Premodern attitudes towards war

[Ban]

Well...I wish I had revised and unextended my remarks to exclude the part your responded to... But...

I did say that I thought it might be just a US perspective, that it 'seemed' to me that Viet Nam was more shaping, and I think it was for the US (to the regard of not idealizing war). Extending that to the west, was likely US bias. I thought the comment carried enough of a questioning tone, and speculation that it was maybe just my home country perspective to avoid accusations of arrogance. Guess not...

Still, I think it is true that Veit Nam did more than WWI and WWII to assuage the US population 'maybe not our leaders', from thinking war a glorious endeavor.

But you know....stupidity combined with arrogance and a huge ego will get you a long way... So I must be going places.

Eh don't worry. I accused the comment of being arrogant, as we (western) Euros had enough post-colonial wars of our own at the time to hammer home the folly of war. Nothing personal beyond that. You should know by now I think you're a good bloke

 

[Miles Lacey]

The initial point is solid. Attitudes toward war (and toward soldiers) shifted and is today much different from what it once was. And that varied by culture. It's not like "the past" all had the same attitudes. I'd like to add a couple of other points to the mix.

First, there's a deep divide over the extent to which a society views war as something that can be avoided. This is tied to the OP's point about how some saw war as an ennobling activity. In many times and places, war was simply part of the human experience, and that war represented a failure to keep the peace. The notion was laughable. One might as well try to find ways to stop the rain. Leaving aside whether war was good or bad, it was absolutely inevitable.

Second, our modern ideas about warfare are conditioned by the two great world wars of last century, but also by the increasingly efficient machinery of war since then, and of course the cloud of nuclear war that hangs over all. That's not how pre-moderns thought about war.

For many in the MIddle Ages and before, wars could be fought at a very local level. And they could be of short duration, measured in days or weeks. This tribe fought that tribe, in battles with either side numbering in the scores or hundreds. Some wars were not much more than cattle raids. When that is your understanding and experience of war, then war is not some generation-destroying catastrophe, and it's easier to consider the heroism, the plunder, and the excitement.

My Roman history teacher liked to portray the difference between Greeks and Romans. He was exaggerating, but his point was illustrative and interesting. The Greeks, he said, loved war. It was something to do in the summer. You got glory and profit and some good stories to tell back home. Casualties were usually light. You looked forward to next season. The Romans, otoh, hated war. The Roman soldier would much rather be home with his family, enjoying his villa and drinking good wine. So when war came, the Romans were out to crush you. They got really good at it. This is why the Romans had such a difficult time with the Greeks. They kept winning the wars, yet the Greeks kept rebelling. Rome had to resort to eliminating entire cities before the Greeks finally got the point.

Winthrop Linsday Adams. He always told good stories and there is a great fund of good stories in the ancient world. Anyway, it was my first introduction to the notion that not everyone views or viewed war in the same way, or even had the same understanding of what the word means.

I don't know how I would work such notions into a story, though. It goes against popular understanding in a significant way. Maybe a non-fantasy novel that made it a central point. Or else, just write a good history book!

Maori tribes often fought wars between each other but the weapons they had and the small numbers of warriors that each tribe had ensured that their territories didn't change that much. Warfare was mostly fought seasonally when warriors weren't needed to harvest crops or hunt. Warriors had mana and the best had legends told about them. Then the Europeans arrived with their muskets.

Muskets transformed tribal warfare. Tribes could now be slaughtered in numbers that were previously unheard of. The Moriori on the Chatham Islands were virtually wiped out during this time. Eventually, the Musket Wars ended and a new series of conflicts that are now called the New Zealand Wars broke out.

What ultimately ended the New Zealand Wars has been the subject of much controversy and debate but it wasn't a decisive battle or victory on the part of the British, despite their overwhelming superiority in weapons and numbers. It was that Maori warriors were only seasonal fighters whereas the British were full time professionals. Without enough people to grow and harvest crops their families starved and eventually they sued for peace.

It wasn't until 1890 that the last Maori stronghold (the King Country) agreed to lay down their arms and that was so the Main Trunk Railway Line from Wellington to Auckland could be completed.

Studying tribal warfare can often give an insight into societies where warfare is an integral part of that society - and how a simple change can radically transform both conflict and society.

 

[skip.knox]

Muskets--sidearms more generally--had a similar effect back in Europe. There are a number of shifs coming out of the so-called Military Revolution, but one that always sticks with me is how the common soldier became dangerous. In the Middle Ages, commoners were add-ons. There to add bulk. There's a bit of shift due to discipline and drill, but it's really sidearms that turns the trick. Cannonry is closely related here. Once these developments are in place, now anyone and everyone can be a killer. Whole nations can be mobilized to deadly effect, and pretty much everyone in the field is equally dangerous.

Europe, through tragic chance, happened to bring those developments to fruition right about the time they were fighting over each others' souls, *and* about the time they were starting to harvest the riches of the New World. It was a deadly combination, and for over a century they set to killing each other with unprecedented efficiency. And it utterly transformed the continent, even as the continent bled.