Review: Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley

Brave New World is a futuristic dystopian book, comparable but very different to the other most famous dystopian story, 1984.

The world is one of total material freedom, where people are free to drink, do drugs and have promiscuous sex (indeed, one character is told not to be ‘anti-social’ when they maintain a more than one-night relationship with someone).

Family units are things of the past, and looked upon with distaste by the modern citizens. Instead, people are grown and their role in life is genetically determined. The genetic castes run from Alpha (the top dogs) to Epsilons (intellectually sub-normal types who do the dirtiest, lowest grade jobs).

Political freedom is non-existent, in stark contrast to the freedom to shop. In the political/capitalist spheres it actually reminds me slightly of modern day China. By all means, open a business, become a millionaire, buy yourself a mansion, but you still can’t vote and if you call for that right you might just go missing in the middle of the night.

When an outsider (what we might call a normal person) is introduced to this world of material plenty and instant gratification they come to loathe it. The provision of recreational drugs, guaranteed sex and so forth does not outweigh the loss of personal freedom. In Brave New World, the system is dominant in precisely the same way the more savage system of 1984 runs Airstrip One.

Like 1984, the storyline and characters are secondary to the world itself, which is a monstrous realm of trivial gratification and juvenile pleasures.

However, unlike the other dystopian classic, Brave New World has proven, I think, a realistic prospect. China has become an economic superpower without any of those pesky democratic votes. The EU is steadily becoming more integrated, and is led by the unelected and unaccountable, and recently the UK came close to permitting the state to lock people up for 90 days without needing any evidence.

I am not arguing we live in a Brave New World, just that Huxley’s comfortable prison cell world is disturbingly realistic.

For those into dystopian novels and after some others to read (after this, 1984 and Animal Farm) I’d suggest We by Yevgeny Zamyatin and The Iron Heel by Jack London. Both are on my to-read list.

Thaddeus

Review: Sir John Hawkwood (Chivalry and the Art of War), by Stephen Cooper

A slight departure for me, as 14^th century stuff is relatively modern compared to the Punic Wars and so forth.

Sir John Hawkwood was an Englishman, born a commoner but later knighted, who participated in The Hundred Years’ War with the Black Prince and Edward III before moving to Italy to work as a mercenary.

He began his Italian adventures first as an officer of a military company and then rose to become a leader. Unlike England or France, 14^th century Italy lacked a cohesive monarchy and was divided into numerous warring city-states (such as Pisa and Florence) which were also divided according to Guelf and Ghibelline (pro-Pope and pro-Holy Roman Emperor, respectively) tendencies. The Italians were fantastic merchants, very wealthy but lacked standing armies, making the prosperous but war-torn country mercenary heaven.

Hawkwood fought for numerous differing employers over a long career, fighting numerous battles (which he usually won), getting captured once (for a brief time) and participating in the occasional massacre. His military talents were universally respected, though there was and is discord regarding his moral standing.

Mr. Cooper has split the book into a chronological account of Hawkwood’s life, with the latter half of the book concerned with a general discussion of his character and a closer look at certain events (battles, and a contentious slaughter). The book is replete with Italian terminology, and (as someone pretty much ignorant of the era) I welcomed the small glossary at the start and the explanations within the text.

I think some of the second half of the book (such as the battles) would have fitted in better with the general account of Hawkwood’s life. It was slightly odd to read a concise summary of a battle only to have it explained in detail later in the book.

There are one or two maps, but I think a few more (and larger) ones would have been useful. The author describes well the Apennines (like the Pennines do England, they run down the spine of Italy but are significantly higher) and other important features, but maps are quite helpful.

As is common with this sort of book there are a decent number of black and white photographs (and some illustrations) in the middle, including some excellent examples of architecture (notably the Chamber of Notaries at Avignon and the Hawkwood Tower).

One of the things that irritates me is when people try and crowbar modern morality into history. Mr. Cooper’s discussion of this topic was enlightening, as it describes both Hawkwood’s actions and what the normal behaviour for the age was. He also considers what the facts of the matter may be, and the reception Hawkwood has received from contemporaries and historians.

The events of the book take place around a century before Machiavelli’s The Prince was written, and it’s interesting to see that the political and military situation was actually quite similar back in the 14^th century.

Overall, I quite liked the book but I think a few technical changes could have made it better. The political situation in Italy (vital to understanding the bulk of the book) is well-described and Hawkwood undoubtedly led an interesting and successful life.

Thaddeus

Was Hannibal greater than Alexander?

Alexander never lost a battle. He never failed to take a city by siege. On a number of occasions he won battles where he was enormously outnumbered (although I’m more impressed by his victories over the Indians, to be honest). So, it might seem a bit odd that in my book Hannibal (who only lost one battle in the Second Punic War, but with it the war itself) was a greater general.

There are a few areas that need to be considered: authority and army, opponents, strategy and reinforcements, and personal qualities.

Authority and army

Alexander, although he became king at just 19, had already seen battle (playing a crucial role in the Battle of Chaeronea when he was 17). He was battle-hardened, king and commander-in-chief. Whilst the Macedonian king wasn’t fawned over like the Persian Great King, he was clearly in charge (like a Prime Minister rather than a President). His army consisted of Macedonians and Greeks, both of whom were Hellenistic and quite similar in terms of fighting style. As well as the throne, he inherited the best army in the world, brilliantly developed and trained his excellent father, Philip.

Hannibal also grew up fighting, first for his father and then Hasdrubal the Handsome, his brother-in-law (both in Iberia). Then he assumed command of Carthage’s Iberian forces. He did not have particular political authority, and had a mixed army of veterans from numerous corners of the world all speaking different languages and with different weapons and armour.

In terms of authority, Alexander had a clear advantage. Hannibal had a very good army, although here too I’d give Alexander a slight edge (his elite soldiers were so good they were still in high demand decades after his death).

Opponents

Alexander faced three sets of opponents. Firstly, the Greeks. They’d been smashed by his father and sought to escape the rule of Macedon when Alexander took the throne. They were cunning opponents and almost ended his career before it got going, but he overcame them fairly quickly. Secondly, he faced the massed armies of the Persian Empire. Although the horsemen were brave and talented, the foot soldiers were less so and no match for the high calibre of the Macedonian army. Furthermore, Alexander was tactically brilliant, and (by making the Great King flee twice) made hordes of Persians flee at Arbela and Issus. I’d say the Indians, who were pretty damned clever and had lots of war elephants, were his greatest opponents (particularly Porus).

Hannibal did fight the Iberians, but that was mostly under the command of others. Whilst he was in charge he only really fought the Romans. During this time he inflicted numerous defeats upon numerically superior forces, including one of the greatest ambushes in history at Lake Trasimene and the most crushingly brilliant victory in history (arguably) at Cannae. He did lose to Scipio at Zama, however. After the war ended he continued, after a brief pause to lead the city, to fight the Romans, on behalf of Eastern despots.

Alexander had the easier task, I feel. Yes, the Persians had huge manpower, but the armies crumbled like rotted wood when Darius fled and Alexander had the finest soldiers in the world. Hannibal, meanwhile, faced Rome at the zenith of its patriotic determination and fervour. Even after the slaughter of Cannae the city did not contemplate surrender, and although initially they were tactically naïve, later the likes of Marcellus, Nero and Scipio learnt the lessons Hannibal had taught them to good effect.

Strategy and reinforcements

Alexander’s strategy was simple. March at Persia, accept surrendering cities kindly and slaughter everyone who didn’t recognise him as king. However, the detail of this was intelligent. He did not leave strong cities at his back (unless they were besieged by his lieutenants), and if a city did rebel or refuse to kneel he was pretty ruthless, encouraging the others to fling their doors open instead of having them rammed to splinters. In the open field he was victorious, in siegecraft he was relentless and he made scarcely a mistake when it came to invading Persia. He did, however, bugger up the end of his reign by unnecessarily marching through the Gedrosian desert. Reinforcements came as and when he needed them and he also recruited heavily from Persian soldiers who had served Darius previously, much to the irritation of his fellow Macedonians.

Hannibal took the heroic/slightly mental approach of marching an army, including elephants, over the Alps. In winter. His strategy relied upon gaining local support in Italy itself, and he achieved this to a certain extent, but it was never sufficient to deliver him ultimate victory. He was hamstrung by the fact that Carthage rarely sent him reinforcements and, although rebellious Gauls did offer him some more men, the army of his brother (also called Hasdrubal) that crossed the Alps was immediately slaughtered by the consul Nero.

Alexander did better when it comes to strategy, I think. He made a damned silly error at the end, but he succeeded in his overall objective of smashing Persia. The ample reinforcements he received did help considerably. Hannibal’s strategy was difficult, but his objective was harder. Fighting in Italy was the right thing to do, but manpower became an issue in the later years and he was sadly unable to be reunited with his brother.

Personal Qualities

Alexander was a great leader, and not just in a tactical or strategic sense. He delegated well, he was merciful to cities that surrendered and he was always ready to lead the charge (indeed, he very nearly got killed when two scaling ladders broke and he was shot in the lung, facing numerous opponents and had just two bodyguards still with him). However, he did have little flaws, like murdering one of his best friends (Cleitus, who had saved his life at the Granicus) whilst drunk. His ambition enabled him to achieve great feats, but ultimately his army forced him to turn back from India, having grown wear of being away from home for a decade. It is notable that he treated the wives and children of Darius well, and was merciless to those Persians who had slain the Great King.

Hannibal’s personality is harder to judge because his history is written by the opposing side. Despite having a mixed force with very few actual Carthaginians in it, he suffered from desertion just once (a few hundred Numidian cavalry after years in Italy) during 10 years in enemy territory. He was rather more civilised than the Romans when it came to honouring the dead, searching for Flaminius’ body for hours after the ambush at Lake Trasimene so that he might give it a decent ceremony. By contrast, the consul Nero, who slew his brother Hasdrubal, cut off the head and had it hurled into Hannibal’s camp.

Hard to assess. I think it’s reasonable to say that Alexander exceeded Hannibal in vices (Hannibal never got in a drunken fight and killed a close friend), but that Alexander may have been a better leader of men.

Overall, I think Hannibal’s achievements are the greater. He fought for longer against a more difficult foe, usually outnumbered, permanently (after the Alps) in enemy territory, rarely receiving reinforcements and lacking total authority over the Carthaginian state. That’s not to belittle Alexander in any way. He never lost, and deservedly became a legend in his own lifetime. Would he have done so well in Hannibal’s position, or vice versa? If he had lived and then gone west from Macedon I daresay Rome would have become yet another conquest of his.

Thaddeus

Skyrim: updated info and Dunmer and Argonian screenshots

After a drought of new information, there’s been a little from the recent QuakeCon. For those after screenshots of races other than orc and khajiit there’s a new one released by Betheseda of a dark elf thief (which I’ve trimmed down and put below), and the journalists who got to play the game will each get a screenshot of the characters they made (one of which is an Argonian).

The dunmer is definitely less human and better than its Oblivion counterpart, but I prefer the orc and khajiit. However, my dark elf characters are usually female so we’ll have to see what they look like.

Naturally mini-spoilers abound below, so if you want to go into the game totally unaware of what awaits you, better stop reading here.

Skyrim is split between those loyal to the Empire and Stormcloak rebels, who are a faction that can be joined.

When doing character creation the creator remembers your settings, so if you make a khajiit and move away then return your khajiit creation will be waiting for you. There are tons of creation options (I’ve previously mentioned facepaint and so forth, but two new ones is that dark elves, and maybe others, can have eyes of different colours and laughter lines can be added).

Crafting an item is a six-stage process, and alchemy occurs with a lab.

As with Fallout 3, there are travelling merchants, who set up camps along riverbanks.

Companions (similar to Fallout 3) exist, including animal companions.

There’s a mysterious black door which sounds reminiscent of the Dark Brotherhood’s hideout in Oblivion. It’s probably them, but some reckon it might involve vampires.

Last but not least, here’s a rather good spliced together Skyrim theme, created by smeagol92055:

Thaddeus

Update 12^th August:

The journalist screenshots are now being released. I’m not going to post them all now, but as the Argonian has been eagerly anticipated I thought I’d put it up. (For those wondering, she’s Lizzle-Bob, created by the Destructoid journalist, and I got the picture from the excellent UESP forum):

For what it’s worth, I think the Argonian looks bloody fantastic.