Carnage and Culture

Beyond the Battlefield: Unraveling the Oversimplifications in Hanson's 'Carnage and Culture'

In his book Carnage and Culture, Victor David Hanson argues that the Spanish conquest of the New World owed more to Europe's entrenched military tradition than to situational strategies and decisions. Hanson suggests that this deeply ingrained military tradition provided the Spaniards with substantial tactical advantages over the indigenous populations. The common theme in studies of the American conquest is that it was due to the role of Indian allies, European disease, and Cortes’ genius in manipulation of warring groups. Hanson, by contrast, argues that the long history of European martial life is overlooked, and this gave the Spaniards inherent abilities in bringing bloodshed to the New World. By contrast, historians such as Ross Hassig and Inga Clendinnen have extensively explored European warfare tactics, technology, and military tradition, offering a broader perspective. Significantly, Hanson’s insights on Spanish weaponry and tactics, which he presents as novel, actually build upon the foundational work of these earlier historians.

Modern scholars who attribute the Castilians astounding success to cultural confusion, disease, native allies and a host of other subsidiary causes are reluctant to admit to the critical role of Western technological and military superiority. Perhaps they fear that such conclusions might imply Eurocentrism, or suggest Western mental and moral pre-eminence.

His argument that few experts have delved into this subject is incorrect and is trying to position himself as an original thinker on the subject, when he is not.

Hanson claims that “both Mexican and European critics have offered a variety of contradictory explanations” to explain the conquest of the New World. A topic of such magnitude is bound to offer a variety of explanations for how such a transformative event took place, as that is the intent of historical research - to understand the past by looking at events from myriad perspectives. Factors such as disease, a network of alliances, cultural differences and technology all played an integral role in the outcome of the New World. European martial tradition undoubtedly played a role - but, contrary to Hanson’s argument, it was not the one and only cause of the conquest. Analysis of the European martial tradition is extensively covered by historians Hassig and Clindinnen. Hanson’s quest for novelty is ironically built upon the work of others. Rather than underscoring the supposed scarcity of focus on European martial tradition in historical discourse, Hanson would have better served his argument by concentrating on expanding his own research contributions.

The purpose of Hanson’s work is unclear. While at first he explains that he intends to to explain the conquest of the New World by discussing the European military tradition, he still goes in depth on the very “contradictory” subjects he criticized other experts for working on. For instance, he dismisses the effect that smallpox had on the population of the Indians, despite sources projecting an overall decrease of up to 95% of pre-Columbian population. Without specific or convincing research, Hanson declares that smallpox had “no real effect on the numerical parity between attackers and besieged”, a claim that appears to disregard overwhelming historical evidence. Hanson's work in 'Carnage and Culture' presents a paradoxical stance: while he aims to highlight the role of European military tradition in the conquest of the New World, his dismissal of well-documented factors like the impact of smallpox, along with an apparent reluctance to engage deeply with opposing scholarly views, significantly undermines the coherence and credibility of his thesis.

Hanson finally approaches the subject of western military tradition but focuses mainly on weapons and tactics, rather than the broader strategic importance that military experience gave the Spaniards. Much of his research on this subject largely comprises a detailed account of Spanish weaponry, yet it seems to overlook the broader strategic and cultural implications. This emphasis on the weapons and the firepower of the Spaniards over-simplifies the dynamics at play when two civilizations with completely different lineages, cultures and outlooks met. As far as discussions about weaponry and its impact on the relationship, this is well-covered. Hassig discusses tactics of the natives against the superior firepower of the Spanish, including Aztec warfare beliefs of capturing, rather then killing their enemies. Clendinnen specifically states that

Cortes unquestionably brought new and effective military technologies to the confrontation. Steel swords, metal armour, harquebuses, crossbows, cannons, horses and ships all gave the Spaniards a great technological advantage. These experts have already covered the topic of European martial tradition - Hanson does not provide any information that is new or revolutionary.

Henson’s main objective was to discuss what others have not, but his chapter concludes with a discussion of philosophy and a naive explanation as to why Europeans were successful in the conquest. He concludes with “…not because their own soldiers were necessarily better in war, but because their traditions of free inquiry, rationalism and science most surely were.”Henson appears to overlook the multifaceted nature of historical events, giving undue prominence to rationalism and science while underestimating the complexity of factors like coincidence and luck. This is also taking place during the height of the Spanish Inquisition, an event that is the ultimate contradiction to the Spaniards’ supposed free inquiry and rationalism. If not for the many coincidental factors and a little luck, Cortes would have simply been another explorer whose name is forgotten. Henson's narrow focus on philosophical ideals, coupled with a disregard for the contradictory nature of historical events, such as the Spanish Inquisition, significantly detracts from a holistic understanding of the European conquest.

Hanson’s article is factually correct and delves into factors that contributed to the Spaniards’ success, primarily focused on weaponry and the European military tradition. Even his controversial points, such as questioning the effect that smallpox had on the Indian population, have merit in spurring debate. However, Hansons attempt to claim that his ideas are original while not acknowledging the historians upon which he bases his work fails to honor the scholarly tradition of acknowledging the contributions of previous historians. Hanson also fails to provide the reader with a clear thesis or purpose for his work despite pointing this out in other historians’ work. In the end there are important questions left unanswered. The article had potential to become a thought-provoking new addition to the historical collective, but without a purpose it became derivative of work that was done decades before him. While Hanson’s article contributes to historical discourse, its lack of clear thesis and acknowledgement of prior scholarship limits its potential to offer novel insights into the European conquest.