The River War, by Winston Churchill

Source of book: I own this.

One of the interesting questions is whether Winston Churchill would have made his reputation as a man of letters, had he not chosen to serve his country as a statesman. He certainly made a significant fortune with his writings, and his later career certainly owes something to the fame and popularity brought by his books.

The River War was written in 1899, soon after the end of the conflict in the Sudan between Egypt and England, on the one side, and the forces of Abdullah Ibn-Mohammed. Churchill served in the cavalry during the conflict, and thus had personal experience of the decisive battle. However, his superiors were less than thrilled about the book, leading to a change in policy to forbid soldiers from writing about their service.

A bit of a summary of the conflict: Sudan was ruled by Egypt beginning in the early 1800s. Egypt was an ally of England, and was to a degree supported by the British military. The corrupt and oppressive Egyptian regime was resented by the Sudanese, leading to a revolt by “The Madhi”, a self proclaimed prophet of Islam, who promised independence and strict observance of Sharia Law. (This sounds vaguely familiar for some reason.) After the successful revolt and a siege of Khartoum, the Egyptians were evicted. The Madhi then died, and his successor proceeded to consolidate his power by slaughtering most of his rivals, and oppressing any other potential threats. Thus, the Egyptians were replaced by another corrupt and oppressive regime, which further had designs on “freeing” all of Egypt from the apostate form of Islam and foreign influence. Britain eventually decided that its interests were threatened by this, and supported the Egyptians in the reconquest. This occurred over the course of a few years which are the main subject of the book.

The version of the book I read is the abridged version, published in 1902. The original version was nearly twice as long. Many of Churchill’s personal experiences and nearly all of his editorializing was cut from the later version. While it would have been interesting to read these, the book remains a compelling narrative of the conflict.

First and foremost, Churchill was a simultaneously a vivid and a meticulous writer. He had a broad narrative sweep that draws the reader from one incident to another, never taking his eyes off of the destination. On the other hand, even at that young age, he had a remarkable eye for the key details of a military campaign. The ability he showed to comprehend the intricacies of the supply chain, the use of modern weapons and timeless tactics, and the psychology of a disciplined fighting force would later serve him well. Particularly excellent was his chapter on the building of the railroad that enabled the rapid transport of men, weapons, and even gunboats to the front.

In addition to the military details and narrative, Churchill was able to make the desert scenery of the Sudan come alive. The opening of the book sets the atmosphere, and throughout, it continues to add descriptions at key points.

I was also reminded again of how recently disease was a game-changing factor of basic human existence. At one point, five times as many men had died from cholera as from the wounds of war. Later, malaria renders an entire garrison (except for a handful of lucky souls) completely unfit for duty.

Churchill is also notable for his sportsman-like respect for his enemies. He has much good to say about Abdullah and his generals and other key figures on the other side. In contrast to many of his time, he views even the most “savage” of peoples to be human and have ordinary human motives. In this, he is perhaps one of the first to take the modern view of the largely rational motivations behind all except for the most depraved. Ordinary desires for freedom, power, money, glory drive all – some to their own destruction and those of thousands of others. In that sense, he is a critic of the much-abused fiction of the “Just War”. Churchill, of course, believed that it was morally acceptable to fight a war if it is of benefit to the country, without the necessity of ascribing actual evil to the other side. In fact, he believed that it would lead to casual atrocities. After all, if the other side consists of utterly vile vermin, why not torture them? The perhaps older-fashioned view of the enemy as human and even noble, even while misguided, would on the other hand lead to a more humane victory. One can only wonder at whether World War Two would have been as necessary had this view been followed in the aftermath of World War One.

Of the political opinions which survived the abridgment process are Churchill’s views on the aspirations and realities of both colonialism and religious fanaticism. Both can and often do start with noble goals, and both end in something substantially less than noble. An extended quote from the first chapter is worth the space.

What enterprise that an enlightened community may attempt is more noble and more profitable than the reclamation from barbarism of fertile regions and large populations? To give peace to warring tribes, to administer justice where all was violence, to strike the chains off the slave, to draw the richness from the soil, to plant the earliest seeds of commerce and learning, to increase in whole peoples their capacities for pleasure and diminish their chances of pain—what more beautiful ideal or more valuable reward can inspire human effort? The act is virtuous, the exercise invigorating, and the result often extremely profitable. Yet as the mind turns from the wonderful cloudland of aspiration to the ugly scaffolding of attempt and achievement, a succession of opposite ideas arises. Industrious races are displayed stinted and starved for the sake of an expensive Imperialism which they can only enjoy if they are well fed. Wild peoples, ignorant of their barbarism, callous of suffering, careless of life but tenacious of liberty, are seen to resist with fury the philanthropic invaders, and to perish in thousands before they are convinced of their mistake. The inevitable gap between conquest and dominion becomes filled with the figures of the greedy trader, the inopportune missionary, the ambitious soldier, and the lying speculator, who disquiet the minds of the conquered and excite the sordid appetites of the conquerors. And as the eye of thought rests on these sinister features, it hardly seems possible for us to believe that any fair prospect is approached by so foul a path.

The perspective of hindsight is perhaps even more bleak. After World War Two, the continent of Africa was largely freed from European domination, but the result has been brutal. In the Sudan, there has been ongoing civil war, predominantly between the Arab dominated Muslims in the north, and the Christian and Animist tribes, largely black, in the south. Sixty-five years of ongoing war, famine, and genocide. It really is depressing, and there are no easy solutions.

Perhaps then, the most lasting impression of this book is its relevance to the conflicts we face today. Is there a way to establish the rule of law in lawless and dangerous regions without become an oppressor ourselves? Is there hope for a country mired in corruption, oppression, and violence? Churchill reminds us that these issues are far from new, and are likely to continue to be an issue in the generations to come. 

A few minor related notes:

This book is remarkably brief for Churchill, at a mere 350 pages. I have previously read his 6 volume work on WWII (5000+ pages!) and The History of the English Speaking Peoples (4 volumes, 2000+ pages). Both of these are extensively available at used book stores. I found most of mine there, or in thrift stores and library sales. Both are worth reading, but are not for the faint at heart. If you do not care about wars and warfare, the WWII set will bore you to tears. However, if you are interested in that sort of thing, hearing it from the perspective of one of the main participants is priceless. Churchill was, even at that late stage, a soldier at heart, and he captures both the military and the diplomatic aspects of the war brilliantly.

The History of the English Speaking Peoples is, in my opinion, a far more interesting history of England that that found in most textbooks. While Churchill is prone to think in terms of kings and battles more than writers and ideas, his writing is so far from dull. Many a textbook writer should read this before compressing a vivid history into a dry biscuit. It’s also fun because he can’t resist giving his opinion of the military strategy of the American Civil War – a totally different view than we Americans get from our history books.

"The Sevastopol Sketches" and other early works by Leo Tolstoy

Source of Book: I own this - used hardback

Tolstoy is best known for his two long novels, War and Peace, and Anna Karenina, neither of which I have read. Actually, this is a somewhat odd omission, because I have read three of Dostoyevsky’s novels, which are equally as long and difficult. I have, however, read and enjoyed a number of Tolstoy’s shorter works.

In this case, I am tackling part of a collection of short stories and novellas that the editor has titled “Tales of Courage and Conflict”. The works within the collection are presented in essentially chronological order, and contain a significant slice of the Author’s short works. I decided to jump in at the beginning and read until I decided to stop. As I did with my review of assorted short works of Henry James, I will look at each work briefly, rather than attempt an overview of the whole.

“The Invaders”

This short story was Tolstoy’s first. It is alternately titled “The Raid”. This is one of several stories that Tolstoy based on his experiences fighting in the Russian army in the Caucasus. Not being particularly familiar with 19^th Century Russian history, I had to look up what on earth this war was about. Apparently, most of the first half of the century was taken up by Russia expanding its empire into the Caucasus, in places that have now returned to some degree of independence: Georgia, Azerbaijan, Chechnya, and others. Turkey and Iran were also involved as interested parties, if not exactly belligerents.

This story focuses on a conversation between Tolstoy and a superior officer about the nature of courage, which is defined by the officer thus: “A brave man is one who conducts himself as he ought.” This theme is then developed throughout the rest of the story. I should note that a Tolstoy “short story” is rarely as short as one would expect, and is typically divided into chapters. The chapters are shorter than those in a novel, and there are fewer of them, making the overall length less.

I particularly enjoyed Tolstoy’s description in this story of rising early and setting out on a march. He beautifully paints the transformation from the foggy night to the brilliant day.

“Recollections of a Billiard-Marker”

This is the only one of the early stories that I had previously read as well as the only story in this review that is about civilian life.  Told from the point of view of a “Billiard-Marker”, who sets up the balls, keeps score, and otherwise does the work at a billiard hall; it chronicles the downfall and eventual suicide of a young, sensitive nobleman who becomes addicted to gambling and gets hopelessly in debt.

This is one of Tolstoy’s semi-autobiographical stories, and showcases one of his talents: the ability to write unflatteringly about himself. Tolstoy was a rather dissolute young man, and also quickly wound up in debt due to gambling. Rather than make his quietus, he joined the army, of course, and the world was not prematurely deprived of a fine writer.

This particular story is more tightly plotted than average, making it a focused and purposeful tale. It also shows good insight into the nature of addiction as the nobleman expresses his horror at his own descent into moral and physical blackness, but is unable to rouse himself to take action. Finally, in his suicide note, he states that he is even unable to feel pain at the thought of his own death.

“The Sevastopol Sketches”

This is a trio of stories entitled, “Sevastopol in December 1854”, “Sevastopol in May 1855”, and “Sevastopol in August 1855”.

If you mention the Crimean war to a random stranger, you will usually get a blank look. With a few, you might get a mention of Florence Nightingale. A few war buffs might mention it as the first modern use of artillery, or mention it as one of the most pointless wars of all time. It also was a presaging of the trench warfare in World War I. This is not a compliment.

Each sketch is a snapshot of a particular moment in the siege of Sevastopol. Located on the Crimean peninsula extending into the Black Sea, Sevastopol remains an important port and naval center. After a dispute with England and France over the Dardanelles, and control of other remnants of the Ottoman Empire, the Russians sent troops to the Holy Land, sparking the war. (There is a lot more to it than that, but is better left to the military historians.)

Eventually, the Europeans laid siege to Sevastopol for about a year, finally breaking through and forcing Russia’s surrender.

Tolstoy based his stories on his own experience in Sebastopol during the war. Since he was in the artillery, that facet of the battle receives particular attention, and a good deal of careful detail.

The first story is told in the second person, that is, it is a tour given to “you”, the reader. Tolstoy is brutally effective in showing the horrors of war, from the cold and mud to the “hospitals” with the dying crammed into any available spot on the floor. These are the dreadful and hopeless conditions in which Nightingale and other nursing pioneers sought to reform. Whatever other strides have been made in warfare, the greatest has certainly been in medical care, where an injury does not have to mean death.

The second story is split between accounts of the rather vain and pointless social lives of the officers and their petty hopes of advancement, and an artillery battle. It concludes with a temporary truce called in order to collect the dead and injured. Tolstoy’s haunting language describes this scene beautifully:

Yes, white flags are hung out from the bastion and the trenches, the flowery vale is filled with dead bodies, the splendid sun sinks into the blue sea, and the blue sea undulates and glitters in the golden rays of the sun.

…

The white flags have been hauled down, and again the weapons of death and suffering are shrieking; again innocent blood is shed, and groans and curses are audible.

The final story tells of the final battle and the surrender of Sebastopol. It begins with two brothers making their way to the front. The elder is returning to action after being wounded, and the younger is joining the fight for the first time. Their hopes and fears are explored for much of the story, until all hell breaks loose on the front, and all is swept away by the inexorable enemy.

Tolstoy shows a foretaste of his eventual skill in psychological analysis of human nature in these sketches. Although he has not yet figured out how to focus consistently and avoid distraction with side characters and stories, he is able to keep his narrative arc together, for the most part. These are not easy to read. The death and destruction are ever present, and the author does not shy away from portraying suffering. Drawing from experience, he is able to portray the experience of injury and even death in ways that we now take for granted. Far from the heroic deaths of Medieval legend or the gory yet poetic deaths of Homer’s warriors, these are closer to death as portrayed in modern war movies. I was amazed at how few words were necessary to do this. Tolstoy does not wallow in gore, and actually moves quickly, but his deaths are hard to take.

Together, these three are nearly 100 pages of small type, making them longer as a unit than Tolstoy’s novellas.

“The Wood-Cutting Expedition”

Another “short” story about the war in the Caucasus. I would say this one is the weakest of the ones I read, particularly in its lack of economy. If Tolstoy had ended it after about 2/3 of its length, it would have made more sense. Instead, he charges on after the logical ending, introduces a few new characters which never go anywhere, and then ends it abruptly.

Also puzzling is that he starts the story with a few characters, then launches a diatribe about the basic kinds of people in the army. He then applies his categories to a few of the characters, but then apparently loses interest in this idea, and never really brings it up again. This would have been interesting had he stuck with it and made the story about the types. If he had left out the types and made it a musing on the responses to the death of a soldier, that also would have been interesting. Had he focused instead on the reasons each of the characters was in the army in the first place, that too would have been intriguing. Instead, he flirts with each of these ideas, never committing to one long enough to make for a coherent central idea.

“An Old Acquaintance”

In contrast, this story is highly focused, with the narrator and another character taking center stage, and a minimum of supporting characters largely in the background.

The narrator is a nobleman serving in, predictably at this point, the Caucasus. During a gathering of officers while on an exhibition, an odd and pathetic soldier appears at their gathering. He is a former officer who has been “cashiered”, that is, stripped of his rank for disciplinary reasons. It turns out that he is also of noble descent, and knew the narrator during their pre-military days. At that time, he was a bit of a prig, and his priggishness has done him no favors in the army, to say the least.

The two have an extended conversation, in which the author alludes to some sort of incident which led to the soldier being disinherited. Unfortunately, Tolstoy declines to indulge our curiosity, claiming that the story would be boring. I suspect Tolstoy at this stage in his career, either did not wish to write of such things, or felt more at home writing about military rather than civilian issues. Either way, I was disappointed that this was omitted. It would have been very interesting indeed to know the cause of the disgrace of the soldier, as it was the inciting event that led to his ever increasing degradation.

This story is an excellent use of the unpleasant, unlikeable character. The soldier is clearly irritating to all he encounters because of his belief that he is better than everyone else. It is true that he comes from a better background, is better educated, and has broader interests. However, this causes him to despise everyone else as inferior. Even worse, his sufferings have utterly failed to bring him humility. Humiliation, yes, in spades; but not humility or even empathy.

As a group, these stories show a broad slice of life as Tolstoy knew it in his early years. From the gambling to the mud and blood, Tolstoy shows his observational powers, and the early gleams of his genius of characterization. He also shows his tendency to lose focus and ramble without tying up the loose ends. Although these stories are not a bad way to start, I would recommend short stories or novellas from Tolstoy’s mature period for the first time reader. Such novellas as Family Happiness or The Death of Ivan Ilyich, or short stories such as “What Men Live By” or “How Much Land Does a Man Need” show the more typical philosophy of the older Tolstoy, and showcase his talents at their peak.

Translation notes;

No, I do not speak or read Russian, so these are in translation. The Sevastopol Sketches were translated by Isabel F. Hapgood. The rest were translated by Nathan Haskell Dole. I have nothing negative to say about the translations. I have read a few stories that seemed ill translated before, but there were no real off notes here.