Tweet
I agree that methods of warfare are technology. One of the main reasons that the Spanish did so well against the Aztecs was that their weapons were designed to kill, not to subdue. The Aztecs were used to warfare for the sake of capturing prisoners, where the opposing armies would line up opposite each other and pummel away with clubs, darts and stones until one side or the other paniced. They were no match for the discipline and combined arms of the Spanish, especially since their own superstition undermined their morale. By the time they began to realize that the Spanish were not superhuman most of their allies had deserted them, and quite a few had joined the Spanish. Additionally, Cortes was no dummy, and modified his own tactics as well, making very good use of the light naval cannon he had to rip bloody holes in the enemy lines.
A force which is formed on the principles of total warfare will have a huge advantage over a force formed on the principles of ritual warfare.
Europeans were also very adept politically. They knew that their very presence meant that whatever equalibrium there had been in a region previously was gone. There arrival spurred countless deadly wars as native peoples fought for access to European goods (e.g. North America, West Africa) or sought goodwill and protection in exchange for military or logistical assistance in a case where the Europeans engaged in combat with another local people. This was the truest form of leverage used by the Europeans to take over most of the known world in a few centuries, with military technology being the smaller lever which moved this larger one.
I agree with most that the battles of Port Arthur, Tsushima, Dien Bein Phu, and the massive Chinese offensive in Korea in 1950 were all between opponents who were fairly equivalent in terms of weapons tech deployed, and thus are merely just good examples of another way one can underestimate an enemy, which is to say the Westerners in these instances underestimated the enemy's battle capabilities in terms of doctrine, technology and logistics.
I disagree with those who rate the Mongols of Ghengis Khan as technologically primitive. Consider the fact that I consider superior doctrine to be a tech advantage, and the fact that the Mongols possessed an unrivaled military machine capable of completely routing an enemy force from anywhere in the world while outnumbered. The central Europeans were lucky that Ghengis died when he did, for no one was able to stop the screening force sent to cover the approach of the Mongol main body (they though the screen was in fact the main body, and there was plenty of panic as it crushed two attempts by large forces to beat it). The Mongol method of warfare was IMO the most sophisticated the world had seen up to that time, and was only surpassed in it's effectiveness by Napolean's.
A force which is formed on the principles of total warfare will have a huge advantage over a force formed on the principles of ritual warfare.
Europeans were also very adept politically. They knew that their very presence meant that whatever equalibrium there had been in a region previously was gone. There arrival spurred countless deadly wars as native peoples fought for access to European goods (e.g. North America, West Africa) or sought goodwill and protection in exchange for military or logistical assistance in a case where the Europeans engaged in combat with another local people. This was the truest form of leverage used by the Europeans to take over most of the known world in a few centuries, with military technology being the smaller lever which moved this larger one.
I agree with most that the battles of Port Arthur, Tsushima, Dien Bein Phu, and the massive Chinese offensive in Korea in 1950 were all between opponents who were fairly equivalent in terms of weapons tech deployed, and thus are merely just good examples of another way one can underestimate an enemy, which is to say the Westerners in these instances underestimated the enemy's battle capabilities in terms of doctrine, technology and logistics.
I disagree with those who rate the Mongols of Ghengis Khan as technologically primitive. Consider the fact that I consider superior doctrine to be a tech advantage, and the fact that the Mongols possessed an unrivaled military machine capable of completely routing an enemy force from anywhere in the world while outnumbered. The central Europeans were lucky that Ghengis died when he did, for no one was able to stop the screening force sent to cover the approach of the Mongol main body (they though the screen was in fact the main body, and there was plenty of panic as it crushed two attempts by large forces to beat it). The Mongol method of warfare was IMO the most sophisticated the world had seen up to that time, and was only surpassed in it's effectiveness by Napolean's.
Comment