether those fighting see the enemy as “barbarians,” savage others who must be exterminated, or as “brothers,” equals who deserve restraint in order to ensure future reconciliation
Scope of Book: Lee looks at competing trends in five major periods of war between 1500 and 1865. To do so he analyzes restraint and frightfulness in war.
The nature of English warfare in Ireland laid the groundwork for English assumptions about North America. The English civil war also informed American colonists leading into the American revolution about standing armies and restraint. Despite lessons, Anglo-American wars against Indians were often waged with exceptional violence. Americans then struggle during the revolution to reconcile restraint and devastating violence and produce three ways of war, one each for Indians, Brits, and Loyalists. After the revolution, Americans were convinced of their virtuosity and thought they would wage a similar war against the secessionists in 1861. Instead, it turned to Hard War in order to ensure victory. (2–3)
- Restraint: Combatants start with assumptions about restraint. Each expecting limits on behavior and the destructiveness of war. Combatants then wrestle within those limits. Even wars with barbarians had the hope of incorporating the opponent into their own society. When restraints fail or are cast aside comes escalation—quantitative (resources and expansion of destruction) or qualitative (adopting practices that might normally be found disturbing).
- Frightfulness: is a term that Lee introduces to denote the level of violence and who/what it is targeted against as it escalates. It refers to the combination of qualitative and quantitative escalation—the very nature and quality of destruction changes and it becomes frightful—often outside what a society considers normal behavior.
Lee also introduced four categories that shape restraint or frightfulness in war: capacity, control, calculation, and culture.
- Capacity: Lee argues that the state’s capacity to raise and wield armies had a major impact on restraint—particularly their capacity to pay and feed those armies. An unfed or unpaid army is much more likely to forage and plunder.
- Control: The ability to control soldiers is likewise important, as European militaries experience a discipline evolution as armies modernized in the 17th and 18th centuries which thus helped control their actions—but not always of course. Native Americans, however, did not have similar state functions and control over their individual warriors.
- Calculation: This refers to political and military leaders’ decisions on how to win.
- Culture: Military and particularly soldiers culture—which developed in less disciplined 16th century armies led to widespread plunder, rape, and murder—especially against “barbarians.” Enlightenment and aristocratic values in the American Revolutionary War evolved how militaries thought of civilians, especially when fighting brothers wars.
- “Shared grammar” of also critical. It helps maintain restraint in wars with brothers. On the other hand misunderstanding and miscommunication are often to blame in escalating frightfulness in wars with barbarians.
- Offers an excellent description of how 18th century linear warfare worked.
Commentary: Highly researched, well written work that is essentially a series of case-studies that are very particular to Anglo-American warfare. My only critique is that a similar study of continental European culture and warfare would make an excellent companion.