The Economics of Military History

Tyler Cowen comments on Castles, Battles, and Bombs: How Economics Explains Military History which I've also been reading:

The table of contents looks amazing, but my browsing indicated this book to be boring. Still, some of you should read it. It is full of factual substance, slotted into an economic framework.

The book is, indeed, a disappointment mostly brought low by poor prose style. The analysis of the issues at hand is, however, often quite interesting. The chapter on mercenaries in Italy is an excellent take on the subject, and I'll have more to say later inspired by the book's account of the strategic bombing campaign in Germany.

Comments

Well, nothing inspires comments like a post about a book that hasn't been published, on a subject too large for most readers to have anything other than a crackerbarrel opinion.

Excuse me for asking, Matt, but do you actually have the background on mercenary soldiers in northern Italy, or the bombing campaigns in Germany, to evaluate the bookish observations and place them in the proper context?

And what, exactly, does it mean to say that the analysis is "often quite interesting"? Is it he stimulating, but unfortunately wrong, analysis we've come to expect from the Chicago School of Economics? Does it consist of bromides well familiar to those in the field, but charmingly novel to the novitiate? What, in short, could inspire us to wade through a boring book too large to hold comfortably in the hand but too small to treat such a vast subject responsibly?

As prophylactic reading I would suggest, instead, the first two volumes of Braudel's Civilisation and Capitalism, 15th-18th Centuries, The Structure of Every day Life and The Wheels of Commerce. Those who persevere will find their worldview broadened, their knowledge of detail improved, and their ability to ask skeptical questions strengthened by Braudel's frequent suggestions about areas where we still lack certain knowledge. Those seeking interesting analysis will not find these works lacking.

Posted by serial catowner | February 10, 2008 1:23 PM

He has a fixation with the strategic bombing campaign of Germany. Let us see what the approach is this time.

Posted by danceswithgoats | February 10, 2008 6:08 PM

If the thesis is that the US buys its wars, not fights them, I'll buy it.

The classic illustration is in the movie "The Batle of the Bulge."

The Germans are blocked at Bastogne by a dug-in US unit. The German Field Marshall in charge takes his leading general to task for not bypassing it and continuing the advance.

The general shows the Field Marshall a chocolate cake taken from a captured US soldier. He explains that the Americans have enough fuel to fly cake across the Atlantic to their troops. He says the only way to defeat the US is to break their will to fight.

This is why the US hasn't been in a conventional war of significance in fifty years - all countries know it would be insane to try to take on an economic superpower short of nuclear spasm war (and with the disparity in nukes, that would be insane, too.)

Even China, whose economy will soon overtake the US in gross terms, and the EU, whose economy is already slight larger overall than the US, would never attack the US directly.

4th Gen War, however, is a different matter. And nothing the US has currently will enable it to win a 4th Gen War.

4th Gen War and the US nuclear disparity as well as the destructive nature of nuclear war has rendered conventional war (except between smaller powers) mostly obsolete.

Which is why it's stupid and wasteful for the US to continually increase its military budget at the expense of basic technological research (even if some of that budget goes to such R&D) amd equally stupid to attempt to use that military in imperial schemes which only attract threats to the US which that military cannot defend against.

All that said, this book isn't even out yet. Is this another Matt trick - using a review copy of a book nobody else can read to bolster his posts? Talk about cheap wannabe pundit tricks...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 10, 2008 7:34 PM

Sheesh, you guys are a bit tough on Matt here.

Any student of politics comes across Machiavelli and his low opinion of mercenaries. It is not that obscure a subject. Must Matt have written a thesis on the subject before he is allowed to proclaim this book has an 'excellent take' on the subject of renaissance italian for-hire troops?

As for Matt bolstering his posts . . . it's a blog.

That is what bloggers do.

Posted by Ken McCracken | February 10, 2008 11:03 PM

Some bloggers link to texts we can actually access and assess for ourselves.

This is one of Matt's "throwaways" to make it seem like he reads high-brow stuff justifying his wannabe pundit reputation.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 11, 2008 5:53 PM