Western Dominance

[unmerged(11008)]

Actually, the vast majority of educated Europeans at Columbus's time felt the world was round. Nobody would finace this guy not because his ships would fall off the Earth, but because they would never make it there because of the sheer distance involved. The flat earth story is actually something of an urban legend literally invented by a 19th century scholar was hated humanism.

 

[unmerged(10853)]

Wow, what a diverse and interesting thread. I'm not sure if I can form my thoughts into a coherent post, but I'll certainly try

Maybe the problem could be examined by looking at Sweden. Now, as we all know I think , in 16th and 17th century Sweden, one of the poorest countries in Europe at that time, became a great power. How and why was this possible?

As for why, I think it's sufficient to say they basically just their neighbours when they were weak, to gain sort of a 'buffer zone'. (Simplification, but I guess it's good enough explanation here.)

So how was it achieved then? Firstly, the administration was propably the best in the world at this time. Because of the poorness of Finland and Sweden the swedes had to develop extremely efficient methods to raise taxes and troops off the poor land. Basically the troops were citizen soldiers, but there never was enough of them so lots of mercenaries were used, especially if the conflict dragged on for years. The government was pretty much centered on the king. The estates occasionally would have had the power to oppose the king, but usually the king could manipulate the estates to accept his decisions.

Second, Sweden had a great army with advanced tactics and technology (this was seen in 30-years war, after that the swedes had some trouble since the other countries caught up). Now this would, obviously, be a direct consequence of the first point: good administrative system would give flexibility to the army. A lot of credit would go to Gustavus Adolphus (or however you spell it , but certainly the system helped him do his reforms.

So, how does this relate to the ongoing discussion? It appears that while the reasons for Swedens success were total war, good system of governance and, propably to a certain extent at least, the citizen soldier, there is hardly any connection to democracy and the ideas of antiquity. Or maybe there is, but anyone making such claim would have explain why this kind of development did not occur anywhere closer to Greece or the former areas of Roman Empire. The real driving force in creating a centralised system of governance was necessity, not ideas.


In this case it seems that total war and the citizen soldier were important in the succesful warfare. However in general I don't think they matter. The colonial empires were not created by all-out wars, but rather by naval power and not by citizen soldiers but by professional ones.

Uh what a rant..and my english is awful
Please, point out my mistakes and logical fallacies

 

[unmerged(13535)]

Democracy and the West ...

Something has been lost here.

Karl says some interesting things about the Germans and the Romans. I would like to point out that while IMPERIAl Rome wasn't a democracy, REPUBLICAN Rome certainly was. Rome arrived at its primary place of power during th eRepublic, not during the Empire. They had conquered Spain, Gaul, N. Africa, Greece, and Parts of the Middle East before Augustus took power. Germany and the Areas north of the Danube may not have been conquered but they had been attacked and often were giving tribute. To imply that the Empire did much more is pure fallacy. The strength of Rome was derived from its citizen soldiers and its underlying democracy. The Empire was nothing more than a caretaker for a previous conquest. They did pretty well for three hundred years until in fighting and corruption did them in. The Republic oversaw the expansion and the Empire oversaw the decline. Doesn't that say something. Also, its was the Romans who were attacking the Germans, Celts, etc. Not the other way around. Until the Empire was on the verge of collapse the Germans were always on the defensive. Only when Rome got away from what had made it great did the Germans start to achieve success.

Also, Hanson says that Greek democracy gave two very important concepts to the West. One was the idea of the citizen soldier and with it decisive battle. The other was reason. These are the basis for all that followed. He goes on to say that the citizen soldier need not be part of a democracy. The Frankish warriors at Poitiers were part of a feudal system. But they were part of the system. They weren't hired from the outside. They weren't slaves or peasants. They were noblemen, granted froma select class, but they were men who participated in government at some level. They took the defense of their homes upon themselves. In this way they are certainly citizen soldiers even if they are not part of a democracy.

Citizen soldiers and democracy aren't the only things Hanson uses to make his case. He also talks about applied scientific reason in warfare. The East developed lots of things but it was the West that experimented and tried out new ideas in war. After the 1st century AD almost all advances in warfare have come from the West. Sure China invented gunpowder but it was the West who used it to kill people. The Aztecs had an incredibly advanced society. They were first rate engineers and somwhat amazing city planners. However, despite ample resources, they never developed more than stone age weaponry. Why? They had no history or philosophy of scientific experimentation, particulary when it came to war. This applied scientific reason stems from the philosophy of the Greeks and was absorbed by the Romans.

He also talks about discipline and endurance. The Germans, Azrtecs, and Zulus may have all had the idea of decisive battle. They could gather huge armies for short periods of time. However, pitifully small armies of Western men conquered both the Aztecs and Zulus. Why? The Spanish and English both suffered what could be considered horrifying losses in their initial encounters. The Spanish were almost wiped out on the battle of the causeway on Noche Triste. The English were slaughtered at Isandlwhana. Both came back and with tiny forces won. Why? Discipline. The English could stand in squares (which they hadn't done in Isandlwhana) and mow down wave after wave of Zulus. They held together out of necessity and history. The Spanish did likewise. These tiny groups of men held together against incredible odds and prevailed in spactacular fashion. Can you imagine a group of Aztecs conquering Spain? Can you imagine the Zulus overrunning even South Africa, much less invading England? It is interesting to note that even in their greatest defeats the West tends to sow the seeds of destruction because of their discipline and endurance. The Zulus lost a full 20 percent of their fighting men at Isandlwhana and Rorke's Drift. These were loses they could not replace. The Aztecs, even taking out the affects of disease, perished in amazing numbers to the Spanish weapons. Wave after wave of Aztecs were mowed down by grapeshot and Toledo steel. Again these were loses that disheartened them. The English and Spanish only redoubled their efforts after these battles.

Hanson goes on to other things. But most of it stems from the basis of Greek thought and philosophy. Granted it didn't survice in pure form but it would be hard to argue that the baisc ideas of ancient greece didn't provide the basis for Western superiority in warfare.

 

[Vandelay]

The Zulus were an iron-age tribe fighting the most advanced and powerful Empire of its time. The English winning the war isn´t very impressive IMO.

The Aztecs were also technologically extremely inferior not to mention that the Spaniards were allied with tens of thousands of Tlaxcalans (and with the smallpox). Again not so impressive.

There are of course reverse situatiuons also:
The Parthians at Carrhae obviously were not all that impressed either by Roman reason or Roman "democracy". The Romans never defeated neither the Parthians nor the Sassanids.

Even so I´ll grant that European armies were superior in the field from late 16th century onwards and definetly from the 18th. But Europe was certainly not markedly superior in warfare (compared to e.g. the Parthians, Sassanids, Arabs, Mongols, Ottomans etc.)from the 1st to the 16th centuries AD though of course it could be argued that it was during these centuries that reason and "citizenship" was at its low point.

I feel that Hanson uses the concept of citizen soldier too much like a blanket nomer though if it includes feudal warriors (and post-medieval European professional soldiers) - in that case the samurai of Japan were as much "citizens" as were the Western knights and the Zulu warriors probably had as much say in their societies as the Redcoats had in theirs.

Does he mention economical factors at all in his book? The fact that from the 15th century and onwards Western Europe had the most advanced financial systems (banking, emerging stock markets, insucrances, share companies etc.) and production system (European metal and cloth production was much more "mechanized" than those of othera areas) seems to me equally important than the concepts of citizenship and reason.

Cheers,
Vandelay

 

[unmerged(13535)]

Not Quite ....

You are telling me that the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs isn't impressive? In total the Spaniards never numbered over 1600 men. They were far from their supply base in Vera Cruz. They were attacking a civilization that was incredibly advanced (save for its method of warfare). The capital of the Aztecs, Tehochitlian (sp?), dwarfed the capital of Spain at the time. The Aztecs had sytematicly conquered and subjegated a rather large empire for a foot borne people. The Spaniard's "allies" completely deserted them three times at crucial points in the campaign. Smallpox and other dieseases played no role in the early conquests, they didn't show up until late 1520. Granted they wiped out 3/4 of the indian population but most of it took place after the conquest of the Aztecs. It should also be noted that smallpox and other diseases played havoc on the Spaniards allies as well. In addition the Spaniards were subjected to a whole series of diseases that they were not prepared for such as malaria, yellow fever, etc. The disease argument cuts both ways. Faced with incredibly daunting odds the Spaniards routed and conquered a people while twice putting down revolts among themselves. If that isn't impressive, then I don't know what is.

The Zulu nation warfare isn't illustrative of one nation vs another. Clearly, the weight of England would destroy the Zulu people. What is interesting are the two battles (three if you count Netanabi (sp?)) fought early on. One was a seeming victory for the Zulus and one for the English. In retrospect, both were disasters for the Zulus. The reasons aren't because they were a stone age people (which is a falsehood, alot of British casualties at Rorke's Drift were from Zulu snipers using firearms). They were disasters because of the Zulu method of fighting wars. The Zulus could absorb casualties once or maybe twice. They could not in any way fight a lengthy war. They were clearly losing early, not because they lacked manpower or the ability to fight. They lost becasue they didn't possess the discipline for the long haul or the spirit to endure a long war. If you take the Boer war a few years later as a contrast. A few thousand Boer rebels held the British empire at bay for years. The peace steelement was really a minor victory for the Boer's because the British were desperate to halt hte fighting. In fact in 14 years the staus quo was back in action in South Africa with the exception of nominal (very nominal) British rule. The Boers, unlike the Zulus, were willing to fight in fixed battles multiple times. They absorbed heavy casulaties and kept fighting. Once the weight of the British became to heavy the started guerilla warfare and they kept it up even as the British loaded all their families into prison camps. The Zulus were not willing to make these sacrifices.

As for the Parthinians, Sassinads, etc. Hanson addresses these incidents. It is interestng to note that the Romans were always the ones doing the invading. For all their success against poorly led if superb troops these people never monted even a mild threat to the Republic or Empire as a whole. If they were so successful as a military against the Romans, why didn't they take Asia Minor (one of the wealthiest places in the Empire)?

The Mongols, Turks, Ottomans, etc. certainly had success against the West for a time. None of them lasted however. In fact, you never hear of the West adopting any tactic or weapon from the East while the inverse is always true. The knights didn't abandon thier armor for silks and compund bows when fighting the Mongols and soon the mongols disapeared. The Turks and Ottomans were constantly importing Western methods to build cannon and fire arms. The Janissaries were trained in Western methods of war (although they never mastered them). Sieges took on decidely Western fashion until the East ceased to exist as a potent force.

Your idea of economic issues is misplaced. Those wouldn't have had an affect until well after the patterns of Western and Eastern warfare were established. Why didn't the Arabs, Chinese, etc. develop their own banking systems? The Aztecs sat on some of the most natural resource rich areas on earth and never developed the wheel, gunpowder, or iron. Why? It wasn't because they didn't have a banking system. They produce engineering feats of incredible magnitude. Their pyramids easily rival the Eqyptian pyramids for area. Their system of causeways was ingenious in the extreme. They had an organized society with a hierarchy and a complex economic model. Yet they had no better methods for waging war than the Neandrathal. Why?

The point is that it has nothing to do with technology or economics or even geography. It has everything to do with mindset. The West, for whatever reason, was more geared to war than the east. Hanson argues that reason stems form the West growing out of a culture of democracy and reason. If nothing else, look at the modern age. The world's only super power is a western democracy.

 

[unmerged(3006)]

Re: Not Quite ....

Originally posted by shrike00

As for the Parthinians, Sassinads, etc. Hanson addresses these incidents. It is interestng to note that the Romans were always the ones doing the invading. For all their success against poorly led if superb troops these people never monted even a mild threat to the Republic or Empire as a whole. If they were so successful as a military against the Romans, why didn't they take Asia Minor (one of the wealthiest places in the Empire)?

I'd actually say that the Sassanids were a serious threat to the Roman eastern frontier in the third and fourth centuries. Shapur I sacked Antioch in 250 or so, and of course Shapur II's invasion of the Roman east in the 4th century is one of the major topics of Ammianus Marcellinus' history. The Persians actually came out of the mess with some minor territorial gains; Julian's attempt to counter-attack into Mesopotamia, on the other hand, was a complete disaster. Moreover, I'd say that the amount of resources the Romans commmitted to their eastern frontier in the fourth century suggests that THEY certainly thought the Sassanids were a threat to "the Empire as a whole".

The point is that it has nothing to do with technology or economics or even geography. It has everything to do with mindset. The West, for whatever reason, was more geared to war than the east. Hanson argues that reason stems form the West growing out of a culture of democracy and reason. If nothing else, look at the modern age. The world's only super power is a western democracy.

I haven't read Carnage and Culture yet so I kind of dislike offering criticism here. On the other hand, I've read enough of Hanson's other books -- the ones relating specifically to ancient Greek military history -- to get the gist of what he thinks. In my own view, I don't think you can take a host of factors like mindset, economics, technology, geography, and isolate any one of them as "the" reason for differences between western and eastern styles of warfare -- differences that in many cases may prove to be illusory anyway.

Let's take the Achaemenid Persian Empire. In the 6th, 5th, and 4th centuries the Persians ruled a huge multi-ethnic empire that was in some sense a successor of and elaboration upon earlier near-eastern empires.

These empires, like many that would come afterwards, were built primarily on conquest. I don't see how the major battles of expansion that we know about in the case of eg the Assyrians and the Persians can be described as anything other than "decisive", since they typically involved shock action on a large scale.

Nor do I see how you can deny the role of factors like specific technological systems (here I'm thinking of the hoplite panoply, and later the Macedonian sarissa, both of which were tailored in some ways to the geographical environments in which they were developed) in those victories that the Greeks enjoyed over the Persians in the 5th and 4th centuries.

Hanson's thesis MIGHT have some merit if modified slightly -- that is, if we try to isolate the difficulty of levying troops from subject states in a multi-ethnic empire as one of the main factors behind the phenomena he's investigating. When Greeks and Macedonians met the Persians, the Iranian troops generally fought with a lot of spirit, but were frequently defeated for various other reasons (eg infantry which was inadequately equipped to face the Greek/Macedonian style phalanx, greater experience of Alexander's troops etc). Conscripts and troops that were levied from the subject peoples, on the other hand, tended to be more prone to break and run early on in the engagement. This, I suspect, is a problem common to mutli-ethnic empires in general when subject peoples are not tied to the rulers by any deeply-rooted affection or ideology. I don't think western powers are immune to this phenomenon at all; I think, though, that because the history of Western Europe is dominated more by smaller national political organizations than it is by huge multi-ethnic empires, this problem isn't as visible in the historical record in the west as it is in the east.

There's more I could say re: The Aztecs and such, but it's late and so that'll have to wait.

 

[Vandelay]

In fact, you never hear of the West adopting any tactic or weapon from the East while the inverse is always true.

Other than the siege tower, the battering ram, the stirrup, the crossbow, the heavy cavalry, the light cavalry, the combined arms army, the relay system of messengers, road networks constructed by military pioneers, the galley, etc....

The armies of Outremer did adopt eastern tactics - incidentally the one you mentioned i.e. the horse-archers. They were called Turcopoliers.

Europe was a continent under siege from the east from at the latest the 5th century AD to the 16th century AD (mostly from the Islamic world). That´s more than just a small period of time. This is more than just "incidents" - Hanson seems to have knack for calling Western defeats incidents and Eastern defeats trends.

The Parthians, a much smaller Empire than Rome, never managed to hold Asia Minor, true. The Romans never held Mesopomtamia - Hadrian didn´t retreat out of the goodness of his heart. Rome vs. Parthia/ Sassanids was a stalemate finally broken by the expansion of the Arabs (in itself hardly indicative of Western superiority).

Sitting on five centuries of dominance Hanson´s writing is understandable, but Ibn Kahldoun (or some other scholar of the Islamic world) could have written the same, but in reverse, in the 12th-14th century.

I have no doubt that Europe (and for the last 150 years North America) has been dominant in geopolitics during the last 500 years, but I do not think that this is not indicative of some sort of pen-ultimate mindset formulated 2500 years ago.

Reducing 2500 years of history to two or three explanatory factors ("Western", "Citizen", "Reason") seems like an easy way out for a macro-historian who doesn´t go into the specifics of the various, carefully selected, episodes of history he uses to illustrate his theses.

To boil down a rambling post: for me Hanson is too reductionist and uses the same explanation for any historical situation. In that sense his history is similar to Marx´s - too reductionist, too general.

Cheers,
Vandelay

 

[unmerged(10853)]

Re: Not Quite ....

Originally posted by shrike00
You are telling me that the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs isn't impressive?..

Yes, it's certainly impressive. In fact what is even more impressive is Pizarro's feat in Peru. But how does either demostrate the superiority of democracy or citizen soldiers? The 'armies' that took the indian empires were mercenaries in the very definition of the word and certainly you are not implying that the Kingdom of Spain was a democracy?

The Zulus could absorb casualties once or maybe twice. They could not in any way fight a lengthy war

Here you contradict yourself. What you are saying is, that the Zulu military doctrine relied on the decisive battle, while english and dutch didn't.

The Mongols, Turks, Ottomans, etc. certainly had success against the West for a time. None of them lasted however. In fact, you never hear of the West adopting any tactic or weapon from the East while the inverse is always true.

This comment is nearly racist, especially made that absolute. I don't have the knowledge to argue it though, but it appears that other people do.

The point is that it has nothing to do with technology or economics or even geography. It has everything to do with mindset. The West, for whatever reason, was more geared to war than the east. Hanson argues that reason stems form the West growing out of a culture of democracy and reason. If nothing else, look at the modern age. The world's only super power is a western democracy.

Giving greeks or romans credit for western economic strenght of today is crazy. Ancient Greece and Rome were slave economies! And while the philosophers certainly contribute a lot to the western culture, they didn't really have the idea of empirical knowledge, instead they thought that all knowledge could be found by thinking, not by testing.

 

[unmerged(3360)]

I would say that western dominance is ultimately european dominance, exported later.

And there are many reasons why it exist(ed):

For the first, I think it´s the climate, regarding europe as a whole:
It´s neither warm enough to live in a paradies style world where you can sleep outside all year and harvest food several times a year, nor is it unhospital enough to barr humans from living here.
The peoples living in this climate had always to do more to make for a living than others, and they had therefore every reason to invent things to make life easier.

Next is, as mentioned before, that the geography is not really inviting for conquerors, neither from europe itself or abroad.
Thus there was never a time where the majority of it was united under one rule.

This lead to conflict, as many over time wanted to change that or at least wanted to expand their country a bit.

Everyone who wanted to be successful, had to get every bit he could to get an edge over his enemies, and so approved everything that could help, from new tactics to new weapons.

So, over time, even if no european power could gain a significant enough edge over other european powers, they did so over the rest of the world.

 

[unmerged(13535)]

Eastern weapons ?

Originally posted by Vandelay
Other than the siege tower, the battering ram, the stirrup, the crossbow, the heavy cavalry, the light cavalry, the combined arms army, the relay system of messengers, road networks constructed by military pioneers, the galley, etc....

The siege tower was used by Alexander the Great at Tyre and Gaza, along with ramps and other siege paraphenalia. Demetrious Policretes created massive siege engines, including towers, in his sieges. That how he got his nick name. The siege of Syracuse is famous for its use of siege and anti-siege engines. I think it is a little doubtful to claim that the west inheirited the siege tower or the battering ram from the east. The crossbow was known in early Greece. As early as 300 BC a weapon called a "gastraphetes" had a description that sounds like a crossbow. Granted the Chinese were developing the crossbow around the same time but Paterson in his book "The Guide to the Crossbow" believes the Greeks developed theirs around the same time and independently of the Chinese. The west clearly developed heavy cavalry but I am unsure how you can claim that it came from the east. Alexander made his money not only with the Phalanx but with an incredible use of his Companions (heavy cavalry). In fact his main strategy was to have the phalanx absorb the enemy and use his heavy cavalry to slice through the enemy gaps. The west has had an on again off again love affair with the horse but it certainly can have a claim in its early use. I am not sure where the west ever used light cavalry as anything other than scouts. I can think of no major uses for light cavalry in western history. If you can, please let me know. Once again I can fall back on Alexander for the combined arms argument. One reason he was such a successful general was his use of combined arms. His intergal use of light missle troops, heavy infantry and cavalry make him stand out among his peers. The Persians he faced, in contrast, relied almost exclusively on cavalry and chairots. Their infantry were nigh unto useless. I can't argue with the stirrup. Clearly the stirrup and the high saddle (also important to lancers) originated in the east. Therefore I apologize for my blanket statement about west to east military technology movment. Even I should know that blanket statements are rarely correct. It is interesting to me that the west used the high saddle and stirrup to create shock cavalry while the east began to use it primarily as a platform for archery. The Mongols become perhaps the clearest example of this trend. I can't speak to relays of messangers as I have no idea. Rome certainly made heavy use of roads and military pioneers but again I can't speak to their origins. However, I think it is clear that while the East made some contributions to the West, the inverse was more often true.

 

[unmerged(13535)]

Re: Re: Not Quite ....

Originally posted by Juis

Here you contradict yourself. What you are saying is, that the Zulu military doctrine relied on the decisive battle, while english and dutch didn't.

I don't contradict myself. I said that several people developed the idea of decisive battle. What makes the west stronger, in military terms, is its endurance and discipline. The Zulus were capable of one or two major actions. The English were willing to have many more. The difference is the ability and willingness of the English to string decisive battle after decisive battle together. The Zulus were not capable of this.

Originally posted by Juis

This comment is nearly racist, especially made that absolute. I don't have the knowledge to argue it though, but it appears that other people do.

I don't like being called racist. I am simply commenting on what appears to be a trend in history and offering, albeit second hand, a possible theory for discussion. I do not imply that any one race or group of people is inherently better than another. In fact one a one to one basis the eastern warrior gave as good as he got. The difference lies in the western SYSTEM of war, not in it racial make up.

I agree however that my statement should not have been "blanket" or "absolute". I apologize for that. But I stick by the jist of my argument. The west contributed much, much more to the art of warfare than did the east.

 

[Vandelay]

A quick answer - the sun is shining and I´m gonna have a beer!

The battering ram and the siege toiwer were used 400 years before Alexander or any of his succersors by the Assyrians who also used heavy infantry of the line, archers, shock cavalry, horse archers etc. They were the first true combined arms army.

BTW I wopuld think that Alexander and the Diadochoi are good examples of citizen/ infantry armies being defeated - the Macedonians who used cavalry extensively (both light and heavy) defeated the Hellenic Athenian- and Thebes lead citizen infantries after all.

The Crusaders used light cavalry, the Turcopoliers, in Outremer (their possesions in the Levant) precisely because they needed scouts and a light cavalry to screen the heavy cavalry as they prepared for the charge. The geography of the region makes not having a light cavalry component an invitation to disaster.

I agree though that European armies had a higher emphasis on close order troops (both in infantry and cavalry) but I think it´s a matter of different emphasis rather than an essential difference.

The beer beckons...

Cheers,
Vandelay

 

[Besuchov]

The sun is shining!? Here it's bloody raining

 

[unmerged(4253)]

I find it sad that nobody here puts emphasis on technological innovation and science. Do you think that "citizen soldiers" just found spannish steel swords and muskets growing out of the ground before they invaded the Aztec Empire? Do you think that the naval skills and technologies that Columbus used were developed by foot soldiers??? If you look at a basic compairison between Islam and Chrisianity, you will find that even Muhamed critisized Christianity as too phylosophical and abstract... as indeed it was, compaired to the livable expectations of Islam. However, as time progressed, you find that the intilectual emphasis that christianity fostered, which indeed was stolen from the Romans and Greeks, was eventually applied to the real world. When the ignorant crusaders took Jerusalem they also took much intilectualism from the Arabs, and in turn the arabs grew more fundementalist in order to survive from the severe shock of Crusaders and Mongols carving up their countries. Islamic nations remained scientifically superior for many centuries in many fields, such as medicine. But the bulk of learning was now in the west, and the crusades accelerated that process of scientific and technological discovery. At first almost all European advances were military or mercantile, as these were the most fluid parts of European feudalism, but that was enough to give Europe its edge and enable its soldiers, free or bound, to conquer almost all.


And some historical sidenotes:

1. The Germans defeated the Romans many times before the Huns pushed them to invade all of Rome.

2. The Aztecs were not at first conquered by force but by terror and wonder... a better analysis of the desparity of the military technologies would be the aztec revolts, where they actually took back their capitol from the Spanish for a time.

3. The Chinese had the crossbow at 400 b.c.

4. Greece had some Democracies for a brief age, but these did not conquer Persia... they were decrepid and impotent by that time. The Macedonians were the ones who conquered Persia, though they used Greeks, they were part of a Monarchy. Rome was a republic, not a democracy, and the USA is a republic, not a democracy.

 

[unmerged(13535)]

Nit Picking ....

Cool Elephant First .....

I disagree with your analysis of technology. Did it play a role? Yes. Was it crucial? No. As I have stated many times the Aztecs were an incredibly advanced civilization. They had immense writing and record keeping facilities. Their level of engineering was at least that of their Spanish enemies if not more. The had incredibly organized supply and support systems both for their armies and their civilians. Yet they had stone age weapons. The difference is system. Their system of thought, government, and warfare did not place an emphasis on technological innovation when it came to war. They certainly did not develop the idea of decisive battle and they had no idea how to handle determined attacks. The Zulus who also used stone age weapons (with a scattering of guns) over ran 1500 British and Native troops. The Zulus lost the war because they couldn't string battle to battle. The Aztecs didn't even get that far.

The Aztecs were not conquered by wonder and terror. They killed hundreds of Spanish soldier and thousands of their allies at various times. They sacrificed live horses and Spaniards by the dozens that they had captured in battle. It is true that the Spanish were allowed to enter the city at first because they thought they were gods. But once they decided they weren't it got ugly. It didn't help that Alvardo massacred hundreds of Aztecs for no reason. At that point there were 800 Spaniards and a few thousand Taxcala allies trapped inside the city. This city numbered over 250,000 people. It was further surrounded by allies of the Aztecs that pushed the enemies of Spain up towards 8-900,000 people. Yet the Spanish, despite suffering losses on Noche Triste, managed to withdraw part way to Vera Cruz before regrouping and coming back. When they came back they only numbered 1500 or so. Yet they were able to cut off and take the capital city against a foe that had fought them before and seen they weren't gods. Again they did it against unbelieveable odds. They didn't awe the Aztecs into surrender at this point. They starved and slaughtered them into submission.

Also, the Germans defeated the Romans many times. Eastern armies have defeated western armies many times. That isn't the point. The point is that on the whole, western military thought has produced a superior system for waging war. It should be noted that the Germans didn't succeed in invading Rome until well after the decline had begun.

If you read my post I said the Chinese had the crossbow very early. I have read a book by Patersen on the history of the crossbow. He believes it was developed in Greece seperately around the same time as the Chinese.

The Greeks may not have conquered Persia but hey sure did have their way with them when they wanted to. The Persians tried to invade Greece twice that I can recall. Both times resulted in disastorous campaigns in which minor Greek armies defeated much larger Persian forces. Salamis certainly ranks as one of the greatest battles in history and it was a clear Greek victory. Also, Greek mercanaries often made up the core of Persian armies becasue the Persians couldn't stand against them. For pete's sake, Xenophon and his 10,000 were trapped in central Persia and fought their way out. The Persians couldn't even stop them from leaving and that was only 10,000.

As for republics, democracies, feudalism, etc. The point isn't so much democracy as it is participation is government. It is clear that republics stem from democracy in that the people have a voice. In a similiar pattern feudalism allowed participation in government. Do you think most kings of any era could go against the wishes of their most senior dukes? The entire contract of feudalism is participatory, albeit to a minor segment of the people. However, it was that segment that was expected to do the fighting. Macedon was indeed a monarchy but it was one of the most open manarchies in history. The heavy cavalry called themselves Companions. Alexander was viewed as a first among equals. Later when he started attempting eastern practices of hommage, they balked. It was towasrds the end of his reign when his men refused to go any further that Alexander showed what a truly open monarchy the Macedonians had. His men wouldn't go any further. He had no choice but to turn back. Only later after his death did these monarchies get corrupted into totalitarinaism. Nit picking about republics and democracy doesn't address the central issue. Niether does technology.

 

[unmerged(10853)]

Re: Re: Re: Not Quite ....

Originally posted by shrike00
I don't contradict myself. I said that several people developed the idea of decisive battle. What makes the west stronger, in military terms, is its endurance and discipline. The Zulus were capable of one or two major actions. The English were willing to have many more. The difference is the ability and willingness of the English to string decisive battle after decisive battle together. The Zulus were not capable of this.

Yes, you said it in the former post, and I missed it. I suppose you could even argue that the idea of Total War, taking losses and still fighting on was invented by the romans, though that is kind of a strecth since it was something like 2000 years since the Rome-Carthage war (whetever it's called).

I don't like being called racist.

Well I apologize, my comment wasn't exactly fair. I only called the comment racist though, not you.

However the point is, as Vandelay said, this explanation for european dominance is simply too generalizing and puts too much emphasis on military. Sure west had the best military from something like 16th century onwards (depends if the Turks are considered 'west' or not), but they also had the best economy, technology..well pretty much best everything.

 

[unmerged(4253)]

Re: Nit Picking ....

Originally posted by shrike00
Cool Elephant First .....

I disagree with your analysis of technology. Did it play a role? Yes. Was it crucial? No. As I have stated many times the Aztecs were an incredibly advanced civilization. They had immense writing and record keeping facilities. Their level of engineering was at least that of their Spanish enemies if not more. The had incredibly organized supply and support systems both for their armies and their civilians. Yet they had stone age weapons. The difference is system. Their system of thought, government, and warfare did not place an emphasis on technological innovation when it came to war. They certainly did not develop the idea of decisive battle and they had no idea how to handle determined attacks. The Zulus who also used stone age weapons (with a scattering of guns) over ran 1500 British and Native troops. The Zulus lost the war because they couldn't string battle to battle. The Aztecs didn't even get that far.

The Aztecs were not conquered by wonder and terror. They killed hundreds of Spanish soldier and thousands of their allies at various times. They sacrificed live horses and Spaniards by the dozens that they had captured in battle. It is true that the Spanish were allowed to enter the city at first because they thought they were gods. But once they decided they weren't it got ugly. It didn't help that Alvardo massacred hundreds of Aztecs for no reason. At that point there were 800 Spaniards and a few thousand Taxcala allies trapped inside the city. This city numbered over 250,000 people. It was further surrounded by allies of the Aztecs that pushed the enemies of Spain up towards 8-900,000 people. Yet the Spanish, despite suffering losses on Noche Triste, managed to withdraw part way to Vera Cruz before regrouping and coming back. When they came back they only numbered 1500 or so. Yet they were able to cut off and take the capital city against a foe that had fought them before and seen they weren't gods. Again they did it against unbelieveable odds. They didn't awe the Aztecs into surrender at this point. They starved and slaughtered them into submission.

Also, the Germans defeated the Romans many times. Eastern armies have defeated western armies many times. That isn't the point. The point is that on the whole, western military thought has produced a superior system for waging war. It should be noted that the Germans didn't succeed in invading Rome until well after the decline had begun.

If you read my post I said the Chinese had the crossbow very early. I have read a book by Patersen on the history of the crossbow. He believes it was developed in Greece seperately around the same time as the Chinese.

The Greeks may not have conquered Persia but hey sure did have their way with them when they wanted to. The Persians tried to invade Greece twice that I can recall. Both times resulted in disastorous campaigns in which minor Greek armies defeated much larger Persian forces. Salamis certainly ranks as one of the greatest battles in history and it was a clear Greek victory. Also, Greek mercanaries often made up the core of Persian armies becasue the Persians couldn't stand against them. For pete's sake, Xenophon and his 10,000 were trapped in central Persia and fought their way out. The Persians couldn't even stop them from leaving and that was only 10,000.

As for republics, democracies, feudalism, etc. The point isn't so much democracy as it is participation is government. It is clear that republics stem from democracy in that the people have a voice. In a similiar pattern feudalism allowed participation in government. Do you think most kings of any era could go against the wishes of their most senior dukes? The entire contract of feudalism is participatory, albeit to a minor segment of the people. However, it was that segment that was expected to do the fighting. Macedon was indeed a monarchy but it was one of the most open manarchies in history. The heavy cavalry called themselves Companions. Alexander was viewed as a first among equals. Later when he started attempting eastern practices of hommage, they balked. It was towasrds the end of his reign when his men refused to go any further that Alexander showed what a truly open monarchy the Macedonians had. His men wouldn't go any further. He had no choice but to turn back. Only later after his death did these monarchies get corrupted into totalitarinaism. Nit picking about republics and democracy doesn't address the central issue. Niether does technology.

Now we're getting somewhere. You argue that (i assume the right to do this summary) free men make better soldiers, and that Europe had an abundance of free men. I am probably ignorant of the rest of the world to some degree, but from i know, i agree with what i just said.

To suggest that europe was superior in the end because of a particular military tactic or attitude on the other hand, i fine woefully baseless to be applied in all situations. The Chinese and Japanese were extremely skilled in developing military doctrines and principles, yet they could not resist the west for centuries.
Military technology i think, is far more important than tactics and strategy.

So where does Military technology come from? It comes from Science and innovation. Which all leads back to my original point: end of conservatism. The main difference between the ancient world and the modern one is the development of logic, and its application. In the Roman era, generally tradition was omnipotent and unchanging, the rich were the unquestioned betters in most cases, and yet this was even more true in the antiquity of Egypt and Mesopotamia than it was in Greece or Rome, which began the first major break with conservatism. I also urge you to think about naval and economic developments, which had even more impact. In the end we may be arguing the chicken and the egg. Did reason lead to freedom, or did freedom lead to reason?

 

[unmerged(8591)]

-Whomever it was that said the west seldom, if ever, adopted ideas or technology from the east is woefully mistaken, in my opinion. The Europeans adopted almost every technological advance made throughout the Middle Ages from the Middle East and, indirectly, from China. It wasn't until the 15th Century that Europeans even caught up to the Chinese and Middle Eastern cultures.

-The hypothesis that it was Europe's geography preventing hegemony and thus fostering competition that gave rise to western dominance seems to be the most likely. I came across this idea in Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers."

-Also, it seems clear that Rome and Greece DID have an immense influence on European innovation in science and technology. The Roman remnants of civilication are what kept Europe whole during the Middle Ages, and they were the principal cause of the Rennaisance. By consequence they were the indirect cause of the Enlightenment, the ideas of which contributed to the explosion of scientific thought and growth of individual liberties.

Anyway, just my two cents, from an inconsequential High School senior.

 

[unmerged(4253)]

I am in total agreement with you.

 

[unmerged(4217)]

I've read both Paul Kennedy and Victor Davis-Hanson and found the latter more convincing.

The power of ideas and the impact of culture on history has long been underestimated. Mainly because marxist as well as liberal/capitalist influenced scholars have always tried to explain history through material and "objective" factors like geography and available resources. To suggest a certain culture would be intrinsically superior in accomplishing certain things has not been fashionable for a long time. And is still a risky suggestion in these PC times.

Of course technological advances gave western armies the edge since the 15th century. But these advantages were the result of a certain culture that favoured advance. The same culture that produced the efficient citizen-soldiers and a certain approach to warfare.

I agree with Shrike00.