Posts
Adolescents who enter the freshman class at, for example, Virginia Military Institute are immediately shorn of their hair, deprived of their civilian clothes, and taught to drill and march in step- as prior class, race, or political loyalties fade into columns of identically appearing, moving, and chanting cadets. Take the most vicious street or motorcycle gang, replete with Uzi machine guns and years of experience in shooting rival thugs, and it would not stand a chance in battle against a regiment of armed VMI classmates-none of who have a single serious misdemeanor record of arrest or have fired a shot of anger in their entire lives...Such is the power of drill and the discipline it spawns.
Military historian Victor David Hanson's description of discipline explains the performance of the Stripling Warriors (Carnage and Culture, 331). We read that that they "never had fought" but did not fear death" (Alma 56:47). And in a fierce battle:
19...[the] little band of two thousand and sixty fought most desperately; yea, they were firm before the Lamanites, and did administer death unto all those who opposed them.
20 And as the remainder of our army were about to give way before the Lamanites, behold, those two thousand and sixty were firm and undaunted.
21 Yea, and they did obey and observe to perform every word of command with exactness; yea, and even according to their faith it was done unto them; and I did remember the words which they said unto me that their mothers had taught them.
This discipline was held by men who had never fought while in the face of greater numbers. The Lamanites are thought to have taken captives for sacrifice, and evidence for this period of Mesoamerica point to the same. Just as the freshman class of VMI can beat a veteran biker gang, the Sons of Helaman beat the Lamanites due to their superior discipline.
What other examples of discipline can you find in The Book of Mormon? How does this principle apply in our daily lives?
Showing posts with label Western Way of War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Western Way of War. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Connection From Donna
Despite my recent financial difficulties I am grateful for many things. Pertaining to this blog I have now achieved a place of respect that people send me unsolicited items. In the past 36 hours I've had two book manuscripts, an Education week talk, and a link to another blog that had a military discussion. I am honored that people hold my opinion and ideas in such high regard that they want to consult me. I intend to respect that feeling by keeping the quality and quantity of posts here very high.
The two books will take awhile to get through. Each is over 300 pages and since these are prepublished books my comments will stay private at first. This is because all things must be done in wisdom and order (Mosiah 4:27), and some of my comments may be critical and my job as a peer reviewer is to help their books become better. However, I after the initial review is done I will discuss the issue with them and see if I can post some intriguing snippets. Once the books near publication I will consider an advanced review in consultation with the authors. I am waiting for the permission to post all or some of the education week notes.
I can link to and comment on Donna's recent post. The whole article is good and I recommend that you read it. In particular I enjoyed this paragraph from her thread:
This compares very well to what historian Victor David Hanson called The Western Way of War. In his book Carnage and Culturehe discusses the discipline of Greek soldiers that becomes a hallmark of the WWoW. On page 329 he writes:
In later posts I will develop the theme of discipline within The Book of Mormon and our own lives. For now, enjoy the excellent analysis from Donna's site and enjoy the bonus video clip. (Warning: After the 2:00 minute mark the battle starts. Those who are squeamish should stop there.)
The two books will take awhile to get through. Each is over 300 pages and since these are prepublished books my comments will stay private at first. This is because all things must be done in wisdom and order (Mosiah 4:27), and some of my comments may be critical and my job as a peer reviewer is to help their books become better. However, I after the initial review is done I will discuss the issue with them and see if I can post some intriguing snippets. Once the books near publication I will consider an advanced review in consultation with the authors. I am waiting for the permission to post all or some of the education week notes.
I can link to and comment on Donna's recent post. The whole article is good and I recommend that you read it. In particular I enjoyed this paragraph from her thread:
Why did the ancient Greeks use the word kosmokrateros to depict certain aspects of the military? Because the military was filled with young men who had a lot of natural ability — raw power, if you will. In order for that raw power to be effective, it had to be harnessed and organized (kosmos).
Thus, young soldiers with abounding energy were taught to be submitted, disciplined, ordered and perfectly arranged. This is the picture of rank and file. In the end, all of those men, with all of that raw ability, were turned into a massive force.
This compares very well to what historian Victor David Hanson called The Western Way of War. In his book Carnage and Culturehe discusses the discipline of Greek soldiers that becomes a hallmark of the WWoW. On page 329 he writes:
Discipline as it emerged in Europe is the attempt at the institutionalization of a particular type of courage through training and rote, and is manifested in the preservation of rank and order....The key is not to make every man a hero, but to create men who by and large are braver than their untrained allies in withstanding an enemy charge, and in the heat of battle follow the orders of superiors to protect the men at their sides.
In later posts I will develop the theme of discipline within The Book of Mormon and our own lives. For now, enjoy the excellent analysis from Donna's site and enjoy the bonus video clip. (Warning: After the 2:00 minute mark the battle starts. Those who are squeamish should stop there.)
Monday, February 9, 2009
Army Composition and Tactics, Part II
Skirmishers: My classification is based largely on mission and not by armament. There is no indication that the BoM distinguishes between skirmishers and heavy infantry. The most in depth description of Nephite armor comes from the activities of Moroni in making the Title of Liberty (Alma 46:13). As mentioned in Warfare in the Book of Mormon, and Mesocamerican books like Aztec Warfare, the elites normally wore more armor (and more colorful armor) than the average soldier. Thus I classified the skirmishers based on their tactics. Teancum was commanded to "seek opportunity to scourge" the Lamanites in that quarter of the land. (Alma 52:10). Thus when he marched passed a city Brant Gardner assumes that they were aiming to destroy farm land around the city, prompting the Lamanites to exit the city and attack. And the Lamanites began to "sally forth" from the cities, indicating a different policy than turtling in their fortresses. (Alma 56: 26-29) Earlier in the chapter there is also an indication that fighting for the city was different than defending the city. By day the Nephites skirmished with their lamanite counter parts, and by night they fortified the city. When Helaman's reinforcements arrived the skirmishers reported back to the commander who then ordered a retreat to their fortifications.
Thus the two examples (Teancum's maneuvers ,and the operations around Judea) suggest that cities were a base of operations from which raids were conducted against opposing farmland. Commanders also sent "feelers" out to probe enemy the strength of enemy defenses, and the defenders would sent out forces to screen and prevent the collection of enemy intelligence. Thus, skirmishers acted as quick attack forces and a supplement for the scouts and spies employed.
Heavy Infantry: This is a tough category. As mentioned before, there is no indication of a difference in armor between the leaders and the mass of the army. However, other ancient societies and mesoamerican societies did have that division. There is also Western Way of War baggage in classifying something as heavy infantry. According to Victor David Hanson, the Greeks developed and enshrined the concept of heavy infantry allowing Greek, Roman, and later Western forces a decisive advantage in combat. Combined with the penchant for shock battle (exemplified by Alexander the Great according to Hanson), the heavy infantry would literally run over their enemies on their way to victory. While "others" would focus on maneuver, intrigue and ruses to attain victory. Thus the Nephites possessing heavy infantry would suggest a break down in the distinctiveness of the Western Way of War.
The Book of Mormon mentions one battle in particular that can help us determine the nature of Nephite warfare. After a Lamanite force was surrounded "they did fight like dragons...yea, for they did smite in two many of their head-plates, and they did pierce many of their breastplates, and they did smite off many of their arms; and thus the Lamanites did smite in their fierce anger." (Alma 43:44) But the Lamanites did not have the same armor that they did later in the war. So there is indication of a decisive clash and armor among the Nephites. The enemies commanders complaint in the peace discussion suggest that the armor was new and perhaps the Nephites had their own hoplite revolution. (see the post titled Homeric Warfare) However, the fact that the armies could disengage for a lengthy offer of peace from Moroni suggest a great deal of continuing ritualization in Nephite society. (Alma 44) Also, Alma 44:8-15 describes some of the weapons that heavy infantry would carry: sword, cimeter, and bow.
Thus a final verdict is difficult to describe. The Nephite used enough armor to classify as heavy infantry (at least the elites did). There is a lack of evidence if the use of armor was widespread enough to classify an entire band of warriors as heavy infantry. The participation of entire armies in shock battle, and the chaotic nature of the scrum suggest a distinction by function between skirmishers and heavy infantry.
Alma 52:31-38 says that:
Moroni being in their course of march, therefore Jacob was determined to slay them and cut his way through to the city of Mulek. But behold, Moroni and his men were more powerful; therefore they did not give way before the Lamanites. And it came to pass that they fought on both hands with exceeding fury; and there were many slain on both sides; yea, and Moroni was wounded and Jacob was killed.
The Battle of Mulek and others like the First Battle of Zarahemla (Alma 43-44) suggest that the Nephites participated in decisive shock battle between heavily armored and armed infantry forces. The impact of that fact on the Western Way of War must wait for another post. The impact on the average soldier must have been immense. In the BoM we read of severed arms, severed heads, blood drinking, human sacrifice, slavery, being burned alive, starvation, cannibalism and sexual exploitation.
The heavy infantry and the forces in shock battle faced those punishments upon a loss, and many of those in the pursuit of victory. The skirmishers could often survive upon their mobility (think Monty Python: run away!!!), the heavy infantry often could not due to the need to defend fixed objects and the often defensive nature of their conflicts.
Coming soon: garrisons, prison guards, and body guards.
Thus the two examples (Teancum's maneuvers ,and the operations around Judea) suggest that cities were a base of operations from which raids were conducted against opposing farmland. Commanders also sent "feelers" out to probe enemy the strength of enemy defenses, and the defenders would sent out forces to screen and prevent the collection of enemy intelligence. Thus, skirmishers acted as quick attack forces and a supplement for the scouts and spies employed.
Heavy Infantry: This is a tough category. As mentioned before, there is no indication of a difference in armor between the leaders and the mass of the army. However, other ancient societies and mesoamerican societies did have that division. There is also Western Way of War baggage in classifying something as heavy infantry. According to Victor David Hanson, the Greeks developed and enshrined the concept of heavy infantry allowing Greek, Roman, and later Western forces a decisive advantage in combat. Combined with the penchant for shock battle (exemplified by Alexander the Great according to Hanson), the heavy infantry would literally run over their enemies on their way to victory. While "others" would focus on maneuver, intrigue and ruses to attain victory. Thus the Nephites possessing heavy infantry would suggest a break down in the distinctiveness of the Western Way of War.
The Book of Mormon mentions one battle in particular that can help us determine the nature of Nephite warfare. After a Lamanite force was surrounded "they did fight like dragons...yea, for they did smite in two many of their head-plates, and they did pierce many of their breastplates, and they did smite off many of their arms; and thus the Lamanites did smite in their fierce anger." (Alma 43:44) But the Lamanites did not have the same armor that they did later in the war. So there is indication of a decisive clash and armor among the Nephites. The enemies commanders complaint in the peace discussion suggest that the armor was new and perhaps the Nephites had their own hoplite revolution. (see the post titled Homeric Warfare) However, the fact that the armies could disengage for a lengthy offer of peace from Moroni suggest a great deal of continuing ritualization in Nephite society. (Alma 44) Also, Alma 44:8-15 describes some of the weapons that heavy infantry would carry: sword, cimeter, and bow.
Thus a final verdict is difficult to describe. The Nephite used enough armor to classify as heavy infantry (at least the elites did). There is a lack of evidence if the use of armor was widespread enough to classify an entire band of warriors as heavy infantry. The participation of entire armies in shock battle, and the chaotic nature of the scrum suggest a distinction by function between skirmishers and heavy infantry.
Alma 52:31-38 says that:
Moroni being in their course of march, therefore Jacob was determined to slay them and cut his way through to the city of Mulek. But behold, Moroni and his men were more powerful; therefore they did not give way before the Lamanites. And it came to pass that they fought on both hands with exceeding fury; and there were many slain on both sides; yea, and Moroni was wounded and Jacob was killed.
The Battle of Mulek and others like the First Battle of Zarahemla (Alma 43-44) suggest that the Nephites participated in decisive shock battle between heavily armored and armed infantry forces. The impact of that fact on the Western Way of War must wait for another post. The impact on the average soldier must have been immense. In the BoM we read of severed arms, severed heads, blood drinking, human sacrifice, slavery, being burned alive, starvation, cannibalism and sexual exploitation.
The heavy infantry and the forces in shock battle faced those punishments upon a loss, and many of those in the pursuit of victory. The skirmishers could often survive upon their mobility (think Monty Python: run away!!!), the heavy infantry often could not due to the need to defend fixed objects and the often defensive nature of their conflicts.
Coming soon: garrisons, prison guards, and body guards.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Ancient Models for Modern War
Lindsey asked a good question. Good enough, that she will get an entire post as a response. The question is: How can ancient war help us understand modern conflict? In particular, how can the Book of Mormon help us understand modern war?
There are several responses I have to this. Here are some general impressions:
1. Every historian has the same general answer; when you study the past, different cultures, and periods hundreds or even thousands of years removed from ours you are really trying to learn about yourself. You can do this by seeing similarities or explaining why there are differences. Thus the study of the past is really a study of yourself, and a study of the future. (Insert the overused George Santayana quote here). So the study of the past has intrinsic merit in understanding ourselves today. For example, I mentioned how we can study the tactical operations of Nephite armies. This will allow us to examine how the "average" soldier acted. By understanding the hopes and fears of ancient soldiers, it can inform us pertaining to the universality of mans condition, and help us understand ourselves. That as people we tend to react a certain way to fear and death no matter what time and culture we live in.
2. There are some specific military historians (See Martin Van Creveld's "The Transformation of War", and Hammes' "The Sling and the Stone" for two of them) who say that we have entered a post Clausewitzean phase where the famous German military theorist's ideas on the nature of war no longer applies, because wars basic nature has changed. Others, such as my former teacher Dr. Echevarria, argue that Clausewitz is still very much in force and that war can change colors (i.e.: technology) but its nature (the trinity of (1) primordial violence, hatred, and enmity; (2) the play of chance and probability; and (3) war's element of subordination to rational policy) remain the same. See "4th generation warfare and other myths" at the Strategic Studies Institute. Examining the nature of war with a book that seems to have come out of nowhere can better inform us concerning the underlying nature of war; even for an ancient society, or what the 19th century imagination of an ancient society.
3. In a similar vein, other military theorists point to almost scientific principles that explain how war is conducted. British Inter World War Theorist J.F.C. Fuller articulated the principles of war that our modern U.S. Army Officers study even today. Thus ancient warfare should conform to these principles just as much as modern warfare does. And studying an ancient book (like the Book of Mormon) should exhibit these principles of war and could add to our understanding of them. In the LDS Church we often talk about the definition of principle: Principles are concentrated truth, packaged for application to a wide variety of circumstances. (Richard G. Scott, November 1993 Ensign,86) Thus the Book of Mormon, if true, should contain not only vast amounts of spiritual truth, but also other truth as well. I have already done research that shows the Book of Mormon conforms to these principles and adds several twists to our understanding of them. (The paper is currently under review by BCC E Journal)
4. Today's military historians are obsessed with the "Western Way of War". The short short version of the theory says that Ancient Greeks fought a certain way, and Western culture has generally produced armies that fight the same way. By introducing the Book of Mormon to this argument we can examine one of several things. First, does the Book of Mormon present similarities to this Way? If so, what does that say about the uniqueness of a supposed Way of War. Does it mean there is a universal condition to war? Or is it more like John Lynn's counter argument that says each culture has a specific dialogue and "way" of war? Thus the Book of Mormon can help add to a modern debate about the prosecution of modern war.
5. There are examples of modern technology mirroring in many ways ancient tactics and technology. The first chariots were missile platforms from which archers could fire with greater security. Kenneth Chase in "The World History of Firearms", showed how early gunpowder forces would use mobile wagons linked together to provide firing platforms and greater security. Thus, an ancient technology like the War chariot was loosely reproduced thousands of years later due to both societies having similar demands. Thus, studying the ancient tactics in the Book of Mormon will allow us to see general principles that can apply even today.
6. The Book of Mormon's spiritual message should not be separated from warfare. Every cultural must face war, and many Christian cultures find trouble reconciling their faith with their martial duties. And in ancient cultures the state was generally the religion and vice versa. (William Hamblin called ancient wars "A continuation of God's policy by other means" in Warfare in the Ancient Near East) Now today we have a separation of church and state. But we don't suddenly become atheists when we join the military. The entwined spiritual and martial message of the Book of Mormon are still vital to know and understand for those of us today who interact with war's devastation, personnel conflicts, and demands.
7. Finally, the Book of Mormon has been the symbol of the LDS religion since its inception. Thus how the Book was used within Mormon culture can also lead us to a better understanding of war. For instance, in 2003 President Hinckley used Alma 43 to articulate a Mormon version of "The Just War Theory" to justify the Iraq War. (Ensign May 2003: "War and Peace") So the words of the Book of Mormon inspire modern action and both can be examined to identify the trends of Mormon society, and society in general in how they feel and react towards war.
There are several responses I have to this. Here are some general impressions:
1. Every historian has the same general answer; when you study the past, different cultures, and periods hundreds or even thousands of years removed from ours you are really trying to learn about yourself. You can do this by seeing similarities or explaining why there are differences. Thus the study of the past is really a study of yourself, and a study of the future. (Insert the overused George Santayana quote here). So the study of the past has intrinsic merit in understanding ourselves today. For example, I mentioned how we can study the tactical operations of Nephite armies. This will allow us to examine how the "average" soldier acted. By understanding the hopes and fears of ancient soldiers, it can inform us pertaining to the universality of mans condition, and help us understand ourselves. That as people we tend to react a certain way to fear and death no matter what time and culture we live in.
2. There are some specific military historians (See Martin Van Creveld's "The Transformation of War", and Hammes' "The Sling and the Stone" for two of them) who say that we have entered a post Clausewitzean phase where the famous German military theorist's ideas on the nature of war no longer applies, because wars basic nature has changed. Others, such as my former teacher Dr. Echevarria, argue that Clausewitz is still very much in force and that war can change colors (i.e.: technology) but its nature (the trinity of (1) primordial violence, hatred, and enmity; (2) the play of chance and probability; and (3) war's element of subordination to rational policy) remain the same. See "4th generation warfare and other myths" at the Strategic Studies Institute. Examining the nature of war with a book that seems to have come out of nowhere can better inform us concerning the underlying nature of war; even for an ancient society, or what the 19th century imagination of an ancient society.
3. In a similar vein, other military theorists point to almost scientific principles that explain how war is conducted. British Inter World War Theorist J.F.C. Fuller articulated the principles of war that our modern U.S. Army Officers study even today. Thus ancient warfare should conform to these principles just as much as modern warfare does. And studying an ancient book (like the Book of Mormon) should exhibit these principles of war and could add to our understanding of them. In the LDS Church we often talk about the definition of principle: Principles are concentrated truth, packaged for application to a wide variety of circumstances. (Richard G. Scott, November 1993 Ensign,86) Thus the Book of Mormon, if true, should contain not only vast amounts of spiritual truth, but also other truth as well. I have already done research that shows the Book of Mormon conforms to these principles and adds several twists to our understanding of them. (The paper is currently under review by BCC E Journal)
4. Today's military historians are obsessed with the "Western Way of War". The short short version of the theory says that Ancient Greeks fought a certain way, and Western culture has generally produced armies that fight the same way. By introducing the Book of Mormon to this argument we can examine one of several things. First, does the Book of Mormon present similarities to this Way? If so, what does that say about the uniqueness of a supposed Way of War. Does it mean there is a universal condition to war? Or is it more like John Lynn's counter argument that says each culture has a specific dialogue and "way" of war? Thus the Book of Mormon can help add to a modern debate about the prosecution of modern war.
5. There are examples of modern technology mirroring in many ways ancient tactics and technology. The first chariots were missile platforms from which archers could fire with greater security. Kenneth Chase in "The World History of Firearms", showed how early gunpowder forces would use mobile wagons linked together to provide firing platforms and greater security. Thus, an ancient technology like the War chariot was loosely reproduced thousands of years later due to both societies having similar demands. Thus, studying the ancient tactics in the Book of Mormon will allow us to see general principles that can apply even today.
6. The Book of Mormon's spiritual message should not be separated from warfare. Every cultural must face war, and many Christian cultures find trouble reconciling their faith with their martial duties. And in ancient cultures the state was generally the religion and vice versa. (William Hamblin called ancient wars "A continuation of God's policy by other means" in Warfare in the Ancient Near East) Now today we have a separation of church and state. But we don't suddenly become atheists when we join the military. The entwined spiritual and martial message of the Book of Mormon are still vital to know and understand for those of us today who interact with war's devastation, personnel conflicts, and demands.
7. Finally, the Book of Mormon has been the symbol of the LDS religion since its inception. Thus how the Book was used within Mormon culture can also lead us to a better understanding of war. For instance, in 2003 President Hinckley used Alma 43 to articulate a Mormon version of "The Just War Theory" to justify the Iraq War. (Ensign May 2003: "War and Peace") So the words of the Book of Mormon inspire modern action and both can be examined to identify the trends of Mormon society, and society in general in how they feel and react towards war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)