Review by Choice Review
Military historians have traditionally explained the evolution of warfare from the limited wars of the 18th century to the total wars of the 20th century in terms of the emergence of mass conscript armies or new forms of strategy. Yale law professor Whitman rejects those explanations in favor of a legal approach, claiming that limited wars arose when European monarchs accepted as law the principle that victory in pitched battle gave the victor the legal rights to the spoils of war and reduced if not eliminated the need for further destruction. He concludes that the system broke down with the rise of republican governments that rejected wars for profit and placed a "just cause" theory in its place. This argument may satisfy legal scholars, but military historians will be far less impressed, and will be puzzled by Whitman's criticism that they "focus on the events of the battlefield itself" and are able to explain how a battle was won, but not what was won. Military historians will be even more troubled that Whitman's case for 18th-century warfare rests on superficial sketches of only three battles that he does not place in any strategic or political context. Summing Up: Recommended. Specialized collections only. R. H. Larson Lycoming College
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by Choice Review
