Book Reviews Technology and War: From 2000 b.c. to the Present. By Martin van Creveld. New York: Free Press, 1989. Pp. x + 342; illustrations, bibliography, index. $22.95. Martin van Creveld, professor of history at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and a well-known military historian, divides the history of military technology into four periods “intended to reflect the develop ment of technology as a whole” (p. 2). The first period, from 2000 b.c. to a.d. 1500, called the “Age ofTools,” is marked by derivation of power “from the muscles of animals and men.” Part 2, the “Age of Machines,” from the Renaissance to 1830, is dominated by “machines deriving their energy from non-organic sources such as wind, water, and of course gunpowder.” The “Age of Systems,” from 1830 to 1945, saw “machines integrated into complex interacting groups.” The remainderis the “Age of Automation,” dominated by cybernetics and feedback. The domi nant materials of these ages are identified respectively as wood, iron, steel, and, finally, “sophisticated alloys, ceramics, and other synthetic materials.” Van Creveld concludes that his “system ofclassification . . . is probably as good as any that may be found” (p. 4). The book wavers between great accomplishments and glaring shortcomings. It is really about “the role technology has played in the development and transformation of war”; contrary to the promise of its title, it does not address the opposite side of the coin, the role of war in the development and transformation of technology. Van Creveld is much stronger on the modern period than the premodern. He is much stronger on the history of war than on the history of technology. Devoid of notes and supported by only a brief biblio graphic essay, the book will prove less useful to historians than to military officers and analysts. The strongest and most insightful part, the fourth section, is not particularly informed by the material that went before. Rather, van Creveld illustrates his original and incisive observations with illustrations drawn at random from his wideranging knowledge of military history, not from the history he has presented earlier in the volume. The most troubling aspect of the book is the provenance of van Creveld’s ideas. The perhaps most important work in the field, William McNeill’s The Pursuit of Power, is mentioned in the bibliogra phy but otherwise ignored; stating that the McNeill thesis is not altogether successful, van Creveld fails to discuss it or explain what is wrong with it. He uses periodization similar to that in Maurice Permission to reprint a book review' in this section may be obtained only from the reviewer. 1037 1038 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CUL TURE Pearton’s War, Diplomacy, and Technology since 1830, but he fails to cite Pearton, address his thesis, or explain why “the year 1830 marked an important watershed” or what were the “number of near simulta neous inventions” that made it so remarkable (p. 168). He makes similar use of the periodization of warfare in Quincy Wright’s A Study of War without commenting on the Wright model. Lewis Mumford’s later work is cited, but not his seminal Technics and Civilization, which anticipated much of the recent literature in this field. The argument in Daniel Headrick’s work is presented without mention of either of his books. In short, the scholarly apparatus does not allow the reader to trace the development of van Creveld’s thought, to document his assertions, or to set his work against the extant literature. The text is as uneven as the bibliography. The errors are the kind that inevitably creep into a book of such enormous scope. Greek fire was not ignited by contact with water. Scythed chariots were not just paper weapons; they were used in combat. The 17th-century ship of the line with its Fighting Instructions was every bit as much of a technological system as the revolutionary Chappe telegraph of the late 18th century. Warfare as a social institution was hardly “a finely honed rapier” in 1830 (p. 166). The fact that H. G. Wells mentioned Alberto Santos-Dumont does not demonstrate that the Wright broth ers were almost scooped in inventing the airplane. James Watt is...