Comments on: Crowdsourcing a Presentation: The History of Warfare

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:54:30 +0000

Thanks to everyone. There is much food for thought here. I will be printing out this comment string and reading it when I sit down to prepare my outline.

By: CGW

CGW — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:46:02 +0000

A “history of warfare” in one hours, as opposed to a lengthy lecture on the “consequences” etc some have suggested….hmmmmm. Would maybe use this framework:

http://timeline.dreaming5gw.com/XvX.php

By: Chaz Perin

Chaz Perin — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:07:48 +0000

Warfare has been defined by two major characteristics: weapon, and more importantly, organization. What tools were used is fascinating, and part of the endless technological march ahead, but perhaps more relevant is the manner in which soldiers were recruited, and how the polity supported its military force financially.

Shlok Vaida does a good boilerplate job of identifying contemporary views (as well as postapocalyptic), but I think he misses the point. Since you only have an hour, I’d either talk about the progression of weaponry (tools-oriented) in infantry, cavalry, and artillery (from bladed weapons to rifles to tanks; horses to tanks to helicopters; from arrows to artillery to ICBM), or the organizational march from the muster fields and citizen soldiers to the aristocracy to mercenaries to professional armies and a permanent general staff. Or you could do both, since it’s only an hour.

Also, no matter which course you take, I recommend using particular battles to highlight your major chapters of warfare, rather than plain roman numerical headings.

By: Jay Manifold

Jay Manifold — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:13:19 +0000

Wow, like I needed a few dozen more reminders that I’m not exactly the smartest kid in the class.

Which doesn’t keep from contributing something unusable — two somethings, in fact.

First, the Triple Constraint:

I. Scope
A. Small groups or small city-states; ~10^2-10^3 combatants
B. Coalitions or small nations; ~10^4-10^5 combatants
C. Large nations or alliances; ~10^6 or more combatants

II. Time
A. Hours to months
B. Years to decades
C. Century or more

III. Cost
A. Incidental/occasional with little economic impact
B. Regular but not predominant expenditure
C. Total war, taking most of national/societal output

Second, the three basic military tasks (couldn’t find a snappy term for this):

I. Shoot
A. Hand-to-hand fighting; ~1m
B. Killing at a distance, but within line-of-sight; ~10-100m
C. Large distances and/or beyond LOS; ~1-10^4 km

II. Move
A. Purely defensive/static or walking-pace; ~10 km/day or less
B. Mobile, horse or motorized; ~100 km/day
C. Air/space; ~100m-10 km/sec

III. Communicate
A. Informal oral messages
B. Written messages by courier
C. Realtime audio/video

Or you could just talk about Subutai for an hour. KHAAAAANNNNN!

By: jaed

jaed — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 06:46:26 +0000

1. Annihilation of the enemy
Prehistory to the age of the great empires; kill all your enemies down to the youngest child; utterly destroys the enemy, but at least you’re sure they will never bother you again. This sort of warfare is a one-time effort by definition.

2. Destruction of the enemy
Rome and Carthage would be the paradigm for this; sell all the enemy into slavery, disperse them, tear down their cities; utterly destroys the enemy as a people, but doesn’t require killing most of them; since their culture is gone, they won’t come back for revenge in a generation or so. This sort of warfare, like the first, is one-time (unless something goes wrong, e.g. you forgot to kill the young Crown Prince who manages to gather his scattered people, but this is rare).

3. Subjugation of the enemy
More examples in European, Islamic, and Chinese history than I can shake a stick at; exile or kill the former rulers and set governors over the enemy, require payment of taxes, etc., former enemy has legal disabilities but the culture is left largely intact; this one preserves the enemy’s culture and again doesn’t require killing most of them, but leaves them permanent subjects. This sort of warfare requires an ongoing effort; governance and tax collection are ongoing, and the chances of an uprising requiring military action to suppress are much greater than in the previous form.

4. Transformation of the enemy
Primary examples are US versus Japan and Germany, circa 1945; through largely psychological and administrative means, shift whatever elements of the enemy’s culture and politics are seen as having enabled them to engage in warfare; preserves the enemy’s culture, doesn’t require killing most of them, and subjugates them only temporarily. Disadvantages: seems to work best after an overwhelming military defeat which necessarily involves many deaths and much destruction; demilitarization will require extending security guarantees, perhaps permanently.

By: david ronfeldt

david ronfeldt — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:07:51 +0000

In a view that John Arquilla and I have elaborated before, the history of military organization and doctrine is largely a history of the progressive development of four fundamental forms of engagement: the melee, massing, maneuver, and swarming. Briefly, warfare has evolved from chaotic melees in which every man fought on his own, to the design of massed but often rigidly shaped formations, and then to the adoption of maneuver. Swarming appears at times in this history, but its major advances as a doctrine will occur in the coming years

If this formulation looks helpful and interesting, go here to download our old Rand study (it’s free) on “Swarming and the Future of Conflict”:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/DB311/

Chapter Two (pp. 7-23) is about the evolution of military organization and doctrine: melee, massing, maneuver, and swarming, with particular reference to the roles of information and information technology in the evolution of these four forms.

What that write-up does not show, except in a passing footnote, is that this formulation derives from a view of social evolution — a pet theory of mine (called TIMN) — which holds that, across the ages, societies have come up with only four major forms of organization: tribes, hierarchical institutions (as in states and their militaries), markets, and networks. Thus, early tribes are associated with melees, hierarchical institutions with the rise of massed formations, the rise of market-oriented societies with the turn to maneuver doctrines, and now the age of networks with swarming.

I hope this helps. It’s all a bit sketchy, but it used to brief well. Onward. (And thanks to Shlok Vaidya’s blog for pointiing me here.)

By: Shlok

Shlok — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:14:14 +0000

Thanks for the link Lex.

By: Michael Kennedy

Michael Kennedy — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:11:27 +0000

The Iceman had an arrowhead in his back and seems to have been wounded not long before he died. That may be the explanation for his presence in the mountains although it was spring. His death may have been a consequence of combat although I don't know that I would call that "war" yet.

By: James R. Rummel

James R. Rummel — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:07:31 +0000

I think Sol Vason’s original outline from Oct. 5, 6:45 PM is pretty good. You only have an hour, after all, so it has to be quick, concise, and broad.

I would mention in the beginning that there is a large body of evidence that suggests warfare in some form seems to have existed since the evolution of the first humans, and the behavior of other primates such as chimpanzees suggest that it existed even before then.

It might seem noble to claim that the study of war is no longer necessary, but someone, somewhere is going to give it a try. And they will be able to roll right over anyone who hasn’t given some thought and effort into preparing a defense.

By: Jim Miller

Jim Miller — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:17:59 +0000

If I were doing a history of war (in one hour!), I would start with something from Lawrence Keeley’s “War Before Civilization”.

(Incidentally, I have found that book useful for understanding some terrorist tactics.)

Email me if you want to know more about the book.

By: seydlitz89

seydlitz89 — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:51:13 +0000

Lex-

Good luck with this project.

My advice which you can take for whatever you think it’s worth . . .

Avoid the swamp of 4GW theory like the plague.

Reread Clausewitz’s On War, Book 8, Ch 3B and my own piece on Clausewitzian cohesion from the Clausewitz roundtable . . .

Three ideal types – moral and material cohesion . . . explains it all in a theoretically coherent whole, and yes you can do it in an hour, since I have done exactly that under similar conditions here in Portugal.

Have a good time.

By: Larry Dunbar

Larry Dunbar — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:25:42 +0000

All Warfare is Generational in Nature

I. Clausewitz
A Green
i. Emotion/chance/reason = people/army/government = fear/honor/interest
ii. Eliminate chance by having the best army and you then have to deal with honor
iii. Overcome fear and interest with the honor of the army
B Blue
i. Emotion/chance/reason = people/army/government = fear/honor/interest
ii. Eliminate chance by having the best navy and then you have to deal with honor.
iii. Overcome fear and interest with the honor of the navy.
II. Non-Clausewitz
A Revolutionary Warfare
i. Enforce conformity by crossing the “Gap”.

B Evolutionary Warfare
i. Generate diversity by filling the “Gap”
III. Emergent Complexity
A Build Structure (Constitution) hopefully strong enough to support emerging complexity
B Put someone in charge (Force of command, Velocity of control, Spirit of Image) = (Executive, Congressional, Judicial)

By: Mrs. Davis

Mrs. Davis — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:59:56 +0000

In warfare what’s old is new again, sooner or later, if only in new garb. As a text reference Keegan’s Face of Battle. Extrapolate to a Muslim majority Netherlands invading Belgium?

Logistics.
Foraging vs. supply train

Recruitment.
Tribal or mass armies vs. mercenary or professional armies

Weapons and tactics.
Seasonal war vs. War 24/7/365
Shifts of advantage from offense to defence
Mobility vs. fortification

Motivation for war
Wealth/material
Religion/righteousness (Cousin’s Wars)
Cultural survival

Limited War vs. Total War

War as a reflection and release of cultural strains.

By: Tatyana

Tatyana — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:10:28 +0000

Sol,
I would be very interested to hear the lecture by your outline.
[despite the fact that you used Arabic numerals instead of Roman]

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:59:28 +0000

If you were to cover how appeasement leads to war through out history, you would not just teach, you would accomplish two additional education goals. A) When Americas enemies make their warlike moves, the students will remember your lesson. The repetition they see will embed the lesson into their memory. B) They will respect your lesson more, because you were able to fore see the future conflict.

By: john cheeseman

john cheeseman — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:57:16 +0000

Hear are some questions to have your audience think about as a follow up for your lecture.

1. How much do we value our kind of peace (do you really want to bet your life on this?)?

2. What do we have to do to make sure it prevails?

3. Who among us will fight(not just serve in peacetime, but actually bleed)?

4. What will we as a society have to do to earn that service?

5. What threats or opportunities will we consider sufficient causes for which to put ourselves through the hell of war?

6. If we do choose to fight, whom do we kill and why?

7. What kind of knowledge of the enemy must we have?

8. What resources do we need to wage war?

9. Above all, what kind of peace are we seeking and what are we willing to do to obtain it?

By: Michael Kennedy

Michael Kennedy — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:29:38 +0000

Minney = Minie. Misspelled.

By: Michael Kennedy

Michael Kennedy — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:28:21 +0000

I- Ancient warfare
a- The Greek Hoplites were invincible because they were organized
b- The Macedonians perfected the phalanx which had longer spears and was better trained.
c- The Romans designed the Legion which was more mobile and could fight on irregular terrain.
II- Medieval warfare- The invention of the stirrup made cavalry effective and the horseman became armored.
III- The castle and knight determined the feudal economic system.
IV- The English longbow ended the superiority of the armored knight at Crecy and Agincourt.
V- Gunpowder ended the era of the impregnable castle.
VI- The smoothbore musket was used with the same tactics as the Legion. It was just a longer spear.
VII- Napoleon began the era of national armies.
a- Massive armies required sanitation- Baron Larrey invented military medicine and sanitation
b- Artillery became mobile.
c- Logistics became more important
VIII- The Minney ball ended the era of Napoleonic warfare as it was accurate to 1000 yards.
a- The Civil War casualties were far higher because of the rifled musket and Minie ball.
b- The Civil War ended with trench warfare at Petersberg
c- The defense became far more effective
IX- The First World War combined national armies and defensive firepower.
a- The machine gun extended the superiority of the Minie ball.
b- The tank ended the superiority of the defense
c- Airplanes were a minor but growing threat
d- MIlitary medicine had gotten good enough that more died of wounds than disease.
X- The Second World War was the last Industrial Age war.
a- The weapons were good enough that quality and not numbers were decisive.
b- The T 34 tank won the war in Europe.
c- The aircraft carrier and dive bomber won the war in the Pacific.
d- The Atomic Bomb made another Industrial Age war impossible except by accident.

Too long but the best I could do.

By: dearieme

dearieme — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:45:00 +0000

Be sure to remind then that men are as frank and accurate about warfare as they are about their sexual conquests.

By: Dan from Madison

Dan from Madison — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:49:15 +0000

The History of Warfare in one hour. Daunting, to say the least. I think you should stick to either the “how” or the “why” but not both as there is simply enough time. I prefer the “how” with some “why” sprinkled in.

1. Ancient Warfare
a. Egypt
b. Alexander the Great
c. Peloponnesian War

2. Rome
a. Punic Wars/Hannibal – use Cannae very quickly so the kids can see some strategy.
b. Internal wars/Caesar
c. Perhaps a short intro to Roman infantry methods

3. Era of gunpowder
a. Napoleon – I guess you will have to give the ULTRA short version of his conquests and strategy
b. Civil War (I know a LOT of war has been skipped here between Rome and the Civil War but you only have so much time)
b.1. Give Lincoln his due
c. If possible hit quickly on the Franco Prussian War as it sets up #4 in a way.

4. The age of massive armies
a. WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles
b. WW2
(I honestly don’t know how you will compact those two subjects)

5. The age of nukes
a. Korea
b. Vitenam
c. The Cold War

6. Post 911
a. Incorporate everything on Zenpundit’s blog

Well, there you have it, an easy hour. Like I said, this is daunting – you will have to pick and choose your poisons and I don’t envy you.

I second the motion to have this taped and put on youtube so we can all see what you ended up with.