Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Lecture 2: Warfare in Ancient China and Greece James Corum, PhD Lecture outline 1. What are we looking for, while discussing warfare? 2. Ancient China 3. Ancient Greece 4. Summary Evolution of warfare: questions • • • • Strategic level of war Forces and armaments Tactical level of war Theoretical views on war Ancient China Historical context Ancient China evolved through several distinct periods of statehood: 1. Western Zhou: 1027-771 BC 2. Eastern Zhou: 770-256 BC 3. Warring states: 475-221 BC 4. Qin empire (unified China): 221 BC Western Zhou Eastern Zhou Warring states Warfare in ancient China 1. Western Zhou: 1027-771 BC (feudal empire) Strategic level or war: Wars were fought for punishment, deterrence, warning, demonstration of king’s force and power (avoidance of extensive destruction) Forces and armaments: Forces were small (a few thousand men), war fighting was a prerogative of feudal lords, the majority of combatants were professional soldiers, main weapons were long (spears, halberds) main striking power – chariots. States had limited means to support wars Tactical level of war: Conduct of battles was ritualistic, usually one demonstrative assault by chariots sufficed for enemy to be intimidated and to surrender Theoretical thinking on war: No written theoretical works have survived Warfare in ancient China 2. Eastern Zhou and the period of Warrior States: 770-221 BC (transition from a feudal empire to a society of states to a unified state) Strategic level or war: Wars were eventually aimed at subduing and conquering the enemy state at any cost (leading to a formation of unified and centrally governed empire). States transformed into “machines” for supporting wars of attrition (Qin that conquered other states by 221 BC had the most advanced administration system) – from 10-20% of population were mobilised for war. Forces and armaments: • Forces grew dramatically (20,000-30,000 men + 1,000 chariots in average) • Elite troops remained professional, majority of forces consisted of recruited peasants, armies transformed gradually into permanent forces, main strike power – numerous infantry • Main weapons became swords, battle axes – weapons of close combat Warfare in ancient China 2. Eastern Zhou and the period of Warrior States: 770-221 BC (transition from a feudal empire to a society of states to a unified and centrally governed empire) Tactical level of war : • In order to first weaken and then subdue the enemy state, killing of enemy civilians and soldiers in large numbers became a common practice (in 260 BC 400,000 soldiers lost their lives in one battle) • Forces were able to accomplish complicated manoeuvres on the battlefield and the role of fire (bows, crossbows) grew • Wars could last for several years and forces could move over long distances • The role of siege warfare grew dramatically (technology evolved) Theoretical thinking on war: • Thinking about war became very advanced and sophisticated from IV-III Century BC (“Seven Military Classics”) • Sun Zi’s “The Art of War” was the foundation of Chinese military thinking Battle of Changping 1. Zhao’s forces were in defensive positions against superior Qin forces in Han kingdom in 260 BC 2. Qin’s forces could not attack the city of Shendang and Zhao forces at the same time. Zhao commander Lian Po knew that Qin had to retreat soon. 3. Qin (using espionage) discredited Zhao commander Lian Po who was changed for a young general Zhao Kuo 4. Zhao Kuo attacked Qin forces who retreated and the surrounded Zhao forces. 5. After some fighting 400,000 Zhao soldiers surrendered and were killed. Sun Zi views on war War: is an utterly fluid, cruel and violent process, a matter of life and death for a country The fabric of war: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Path (unity of nation and its leaders) Sky (weather, yin-yang, day and night (but prohibit omens!!!) Earth (geography, geology, selecting one’s tactical position) Commander (wisdom, trust, humanity and courage, sternness) Law (formation of an army, leadership and logistics) Fighting a war: is for a commander like weaving a fabric – all aspects must be constantly considered, favourable moments must be identified and chances seized. Nothing remains constant. Strength of today could transform into a weakness tomorrow. Sun Zi’s views on war Winning the war (strategic level of war): • Bloodless victory and forcing the enemy to surrender without a battle is the ultimate objective and achievement in war (protracted siege of enemy cities is the worst option for a commander): 1. Destroy enemy plans 2. Destroy enemy alliances 3. Destroy enemy forces 4. Siege enemy cities • Careful planning is the key for victory. “Knowing the enemy and yourself will give you 100 victories in 100 battles. Knowing yourself will give you a chance of victory. Not knowing enemy and yourself will put you in constant danger” • Aim your military effort at what is precious/important to the enemy to force your will upon him (Center of Gravity!) • No war is won without espionage and deception Sun Zi’s views on war Winning the war (tactical level of war): • Battle is the final clash, but manoeuvre leads to a victory • Battles must be fought only on the basis of rational considerations and under advantageous conditions (geography, weather, time of the day, own and enemy combat capability) • Always use numerical ratios of forces to a maximum effect – (1) surround, (2) attack, (3) split the enemy, (4) give battle, (5) retreat, (6) hide in fortresses • Constant deceiving and surprising an enemy is an absolute requirement for possessing the initiative • Use all forces of nature (e.g. fire) to your advantage Sun Zi’s views on war Commander: • Must know the war • Must be independent and have sufficient freedom of action to pursue the best interest of state (and must not only follow emperor’s commands) • Must be calm and balanced • Must be clear and understandable when giving commands • Must be ruthless when needed and delicate when needed (stick and carrot) • Must be feared more than enemy by his soldiers...(discipline!) • “Can you imagine what I would do if I were allowed to do what I CAN?!”, Sun Zi Warfare in ancient Greece Historical context 1. Archaic period 800-510 BC 2. Classical period 510-323 BC (Persian wars, Peloponnesian war, wars of Alexander the Great) 3. Hellenistic period 323-146 BC Athens’ dominance: 480-404 BC Sparta’s dominance: 404-371 BC Thebes’ dominance: 371-360 BC Macedon dominance: 338-323 BC Greece in classical period Greek warfare: from sticks to phalanxes Greece is the place where the Western way of fighting wars was born...“war is a horror for what it is impossible to prepare a man” IX-VII Centuries BC: battles were fought in less organised manner using primarily slings, heavier throwing weapons (spears) and light infantry VII Century BC – 146 BC: heavy infantry (hoplites) armed with long spears becomes a dominant force on the battlefield (partially due to some physical reasons, partially due to cultural considerations) Phalanx Phalanx in battle • Very stable and strong (but immobile) formation. Its main vulnerabilities were its rear, flanks and breaking up in battle • Depth: 6-16 rows • Training: extensive training of an infantryman was not required • Battle: Between phalanxes it reminded a pushing contest and could end in a circular movement as the right flanks of both phalanxes tended to be manned with strongest soldiers Battle of Marathon 490 BC Battle of Salamis 480 BC Peloponnesian War: 431-404 BC Thucydides “Peloponnesian War” http://records.viu.ca/~Johnstoi/thucydides/tofc.htm • The first thoroughly recorded war in Europe • Struggle for power and dominance (preventive war) between increasingly dominant power Athens and Sparta that tried to check Athenian power • Athens: sea power; Sparta: continental power • Athens: democracy; Sparta oligarchy where minority (Spartans - ruled majority – helots) • Dialogue of Melians: ”...you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” (Ch. XVII) Peloponnesian War I period: 431-421 BC •Athens raids the coasts of Sparta and its allies, defends itself on land. • Sparta attacks on land II period: 421-413 BC • Athens becomes more aggressive, but expedition to Sicily ends in disaster in 413 BC • Sparta advances on land, cuts Athens’s supply routes and forces all supplies being transported by sea Peloponnesian War III period: 413-404 BC • Athens becomes internally unstable, but its fleet keeps fighting • Sparta induces revolts in Athens’ colonies and defeats Athens’ fleet (cutting all supplies) at Aegospotami in 405 BC forcing Athens to surrender End of Sparta’s rule To break up Spartan phalanx, Theban commander Epaminondas increased the depth of his left flank to 50 rows by weakening his centre and right (despite being outnumbered). It allowed to break up Spartan phalanx and inflict massive losses: 400 out of 700 Spartan hoplites and over 1,000 of other troops were killed Spartans protested: Thebans violated traditions of warfare (!!!) Macedonian additions to Greek warfare • Alexander the Great also used the phalanx as the backbone of his army in battle, but he increased the numbers of light infantry, light and heavy cavalry • Alexander aggressively sought decisive victory in battle – his phalanx took the main thrust of the enemy, while he sought the way to use his heavy cavalry to break up enemy formation or kill enemy commander Macedonian additions to Greek warfare Alexander the Great • Wars in his lifetime • 356-323 • Greece under Macedon • Persian Empire broken • Result of a Hellenized region • Several smaller Empires that will fall to Rome Macedonian additions to Greek warfare Battle of Granicus Battle of Issus- Alexander meets Darius III Battle of Gaugamela Warfare in ancient Greece Strategic level of war: Wars were fought with the aim of weakening the enemy and subduing him. Struggle for power and dominance, but (if fought between Greek city states) avoiding the total destruction of enemy. Macedon: dominance and conquest Forces and armaments: Forces were numerically considerably smaller than in ancient China and their composition depended on a particular state (citizens, professionals). Greece gave the world mercenaries as we know them. Greeks usually fought with long weapons – spears, sarissas Tactical level of war: Ruthless and bloody fighting based on using phalanxes and aimed at destroying the enemy in battle (but violence usually stopped upon surrender – between Greeks) Theoretical thinking on war: Surviving works are not as comprehensive as Sun Zi’s. Greeks introduced to the European strategic and military thinking concepts of power of balance, preventive war, main thrust/effort in battle. One of the first theoreticians was Aeneas Tacticus (IV Century BC) Aeneas Tacticus’ views on defensive war and siege warfare It is known that Aeneas Tacticus wrote many works on war, but little has survived. One of the surviving works that is frequently cited, is his work on withstanding a siege Strategic level of war: • There are offensive and defensive wars • Nations defending themselves could achieve a lot by withstanding a siege – they would deter future enemies and achieve better security in the future • However, if they show weakness, lack of will and unity of effort in defending themselves, nothing will save them (use all means and opportunities for successful defence!) Aeneas Tacticus’ views on defensive war and siege warfare Tactical level of war: • Make enemy intrusion and advance to the city walls as complicated as possible • Risk the battle on open ground only under favourable conditions (deceive, surprise, create a local numerical superiority), use tactical retreat to ambush the enemy • Constantly collect information on enemy advance and inform your heavy forces (hoplites) in time • Fortify the weak spots of city walls Aeneas Tacticus’ views on defensive war and siege warfare Tactical level of war: • Secure the unity of people inside the walls: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. • • • Conspiracies Rebel factions Moral Expel before siege sick, beggars, etc. Watch closely mercenaries and allies Defend actively – counterattack when possible, try to seize the initiative, use the initiative of your own soldiers Organise the best soldiers into special attack and mobile units Divide your good soldiers evenly between units to achieve the maximum combat capability Summary: ancient China and Greece Strategic level: wars for dominance and conquest. In China, war became total in terms of mobilising states and destroying them as well. Strategy very sophisticated in China Armies and weapons: were commanded by professionals, but consisted of large numbers of citizens Tactical level of war: Various manoeuvres used in China. Greeks developed main thrust. Theoretical views: Advanced theoretical views evolved in China, and they are still relevant today.