|
In the West, military histories are replete w/ accounts of smaller Western armies inflicting crushing defeats on larger -- often hugely larger -- non-western military forces. E. g. Marathon, Salamis, Platea; Alexander vs. the Persians and Indians; Cortes vs. the Aztecs, Pissaro vs. the Incas; Don Juan vs. the Turks; first Clive, then Cornwallis, then Wellington, then Napier -- all vs. the Indians, etc., etc.
Implicit or explicit in Western military histories is that Western warfare was somehow superior, A useful corrective is WAR AND THE WORLD 1450-2000 by the British military historian Jeremy Black who points out that in many of these cases which have been misportrayed as Western military triumphs, the non-Western forces were defending empires of restive peoples who allied themselves w/ the Western forces, thereby alleviating or even reversing what has seemed like overwhelming numerical odds against the Western forces. This is especially true of the Incas and the Aztecs who ruled vast empires of conquered peoples who were just delighted to join in crushing the Aztecs and Incas.
Recent forensic research on what Spanish chronicles misreresented as a crushing Spanish victory over the Incas reveals that only a minority of the Inca dead were shor or stabbed w/ metal weapons. The great majority died from wounds inflicted w/ stone weapons used by the Spaniards' native allies.
(Incidentally, this demolishes the pissing and moaning by "progressive" historians about the injustice of "Western" conquests. Westerners did not bring slavery to the Americas. Indeed, Westerners eventually stopped the slavery in which the Indians had engaged for centuries. Dishonest amd cruel as Cortez was, he was positively honest and humane compared to the Aztecs.)
(How did a small number of Europeans conquer "all those Indians?" Because there were no "all those Indians!" Rather there were Aztecs and Toltecs and Iriquois and Comanches. They had been fighting each other for centuries and they were just delighted to join w/ Europeans in crushing their enemies at last. They did not see these victories as European but rather as their own. And the eventual European triumph owes far more to European diseases and the superiority of European weapons than to cruelty or deceit.)
Nevertheless there is an interesting argument to be made for Western military superiority. Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist who has published a study called CARNAGE AND CIVILIZATION which makes numerous claims of which I am instinctively suspicious, inter alia because they are so attractive to me. His macrocosmic claim is that there is a western way of war which, because of certain features of western civilization, has always been superior to non-western ways, giving westerners enormous military advantages.
The features of western civilization to which he points generally derive from the Greeks and include things like limited government, civic participation freedom of speech, criticism and inquiry, personal rights, basic egalitarianism. From these things derive (he says) superior aspects of western war including massive formations like phalanxes and legions, brutally annihilative tactics and goals, and maximization of new technological and other military developments
Here are some applications of his theses:
* basically egalitarian civic participation promotes mutual joinder in massive formations like phalanxes and legions which approach battle in terms of direct, brutal confrontations designed to annihilate the opposing force. They are fighting for a polity and goals in which they have a stake and with the purpose of winning as quickly as possible and getting back to their farms. These things promote esprit de corps, shame at failing their comrades, and a willingness to endure and benefit from discipline. No racial, ethnic or national group has a monopoly on INDIVIDUAL courage, but Western soldiers are far more willing to stand and move in formation and kill or be killed.
* The ordinary "soldier" in autocratic non-western societies throughout history (e.g., the societies of Asia, Africa, the Aztecs and Incas) has had no dedication to the polity and its goals. He is in the ranks because of coercion and/or the prospect of booty. His sole object is to survive and, if possible, enrich himself - and devil take the hindmost. Though he may be courageous in attack, his inclination is to avoid battle or to strike only through guile and indirection, at vulnerable flanks and backs, and to rapidly switch over to retreat or to be routed when he meets adversity or stubborn resistance. "Soldiers" so motivated cannot generally overcome a solid, stubborn formation of attacking or defending westerners.
* Even the elite of autocratic non-western societies have not historically been "soldiers" in the western sense. Their glory is not united action but individual killing skills in individual combat. When they meet the stubborn resistance of a European battle line they do not coalesce but rather fall apart and are either killed heroically or flee cravenly. The superiority of free Greek soldiery was so marked that eventually many became mercenaries who were hired en masse in phalanxes by Persian satraps. Though Greek cities were constantly at war and eventually took to hiring Greek mercenaries, Greek cities did not hire Persians as mercenaries
* In autocratic non-western states poor leadership and tactics are perpetuated by the impossibility of criticism while in even the most repressive western states criticism of military performance has given rise to constant learning and change both military and technological.
* Concomitantly in societies where free exchange of ideas is not valued, or is suppressed, new scientific developments are more rarely made or adopted from other societies. The Chinese invented gunpowder but the west developed it into devastating weaponry. Though early Ottoman society was as rich as the west, the Ottomans had to hire western artificers to create warships, cannon etc. In contrast, no western power hired Turks
* Western freedoms have been continuously important at the tactical level as well: the Navy tolerated the sloppy-dressing, informal, non-conformist out-of-the-box thinking group that broke the Japanese code leading to the decisive victory at Midway. In contrast, the rigidly hierarchical and orthodox Japanese military intelligence service broke no codes. [Here is an example Davis does not give, but could have: Eventually lower ranking Japanese officers realized their code must have been broken but were helpless to do anything because higher authority had approved the codes and declared them unbreakable.] Many higher officers were dubious of Yamamoto's over-complicated Midway battle-plan, but no one dared criticize it.
* Even the most benighted of western societies have exhibited far more ability to overcome ignorance and superstition than have non-westerners. The Aztecs thought Cortez and his followers were gods; the Spanish thought no such thing about the Aztecs. 80% or more of the then Mexican population eventually died of European plagues against which they had no immunity - in part because their superstition led to group prayer and ceremonies and grouping practices which facilitated disease. The Spanish were subject to New World diseases to which they had no immunity. But they did not consider these insuperable visitations from God and they were able to reduce their destructiveness through sanitation and other practices developed from centuries of dealing with plagues.
* Even at fairly primitive stages of development, western societies have proved willing to organize and devote enormous resources for military conquest. Persia initially attacked Greece (in response to grave provocation) but after two severe defeats desisted; Alexander conquered an empire stretching well beyond Persia to encompass lands that had never menaced Hellenes. Despite the enormous distance from Spain, the Spaniards mustered the resources to attack the Aztecs and Incas, but the Aztecs and Incas did not attack Spain; ditto for 17th Century England in America and 18th Century England in India. In the first blush of enthusiasm after its invention Islam spread very widely but by the end of the 8th Century expansion was done. Western powers carried on the Crusades at great distances from their heartland, not vice versa.
I have vastly oversimplified Davis' theses, which are replete with sweeping generalizations such as I have offered. Note that while his generalizations may seem easy to contradict, many apparent contradictions are irrelevant because they involve conflicts between western nations. If Davis' theses about the West's enduring military superiority is to be refuted it must be by examples taken from non-western nations. Nor can his theses be contradicted by showing that western militaries have been subject to many of the same problems he attributes to non-western militaries. Davis does not claim western militaries are immune to such problems, only that they are much less subject to them than are non-western.
|
