Within a war: The sides need a breather. Political imperative dictates so.
Between time periods: Political nature of the system in which wars are fought? The 30 Years War was more destructive than the Napoleonic Wars due to the battle for souls? Technology definately has a part to play - it became easier to increase the level of violence.
A bit superficial, but my initial thoughts on your question.
Within a war - this is often shaped by political and social conditions as well as military necessity and/or realities. Violence can taper, as Infanteer mentioned, because both sides need a breather. It can also be because the political leadership of nation X decides to tone down violence to send a signal of some sort. Likewise it can ratchet back up due to domestic pressure on political leaders in response to something that happened (or didn't happen) on the battlefield. The appearance of a "cause" can also cause violence levels to increase (sometimes drastically and quickly).
Between wars I think the same sorts of things apply. Nations exhausted by a major conflict don't seem to have the same stomach for aggression (at least at first), or they may feel that their demands/needs have been met. Political unrest at home can also lead to diminishing violence outside the borders as leaders turn their attention inward. In "ye olden dayes" armies had to be smaller due to logistics limits and obviously couldn't be moved as quickly. This mean that nations or rulers had to "pick their time and place" in a different way than they do now. It's worth considering the impact of social changes on this as well. The rise of communications technology (from printing on) and nation-states and (I think) the dominance of monotheistic religion also play roles.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Thanks for the imput.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=11715
See post #16 for an outline of what I am trying to pitch for.
another proposed answer to your query...
I have read both Infanteer's and Steve's responses, as well as your post on the linked thread. My answer, I think, is complementary to all the above perspectives, perhaps coming from a slightly different angle. It's a good question, and one that has been bouncing around my head for the last few days since reading your thread.
I would suggest that the intensity of warfare refers to political will, in an explicitly Clausewitzian setting. If the political will is for complete and utter annihilation of another population group, then the violence will be total - witness the devastation visited upon Carthage or on the Eastern Front. If the political objectives desire a new balance of power then the need to co-exist post hostilities requires reduced levels of violence.
Political systems may sometimes topple themselves mid-conflict, which is why 'pauses' sometimes exist or the intensity of violence decreases. If the political system is unable to tolerate an ongoing offensive or military campaign due to materiel losses, economic cost, human cost or even parliamentary support, then policy may change, based on the omnipresent centre of gravity, political sustainability.
When the will for total destruction of another population is present as a political goal the violence will be absolute. When that political will decreases in intensity the level of violence, too, reduces. After all, states go to war with the intent of a better peace, so the means exerted will relate to their view and conception of the end-state.
This would explain why states involved in a civil war may often resort to extreme levels of violence as they do not expect to have to rehabilitate or coexist alongside the opposing political order. It would also explain why limitations are placed on even the most high-risk operations, such as the employment of gas in WW2 or nuclear weapons in the Cold War campaigns, as both sides intended to work with and not annihilate the opposing populations.
Perhaps I am rephrasing your question. I don't believe that the intensity of violence differs between time periods, but rather due to the objectives of politics. The trend for political systems to emphasise stability and the maintenance of a balance of power may have moved away from absolutes in conquest and destruction towards less costly and less permanent measures, and it is this phenomenon that is now observed in reduced levels and intensity of violence in warfare.
'...the gods of war are capricious, and boldness often brings better results than reason would predict.'
Donald Kagan
That whole idea only works because of the real reason:Originally Posted by Infanteer
The culminating point of attack.
This is being driven by superiority of defence over offence AND the overextension of logistics.
Two sides deciding to recover for a while is the requirement for a temporary reduction of intensity (beyond mere movement of forces for a new attack at another location). This wouldn't work if offence was superior to defence.
I'm having trouble trying to find a date as reference for my thesis. When was the exact day and time that the Europeans defeated the 'Native Americans'?
No idea if you are being cheeky with your question, but the event of 29 December 1890 at Wounded Knee is often given as the close of the Indian Wars. But keeping in mind that treaties were negotiated on a nation-to-nation basis, Red Cloud’s War ended at best in a draw for the federal government and the ancestors of the Seminole and Miccosukee nations currently located within the boundaries of Florida never signed any treaty related to cessation of the Seminole Wars.
If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)
Hey Taiko, old friend ....
I'm not being cheeky (), so I'll also go with 1890 Wounded Knee as the conventional event of closure.
Except that, of course, if one wants to be very accurate, the last encounter of the "Indian Wars" was won by the Indians. The Indians in question being a group of "Nobbies" (Anishinabe - Minnesota Ojibwe) under Bugonegijig (aka Bugonaygeshi). The location was Sugar Point (Leech Lake), Minnesota. The date was 5 Oct 1898 (in the afternoon), when a US officer and 5 troopers (3rd Inf. Reg.) were killed, and a number wounded - Indian casualties, none.
A settlement was made and full clemency was granted by Pres. McKinley in Jan 1899.
Some refs: Wiki, from the report to the Secretary of the Interior:
The Battle of Sugar Point : a re-examination; and The last Indian uprising in the United States.The Indians were prompted to their outbreak by the wrongs committed against them and chafed under unfair treatment. They now will go back to their homes and live peaceably if the whites will treat them fairly, which is very likely, as the whites were thoroughly impressed with the stand taken by the Indians. In this respect the outbreak has taught them a lesson.
Ironically, the Ojibwe have worn Army Blue since the Civil War (e.g., K Coy, 1st Michigan Sharpshooters, was mostly Ottawa, but included Ojibwe), in living black & white:
Best for your thesis.
Regards
Mike
Back on deck for the 'Asia-Pacific Century', I volunteer to go on point
Question: What impact has the compression of time and space had on the level and intensity of violence during and between wars in the past/present/future.
Last edited by Taiko; 01-05-2013 at 02:22 AM. Reason: Reflection.
"compression of time and space"?Back on deck for the Asia-Pacific Century. I volunteer to go on point
Question: What impact has the compression of time and space had on the level and intensity of violence during and between wars in the past/present/future.
Are you talking about space travel or warfare?
Education, although sometimes painful, is always worth it.
If we can agree that 'compression of time and space' is an artifact of globalization, could your question be restated as: What impact has globalization had upon warfare?
Very broadly, and by contrasting the battlefields of Iraq (OIF) with those of WWI Europe, I would say that a focus upon rapid removal of governance (individuals and structures) using an overwhelming force synchronized with realtime ICT (information and communication technology) results in reduced casualty rates for both sides. I also wonder about reduced post war recovery rates for both sides...by contrasting the ongoing recovery versus the interval from 1918 to 1939. A comparison of costs indicates that war is, and will always be, expensive in lives and treasure.
Perhaps a better contrast would be to examine the Iraq wars with the British (British Mandate 1920 -1932) and with the US (1991 and 2003-2010)?
How does globalization account for these differences in levels and intensity of violence? The IMF defines four aspects of globalization: 'trade and transactions, capital and investment movements, migration and movement of people and the dissemination of knowledge.' Current themes in the media which relate to this topic include trade, energy, 'Chimerica', high finance, growth rates, innovation...
Some references for a later read on this topic might include:
- The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli
- The Scientific Way of Warfare by Antoine Bousquet
- Globalization, A Short History by Jurgen Osterhammel and Niels P. Pietersson
- The Quest by Daniel Yergin
- The Ascent of Money by Niall Ferguson
- The American Phoenix by Charles Dumas and Diana Choyleva
- How Soccer Explains the World by Franklin Foer
Sapere Aude
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks