PDA

View Full Version : "A history of Warfare" Keegan, J. 1994



FastEd
14th November 2000, 04:24
Hi all,

I have been re-reading this John Keegan book, and I have come to a part that I have a minor disagreement with and I wanted to share it and see if it bares up under other poeple's input!

In the later half of his book Keegan makes the case that their is a unique "western way of war", in which distance weapons are shunned, and combat at arms reach is preferred. So much so that it delays the effective use of arrows and guns for some time. He goes on to say:

" east of the steppe and southeast of the black sea, warriors continue to keep their distance from their enimes; west of the steppe and south-west of the Black sea, warriors learned to abandon caution and to close to arm's length."

He also adds that this abanodonment, of what he calls primitism (i.e. keeping distance between the enemy), by the west baffles analysis. I won't comment on why I think this may or may not be a realistic assessment, what I am curious about though is if his statement about the eastern method of warfare is accurate? Do Chinese or Japanese armies of antiquity have a tradition of not closing with the enemy?, and if so is this an expression of a more primitive style of combat?
Okay I will offer up my opinion (but I have not read alot about eastern military history) What I do know is that swords, spears, etc.. were used in combat, the evidence being the very fact that they exist in museums. If so then atleast some portion of these armies engaged in hand to hand combat, and a blanket generalization like this can not be made. As for this concept of primitivism, I'm not shure what this is the correct term to be using. Different tactics existed, yes, but are they really "primitive"?

Joseph Svinth
14th November 2000, 06:50
The reviews of that book suggest it is not one of Keegan's best, and gross generalizations are always dangerous, though frequently typologically useful.

Be that as it may, the Chinese, Iranians, and early Japanese did place considerably more emphasis on archery than did the Romans or Hellenes. But even Goliath carried what was most likely an atlatl, while David carried a sling.

CKohalyk
15th November 2000, 23:10
Good day,

I liked that book because of the great overview of war in history. I thought it helped me to put a lot in perspective as to who was doing what when those guys were invading the other guys... you know, it can get confusing.

As far as the "primitive" warfare comments are concerned, I think this he is saying that this is characteristic of the steppe people who never independently industrialized and therefore their tactics are "primitive", not necessarily that the tactics themselves are primitive, just that they were bourne of primitive peoples. As far as his views on the Eastern guerilla-type warfare in comparison to the Western face-to-face type warfare, I am not sure that that is a valid distinction to make. I am sure you will find examples on both sides of the steppe.

Anyways, I know that wasn't much help if at all, but I was wondering...have you read Kolko's "Century of War"? That's next on my reading list.

Another thing, I have to write a paper comparing the racism and propaganda of the Japanese and Americans during WWII. Does anybody have any reading material they would like to suggest?


Regards,

CKohalyk

Joseph Svinth
16th November 2000, 11:38
LIFE magazine had some amazing things ca. 1943. For a sample of the kind of movie made in 1943, see the picture at http://ejmas.com/jnc/jncart_svinth2_0100.htm .

On the other side, "Japan Times" was published throughout WWII,in English, and as late as July 1945 you'll read all about how the Americans were being lured into Tokyo Bay for their final destruction. It's available on microfilm; at the time it was known as "Nippon Times".

A review of a useful book by Paul Fussell: http://ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p-59_Martin.html ; reading the books listed there should keep you busy for days.



[Edited by Joseph Svinth on 11-30-2000 at 03:33 AM]

CKohalyk
29th November 2000, 22:23
Hello,

Thanks for the leads Mr. Svinth!!

FastEd, where exactly in the book was this:



Originally posted by FastEd

" east of the steppe and southeast of the black sea, warriors continue to keep their distance from their enimes; west of the steppe and south-west of the Black sea, warriors learned to abandon caution and to close to arm's length."



One thing that Keegan says in the same book(pp.122):


...the hunting men of the New Stone Age were no more than primitive warriors, members of groups without a distinguishable military class and without a 'modern' concept of warfare.


For Keegan, one of the features of 'primitive' warfare must be this class distinction. Also, motivations of warfare. The Yanomamo fought over women, the Maring fought in 10 year cycles 'out of habit, perhaps even for the fun of it...', Maoris fought out of revenge, and the Aztecs for slaves and human sacrificial victims.

Now, for example the Japanese have fought because of revenge, but I am not sure about slaves. But they definitely had an established military class(which later became a caste) distinguishable from the rest of the society. What about the Mongols? They were a classic steppe people, did they have a military class? What other features does 'primitism' encompass? FastEd, what else does Keegan say? Has anybody read Turney-High?

Just trying to continue a discussion I thought was interesting.


CK

Joseph Svinth
30th November 2000, 09:13
Disregarding the fact that fighting over women is simply a type of fighting over what the Marxists would term the allocation of resources, you seem to be leading us back toward one of Neil Hawkins' favorite discussions, namely "What is a warrior?"

The first link is Isaac Bonewits' essay on warriors and soldiers; the second and third are point/counterpoint.

http://www.neopagan.net/Warriors.HTML
http://www.milpagan.org/articles/babykill.htm
http://www.milpagan.org/articles/isaac.htm

Then read Ralph Peters' articles:

* "Our New Old Enemies," http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/99summer/peters1.htm
* "Our Soldiers, Their Cities," http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/parameters/96spring/peters.htm
* "The New Warrior Class," http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/parameters/1994/peters.htm

Meanwhile, for an academic analysis of Keegan's "Primitivism", which is Clausewitzian in origin, see http://jspc.library.wisc.edu/issues/1999-2000/article1.html . Trust me -- you aren't alone in questioning the validity of the model. Peters, for instance, calls Keegan "the most inaccurate critic of Clausewitz ever to put pen to paper." http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/BOOKS/Bassford/PETERSX.htm

[Edited by Joseph Svinth on 11-30-2000 at 03:31 AM]

Neil Hawkins
30th November 2000, 11:48
At the risk of being accused of trying to start the "what is a warrior" discussion again. I thought this quote would be of interest, it addresses many of the points brought up so far.

I appologise for the length, but this covers the points fairly well...


Wars and different kinds of fighting have always occurred in the world since God created it. The origin of war is the desire of certain human beings to take revenge on others. Each party is supported by the people sharing in its group feeling. When they have sufficiently excited each other for the purpose and the two parties confront each other, one seeking revenge and the other trying to defend itself, there is war. It is something natural among human beings. No nation and no race (generation) is free from it.

The reason for such revenge is as a rule either jealousy and envy, or hostility, or zeal in behalf of God and His religion, or zeal in behalf of royal authority and the effort to found a kingdom.

The first kind of war usually occurs between neighbouring tribes and competing families.

The second kind – war caused by hostility – is usually found among the savage nations living in the desert, such as the Arabs, the Turks, the Turkomans, the Kurds, and similar peoples. They earn their sustenance with their lances and their livelihood by depriving other people of their possessions. They declare war against those who defend their property against them. They have no further desire for rank and royal authority. Their minds and eyes are only set upon depriving other people of their possessions.

The third is the kind the religious law calls ‘the holy war’.

The fourth kind, finally, is dynastic war against seceders and those who refuse obedience.

These are the four kinds of war. The first two are unjust and lawless, the other two are holy and just wars.
Since the beginning of men’s existence, war has been waged in the world in two ways. One is by advance in closed formation. The other is the technique of attack and withdrawal.

The advance in closed formation has been the technique of all the non-Arabs throughout their entire existence. The technique of attack and withdrawal has been that of the Arabs and the Berbers of the Maghrib.

Fighting in closed formation is more steady and fierce than fighting with the technique of attack and withdrawal. That is because in fighting in closed formation, the lines are orderly and evenly arranged, like arrows or like rows of worshippers at prayers. People advanced in closed lines against the enemy. This makes for greater steadiness in assault and for better use of the proper tactics. It frightens the enemy more. A closed formation is like a long wall or a well-built castle which upon no one could hope to move.

It is obvious what great wisdom there is in requiring that the lines be kept steady and in forbidding anyone to fall back during an attack. Those who turn their backs to the enemy bring disorder into the line formation. They are guilty of the crime of causing a rout. Fighting in closed formation wass more important than any other kind in the opinion of Muhammad.

Fighting with the technique of attack and withdrawal is not as fierce or as secure against the possibility or rout, as is fighting in closed formation, unless there is set up a steady line formation to the rear, to which the fighting men may fall back in attack and withdrawal throughout the fighting. Such a line formation would take the place of closed formation.

From The Muqaddimah, by Ibn Khaldun, Translated by Franz Rosenthal, Bolingen Princeton, Page 223 – 224

The author goes on to discuss the differences and merits of the different types of waging war. It definitely should be read by anyone serious about studying warefare and warriors.

The main thing about this book is that it was written in 1377, and is one of the first texts ever to examine history, the philosophy of history and sociology at the same time. The author was born in Tunisia and was a descendant of Moorish aristocracy in Spain, he travelled extensively and studied the major cultural influences of his time.

Regards

Neil

Joseph Svinth
1st December 2000, 09:08
For more about Ibn Khaldun, whose discussion of group solidarity (his words) is outstanding, see http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/ibnkhaldun

ben johanson
11th December 2000, 21:20
FastEd,

I know you posted your question a while ago, but I hope this helps to answer it anyway, even if it is a little late.

The weapon par excellence of the samurai from about the 10th century through the 14th century was the bow and arrow. In fact, during that time, the way of the warrior was called kyuba no michi-'the way of the horse and bow.' Swords and spears were used during this time, but in a secondary role.

During this same period, however, the Western world had already made the advancement to using edged weapons in close hand-to-hand combat, while much of Eastern Asia remained behind. I think this is the time period Keegan is refering to in your quote. He probably did not mean for this statement to be a generality about all of samurai history, just the one period, in which case, he is absolutely right.

The long spear did not come into widespread use in Japan until about 1450 when it replaced the bow and arrow as the primary weapon of the mounted samurai. The sword did not really come into its own until after the introduction of the gun to Japan by the West in 1543.