The History of Western War

[AdlerianThinker]

An interesting piece by Victor Davis Hanson
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&month=11

Mr. Hanson describes what Western War is, and does a good job describing, it, IMO.

He also describes why we are struggling with it right now.

He ends the essay with this, "We who created the Western way of war are very reluctant to resort to it due to post-modern cynicism, while those who didn't create it are very eager to apply it due to pre-modern zealotry."

Where is he right, and where is he wrong?

 

[AllieBaba]

Page can't be found.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&month=11

Not sure why it broke. Try that one.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Seems to be fixed.

 

[JW Frogen]

"We who created the Western way of war are very reluctant to resort to it due to post-modern cynicism, while those who didn't create it are very eager to apply it due to pre-modern zealotry."

Where is he right, and where is he wrong?

That is a very nice quote.

I love Hanson, not only is he a hard headed historical realist but he is a very good writer as well, as the quote reveals.

He is America's Thucydides.

Where as Gore Vidal is America’s Tacitus.

I would love to see the two nude jello wrestle but only at an Ivy League University for decorum’s sake.

 

[Sunni Man]

That was a good read and very thought provoking.

 

[Toronado3800]

Yet another factor is that Western armies are impatient. They tend to want to seek out and destroy the enemy quickly and then go home. Of course, this can be both an advantage and a disadvantage, as we see today in Afghanistan,

I agree. This is a cultural statement as oddly enough even our volunteer military largely wants to get in and out. Must be a cultural thing.

The second check on the Western way of war is the fact that there is no monolithic West. For one thing, Western countries have frequently fought one another. Most people killed in war have been Europeans killing other Europeans,

I don't know if the statement is entirely factual bu tis a valid point that Westerners kill each other at the drop of a hat.

The third check is what I call "parasitism."

The point of this paragraph was the purchasing of modern technology with oil funds thus leveling the battlefield somewhat. This should be read to everyone considering purchasing a low fuel economy car.

To put this in contemporary terms, what we are asking today is for a young man with a $250,000 education from West Point to climb into an Apache helicopter—after emailing back and forth with his wife and kids about what went on at a PTA meeting back in Bethesda, Maryland—and fly over Anbar province or up to the Hindu Kush and risk being shot down by a young man from a family of 15, none of whom will ever live nearly as well as the poorest citizens of the United States, using a weapon whose design he doesn't even understand. In a moral sense, the lives of these two young men are of equal value. But in reality, our society values the lives of our young men much more than Afghan societies value the lives of theirs. And it is very difficult to sustain a protracted war with asymmetrical losses under those conditions.

Its an interesting read for sure.

 

[eagleseven]

Yet another factor is that Western armies are impatient. They tend to want to seek out and destroy the enemy quickly and then go home. Of course, this can be both an advantage and a disadvantage, as we see today in Afghanistan.

I would argue that this desire to end warfare in decisive battles developed as European society evolved away from an honor society.

In the European honor society of the Middle Ages, it was common for families to fight for generations. During this same period, we saw events like the 100-years war. During the Renaissance, as feudal and familial power was replaced by the modern nation-state, these protracted conflicts were abandoned in favor of short, limited warfare. This tradition continues to this day.

Many non-Western peoples still maintain an honor society, where bloodfeuds are the norm. In Afghanistan, a land where dishonor deserves death and feuds can last for generations, the concept of a continual state of warfare is natural.

I don't know if the statement is entirely factual bu tis a valid point that Westerners kill each other at the drop of a hat.

If Britain, France, Germany, and Spain were united as one Empire at any point after 1400, they would've successfully conquered the entire world.

To put this in contemporary terms, what we are asking today is for a young man with a $250,000 education from West Point to climb into an Apache helicopter—after emailing back and forth with his wife and kids about what went on at a PTA meeting back in Bethesda, Maryland—and fly over Anbar province or up to the Hindu Kush and risk being shot down by a young man from a family of 15, none of whom will ever live nearly as well as the poorest citizens of the United States, using a weapon whose design he doesn't even understand. In a moral sense, the lives of these two young men are of equal value. But in reality, our society values the lives of our young men much more than Afghan societies value the lives of theirs. And it is very difficult to sustain a protracted war with asymmetrical losses under those conditions.

This is why I am so appreciative of those who do serve...because it is a fool's job. To be a US Marine, you have to either truly love your country, or truly love to kill. Perhaps both.

 

[JW Frogen]

To be a US Marine, you have to either truly love your country, or truly love to kill. Perhaps both.

The Marines are in it for the tatoos, the Navy for the booze.

 

[JW Frogen]

I would argue that this desire to end warfare in decisive battles developed as European society evolved away from an honor society.

Indeed, good point, honour societies believe war to be a game, war is not a game. (Al Qeada will fight for decades as they see war as honour and a religious game.)

Great armies defeat an enemy as quickly as they can. That is the job of a great army, and it is also more merciful to the civilian population long term.

Prolonged war is a scourge to both the concept of honour and reason, a danger to civilisation.

Though it may be nessisary if one is fighting an honour enemy.

 

[eagleseven]

Great armies defeat an enemy as quickly as they can. That is the job of a great army, and it is also more merciful to the civilian population long term.

I believe part of the problem is that in honor societies, there is no such thing as a civilian. When the son must pay for the sins of the father, the people must pay for the sins of the ruler. From their perspective, civilians are simply unarmed soldiers.

Prolonged war is a scourge to both the concept of honour and reason, a danger to civilisation.

There is little doubt that continual war is the natural state of man...and even less doubt that it has held us back as a species.

Though it may be nessisary if one is fighting an honour enemy.

There are only two ways for a Western-style army to deal with an honor society:

1. Complete extermination.

2. Oppression and cultural shift over generations.

 

[JW Frogen]

Number 2 works well, for instance India is a democracy as a result.

Nations and cultures will act on each other, compete with each other, fight each other.

There is no such thing as isolationism.

 

[mightypeon]

@ Eagle7

Quote:
I would argue that this desire to end warfare in decisive battles developed as European society evolved away from an honor society.

In the European honor society of the Middle Ages, it was common for families to fight for generations. During this same period, we saw events like the 100-years war. During the Renaissance, as feudal and familial power was replaced by the modern nation-state, these protracted conflicts were abandoned in favor of short, limited warfare. This tradition continues to this day.

Many non-Western peoples still maintain an honor society, where bloodfeuds are the norm. In Afghanistan, a land where dishonor deserves death and feuds can last for generations, the concept of a continual state of warfare is natural.


I disagree. Winning a war quickly was always more desireable, no matter wether you asked a Chinese Emperor, Japanese Shogun or Frederick the Great.
However, due to Europe beeing relativly small, actually winning a war quickly was much more likely.


Quote:
If Britain, France, Germany, and Spain were united as one Empire at any point after 1400, they would've successfully conquered the entire world.

At 1400, the Ming Empire was ascending, pushing out the Mongols and sending out Fleets that definitly reached Madagascar and perhaps even got to the Americas. Also, the Ming Empire produced roughly half of the world entire BIP back then, much of the rest beeing from India. The reason why Ming didnt colonise was relativly simple, the persons in charge said no. When Columbus sought sponsors for his expedition, he first tried to get those in Venice (preoccupied with other matters), Genoa (not interested), Portugal (had a good idea were India actually was and found the idea of reaching it that way quite nuts, if Columbus hadnt stumbled over America, he would have died), and England (more interested in War with France) , before beeing accepted in Spain, largely because the Spanish queen had a weird interest in doing everything the Portugese didnt.
I also believe that any European Super State would have been much more preoccupied with gouverning itself than with outward expansion.

 

[eagleseven]

Number 2 works well, for instance India is a democracy as a result.

Nations and cultures will act on each other, compete with each other, fight each other.

There is no such thing as isolationism.

I agree...it works quite well. It has worked well for Alexander, for Caesar, for Muhammad, for Victoria, and for Truman.

The trick is that it takes generations...and so American hopes of generating lasting cultural change in a mere 5, 10, or 15 years is both naive and futile.

 

[eagleseven]

I disagree. Winning a war quickly was always more desireable, no matter wether you asked a Chinese Emperor, Japanese Shogun or Frederick the Great.
However, due to Europe beeing relativly small, actually winning a war quickly was much more likely.

While every ruler wishes to win their wars quickly, what I am describing is the loser's ability to admit defeat and agree to stop fighting. The 100 Years War lasted for so long because neither family would admit defeat. The war finally ended when the Valois completely expelled the Plantagenet from France.

You would be hard-pressed to find a Shogun who's reign was not marked by bloodshed. If not fighting directly in the field, inter-family rivalry was always a serious threat. The country was not pacified until the Meiji restoration, which effectively eliminated the power of the Shogun and his samurai.

During the Ming Dynasty (1300-1700), you saw the transition of China from an honor society left by the Mongols to a duty society forged on Neo-Confucianism. Confucianism was also a trademark of the Han dynasty and Qin dynasty a thousand years prior.

 

[eagleseven]

Here is a good discussion of a society based upon honour, versus a society based upon law (duty).

Honour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honour is the default social contract in the absence of effective government power, and is commonly found in criminal organizations(Mafias), borderlands (Wild West), and among classes that operate above the law(military, aristocracy).

 

[Diuretic]

I'm glad I didn't purchase that article. I was deeply disappointed, it was so shallow.

But the first point I want to make is that war is a human enterprise
that will always be with us. Unless we submit to genetic engineering, or unless video
games have somehow reprogrammed our brains, or unless we are fundamentally
changed by eating different nutrients—these are possibilities brought up by so-called
peace and conflict resolution theorists—human nature will not change. And if human
nature will not change—and I submit to you that human nature is a constant—then war
will always be with us.

Humans have the capacity to go to war, why they go to war is important.

Hanson mentions "Western ideas" but what he is referring to is contemporary capitalism and the nature of the state that has to exist to foster capitalism. History just isn't that simple.

Everyone knows that once Iran obtains nuclear weapons—in addition to its intention to threaten Israel and to support terrorists—it will begin to aim its rockets at Frankfurt, Munich, and Paris, and
to ask for further trade concessions and seek regional hegemony

Is he a historian or a fortune-teller? "Everyone knows..."?

Is he serious?

I'm surprised this is so facile.

 

[Diuretic]

Yet another factor is that Western armies are impatient. They tend to want to seek out and destroy the enemy quickly and then go home. Of course, this can be both an advantage and a disadvantage, as we see today in Afghanistan.

I would argue that this desire to end warfare in decisive battles developed as European society evolved away from an honor society.

In the European honor society of the Middle Ages, it was common for families to fight for generations. During this same period, we saw events like the 100-years war. During the Renaissance, as feudal and familial power was replaced by the modern nation-state, these protracted conflicts were abandoned in favor of short, limited warfare. This tradition continues to this day.

Many non-Western peoples still maintain an honor society, where bloodfeuds are the norm. In Afghanistan, a land where dishonor deserves death and feuds can last for generations, the concept of a continual state of warfare is natural.

I don't know if the statement is entirely factual bu tis a valid point that Westerners kill each other at the drop of a hat.

If Britain, France, Germany, and Spain were united as one Empire at any point after 1400, they would've successfully conquered the entire world.

To put this in contemporary terms, what we are asking today is for a young man with a $250,000 education from West Point to climb into an Apache helicopter—after emailing back and forth with his wife and kids about what went on at a PTA meeting back in Bethesda, Maryland—and fly over Anbar province or up to the Hindu Kush and risk being shot down by a young man from a family of 15, none of whom will ever live nearly as well as the poorest citizens of the United States, using a weapon whose design he doesn't even understand. In a moral sense, the lives of these two young men are of equal value. But in reality, our society values the lives of our young men much more than Afghan societies value the lives of theirs. And it is very difficult to sustain a protracted war with asymmetrical losses under those conditions.

This is why I am so appreciative of those who do serve...because it is a fool's job. To be a US Marine, you have to either truly love your country, or truly love to kill. Perhaps both.

Quote: Hanson
Yet another factor is that Western armies are impatient. They tend to want to seek out and destroy the enemy quickly and then go home. Of course, this can be both an advantage and a disadvantage, as we see today in Afghanistan.

Eagle Seven:

I would argue that this desire to end warfare in decisive battles developed as European society evolved away from an honor society.

In the European honor society of the Middle Ages, it was common for families to fight for generations. During this same period, we saw events like the 100-years war. During the Renaissance, as feudal and familial power was replaced by the modern nation-state, these protracted conflicts were abandoned in favor of short, limited warfare. This tradition continues to this day.

Many non-Western peoples still maintain an honor society, where bloodfeuds are the norm. In Afghanistan, a land where dishonor deserves death and feuds can last for generations, the concept of a continual state of warfare is natural.

Military adventures aimed at occupying regions was conducted by colonialist/imperialist powers who either used the power of the state or that of private companies which were imperialist in themselves. The end of mercantilism and the beginning of capitalism may have signalled the end of the colonialist/imperialist imperative. Capitalists don't want to occupy a country, they want to secure resources and markets so the military operates to invade and overcome resistance to secure resources and the invading state tries to set up a client state that will supply resources and also a market for the capitalists' goods.

 

[eagleseven]

Military adventures aimed at occupying regions was conducted by colonialist/imperialist powers who either used the power of the state or that of private companies which were imperialist in themselves. The end of mercantilism and the beginning of capitalism may have signalled the end of the colonialist/imperialist imperative. Capitalists don't want to occupy a country, they want to secure resources and markets so the military operates to invade and overcome resistance to secure resources and the invading state tries to set up a client state that will supply resources and also a market for the capitalists' goods.

How do the Mongols and the Timurids fit into your colonialist model?

 

[Charles Stucker]

The Terrorists certainly think they can win the war against the USA.
They may be right, or they may push hard enough for the USA to fight like it was WWII again - bombing industry, giving artillery and air support to the front line troops, and demolishing out enemies ability to fight.
Kill enough enemies and eventually you run out of them.