Comments on: The Western Way of War

By: Gerald

Gerald — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:50:13 +0000

Despite the morality of using violence to achieve personal or political aims, the fact remains that Countries exist because of wars fought against their neighbours or rivals. Independence is largely secured through the employment of armed forces and the willingness to fight if threatened, this alone prepares us all for such an eventuality.

I commend you on your site it contains a lot of quality information and is well done.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:04:42 +0000

Hanson specifically used Cannae as the example in his treatment of the reduction of Carthage by Rome. Using it against his thesis is pointless.

By: LMN

LMN — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:57:09 +0000

Noticed you didn’t defend your Roman example.

If, unlikely as it may have been, Napoleon held in Leipzig, the fighting would have gone on in Germany for who knows how long.

The Peninsular War was a sideshow until 1813, when Napoleon’s southern flank was so degraded that Wellington could invade France. That’s a sideshow the same way that the left hand dagger in the gut is a sideshow.

What I meant, however, is that outside freaks like Vietnam, that can only happen when one side is inhibited to attack the true enemy, you have to balance a Fabian strategy with a capability to defeat the army that is savaging you, or resign yourself to skirmishing for years and years. Very well and good if you are a Mongol horde, but most settled societies can’t put up with it for even a generation.

By: Peter Turchin

Peter Turchin — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 00:58:13 +0000

Napoleon made up his human losses in the Russian campaign easily enough, but he couldn’t make up his equine losses as easily. Dominic Lieven in his recent “Russia against Napoleon” documents how not having enough cavalry crippled Napoleon’s ability to conduct military operations in 1813-14.

Germans revolted because of the French disastrous defeat in 1812.

The Peninsular war was a sideshow. Naturally, the British historians wanted to claim some of the credit, but the facts of the matter is that it was the Russians who led (and held together) the coalition that defeated the Napoleonic empire.

By: LMN

LMN — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:07:03 +0000

Not one, but two gross oversimplifications by Turchin.

In the Roman case, he conveniently forgets all the battles and sieges Scipio won in Sicily and Spain, that beating and destroying in battle Carthage’s Spanish armies is the reason why he could turn the Numidians, and that it was Nero’s victorious battle against Asdrubal’s relief force that reduced Hannibal to a large-scale raider stuck in southern Italy by the still-spooked Romans.

As to Napoleon, the reasons why he isn’t still fighting in the Polish border in 1815 are mainly two and have little to do with the losses in Russia, which he was able to make good. What wrecked his plans was the German revolt that cut off his garrisons in Germany, a loss almost as big as the Grande Armée, and that just when he was wearing down the allies in repeated battles Wellington was able to force the Pyrenees, defeating in battle the French army that covered them. Of course, he was never overwhelmed in Spain because the guerrillas kept the French divided.

That said, in both cases the loss of a battle of Leipzig or Metaurus or some other would have led to a different result.

If this is case for winning wars without battles, it fails.