The entry of Russian troops into Ukraine in February 2022 brought Europe face to face with the reality of war, the most atrocious form of sociopolitical conflict, which almost seemed banished from the language of the Old Continent and has since escalated almost daily with the Israeli invasion of Gaza, the dispute between India and Pakistan, Chinese threats in the Pacific, and the escalation of violence in Iran.
Indeed, as the media historian, professor, and Italian writer Alessandro Barbero (Turin, 1959) emphatically argues, "unfortunately, war is something inherent to human beings." Devoted to its study, especially in the medieval and modern eras, for over 40 years, his book War in Europe. From the Renaissance to Napoleon (Alianza) has now arrived in Spain. This brief yet substantial essay not only reflects on technical aspects such as the armament and logistical evolution of conflicts but also on the metaphysical essence and social conception of a warlike reality that has accompanied human beings since their origins.
"The interesting thing about the era I study in this book, the Modern Age that roughly spans from the late 15th century to the early 19th century, is that war in Europe was considered normal, something that not only existed but was legitimate," explains the professor. "States have the responsibility to decide when a war is necessary, they can wage it, there is nothing criminal in waging war, it is a part of power relations."
A fundamental shift in mentality that represents one of the decisive steps to leave behind the Middle Ages. "In the 15th century, if a powerful king like that of France or England wanted to go to war, he had to raise taxes, obtain money to start recruiting soldiers," explains Barbero, paraphrasing Raimondo Montecuccoli, an Italian general from the 17th century who served the Habsburgs and was considered by many as the best of his time: "To make war, they need three things, money, money, and money." "However, the rise of absolutism led to permanent armies, to the figure of professional soldiers and constant budget allocations for war, which brought about a significant social transformation," affirms the historian.
Indeed, beyond analyzing aspects such as the decline of cavalry and the rise of artillery, his book dissects the complex logistics of these professional armies always in need of funds, a reality that, he asserts, has not changed in the last 300 years. "Even today, in current wars, those with more money are the ones who win. Without money, you can win a battle, but hardly a war. Additionally, in our time, the price of weapons, of a warplane or a tank, now of drones, is incredible."
Despite focusing on history, the current tense global moment makes it impossible not to draw parallels with the present that 10 or even 5 years ago would not have taken place. In this regard, Barbero opines: "In reality, nowadays we do not live through wars. For example, what is happening in Ukraine is a special military operation," he says ironically, citing the formula chosen by Putin three years ago. "Everyone called him a hypocrite, but we in the West have been doing the same for decades with these operations to destroyterrible dictators," he clarifies. "Unlike in the past, today it seems unthinkable to consider war legitimate, but this has its dangers and negative aspects. If war is normal and legitimate, there are rules, laws, and ways of conducting it accepted by all, something that has now disappeared."
"The wars being fought today by Russia and Israel are almost medieval conflicts, as they do not seek agreements but total extermination of the enemy"
As the historian explains, in the 18th century, for example, a Government decided to go to war and it was publicly announced, enemy ambassadors were called, and a date and time were communicated, among other formalities. In other words, everyone in a country knew they were at war, which contrasts greatly with the current world. Furthermore, he adds, "it was much simpler to end, as there were formulas for it, treaties, negotiations, surrenders, and all that. It was a form of diplomacy."
The end of these war rules would come after World War II, when the emerging great powers began to bypass traditions. "At that time, a much more medieval style of warfare was inaugurated, which is the style used today by Russia and Israel, in which it is unknown when a conflict begins and ends, as with wars like the one in Korea [initiated in 1950], which never ended, or with Ukraine, which was not declared," points out Barbero. But the most abominable characteristic for the historian is the desire to destroy the opponent. "This also stems from World War II, that desire to completely exterminate the enemy without caring about civilian casualties. Fortunately, we have not reached the point where the public and the press celebrate as good news the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, as happened with the 25,000 Germans in Dresden or the over 200,000 Japanese burned alive with atomic bombs."
Public rejection, for example, of what is happening in Gaza is not always as enthusiastic from a political standpoint, which ties into the growing debate on European rearmament and whether in a few years we could once again become, by will or necessity, a society more prone to wars. "I don't think it's much better in Spain, but the Italian political class knows nothing and understands nothing because they have not read anything. And in that sense, they even consider a war against Russia likely. But it would be again a war from the 20th century, where you fight against someone who is very bad to destroy them, not to negotiate," laments the professor. "The problem is that we have already experienced it with Gaddafi or Saddam, and we know that the destruction of a dictator also implies the destruction of their country, just ask Iraq, Libya, or Syria."
"Current authoritarianism is not mass-based like that of the 20th century; it aims to prevent people from participating in politics. Not knowing, not discussing, not thinking".
Barbero's distrust towards the political class is not something recent, but it goes way back. The most notorious episode was when he spoke out against the Resolution of the European Parliament of September 19, 2019 on the importance of European memory for the future of Europe, which condemned and equated all totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. He stated: "Parliaments should never express themselves on history or memory, not even with the best intentions. In this case, the Parliament got caught up in a resolution coming from countries with a history completely different from ours [...] and in its distorted conception, the idea may arise that the sickle and hammer are as terrifying as the swastika." According to the professor, "memory is a tricky beast. It is not a good thing to make political decisions based on the memory of a people or a State. This is what they do in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, and the consequences are what we see."
He also denounces that it is not possible to address the conflicts we have been talking about without knowing the past. "Our politics and our press believe that the problems between Russia and Ukraine started in 2022 and know nothing about, for example, the Crimean War of the 19th century, which has barely left a mark in the West - although French and English newspapers spent three years publishing atrocities about the Russians - but they remember there," he explains. "As Tolstoy narrated, who was an artillery officer on the walls of Sevastopol, for them, it was a holy war, the defense of the motherland against the invaders. The same propaganda is still present in Russia today, but without knowing history, one cannot know."
Retired from teaching since last October, when he left his chair of Medieval History, Barbero has not only defended the value of his discipline from the classrooms. The visits to his YouTube channel, where he posts his lectures and videos that go beyond medieval issues - delving into fascism, the Years of Lead, world wars, or current conflicts - reach hundreds of thousands. Additionally, he continues to give massive conferences, such as the one he offered on May 1st in Turin to over 500 young people, where he spoke about the repressive drift of the West and the paradox of arming oneself in the name of security.
"The historian needs to be rigorous, analytical, and objective, but, in my opinion, it is not necessary to be neutral. One can be neutral in the conflict between Athens and Sparta, although surely many are not, but there are issues where it is necessary not to be neutral, for example, when talking about Nazism and the Holocaust," he argues. "Any serious historian can analyze the reasons, ideas, traditions, memories, material and immaterial interests that have produced the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, but that does not mean we should engage in propaganda, which is what history has become today. We cannot reduce what happens to a story of good and bad, as we are doing in Europe, because this implies a brutal renunciation of the collective intelligence of a citizenry, and that is very sad."
Si vis pacem para bellum
This Manichaean situation, according to Barbero, stems from another innate trait of human nature: having enemies. "No matter how much we have tried, it is not natural to love one's neighbor, but that's what civilization is for. My nature tells me to kill those who offend me, but social and moral norms restrain me. This does not happen with States, for which having very bad enemies, the worse, the better, is increasingly necessary," the professor ironically remarks, lamenting: "Just as we have decided that eating human beings, killing gladiators in an amphitheater, or having slaves are bad things, we could decide that having enemies is not good. But, as I say, for political propaganda, enemies are a wonderful distraction that makes people forget other problems."
A reflection that the historian links to the aforementioned talk about the current rise of authoritarianism almost everywhere, especially in the Western world. "Obviously, the idea of the enemy, whether external or internal, is not something invented by current populist authoritarianism, but it does make use of it. We are fully immersed in the post-9/11 world, and from this present, it is difficult to say if we are simply experiencing a fluctuation of freedom and democracy or something deeper," he opines. "History is cyclical, but this regression that leads us to see young people manifesting almost like terrorists or many people hiding their opinions if they differ from those in power for fear of reprisals on social media or in the press is very worrying."
However, despite this, the professor recommends avoiding banal simplifications like the widely touted idea that we are reliving the transition from the 20th century to totalitarian regimes. "It is ridiculous, of course. To begin with, current authoritarianism is not like that of 100 years ago, as the latter was interested in mass participation. Whether in a black or brown shirt, they wanted the gregarious people cheering and indoctrinated," he recalls. "Today's authoritarianism is more elitist in the sense that it believes that the people should not participate in politics. In fact, the less they know, discuss, or even think, the better," he denounces.
Therefore, Barbero admits to not being entirely convinced about Europe entering into war. "In Italy, the famous Latin phrase si vis pacem para bellum is constantly repeated, but history shows that when one prepares for war, what ends up happening is precisely war," he warns. "That seems to be the path Europe has taken, but so far, the cost, both economic and social, seems unaffordable to politicians. I only hope they are more cynical and intelligent than they appear and do not lead us into a war that, whether we win or lose, would forever change our countries as we know them," the historian concludes.