Vedas and (specifically) military science.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Help others? How does bashing somebody's head in with a mace help others.

In the immediate sense, it stops that person from bashing your head in with a mace. Assuming that you consider yourself a good person (and who doesn't?) and your enemy a bad person (a logical assumption, since he's trying to kill a good person... namely you), this could be seen as making the world a better place.

In the larger sense, the whole idea behind "just war" doctrine is that war can be just if the evils brought about by war are less than the evils that would occur by doing nothing. If bashing somebody's head in with a mace stops him from participating in the slaughter of a village, then it could be seen as helping others.

To end a war quickly, you have to kill alot of people very quickly. I cannot recall any ways before the 20th century which would support this. world war 1 and 2, yes. Perhaps the civil war, but certainly nothing after the 1700s, where a war could not end quickly anyhow.

You might want to read the Art of War, too. Sun Tzu talks about a number of techniques to minimize killing, such as avoiding situations where your enemy is given no option but to fight to the death. He points out that if you leave open an avenue of retreat for your enemy's troops, then they will flee in disarray rather than fight to the last man. If this accomplishes your goal, it's preferable to completely surrounding your enemy and entering into a protracted battle where all their men die and your troops take more causalties than necessary.

A war can (but does not always) end quickly any time one side recognizes that the war is unwinnable. This can happen with any types of weapons in any era.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Help others? How does bashing somebody's head in with a mace help others.


And the enemy says the exact same thing about your side.

To end a war quickly, you have to kill alot of people very quickly. I cannot recall any ways before the 20th century which would support this. world war 1 and 2, yes. Perhaps the civil war, but certainly nothing after the 1700s, where a war could not end quickly anyhow.


Just like why mustard gas was used in WWI


Much of what they said is just common sense.
It also has little relevance to modern warfare.

Well, for that time, its mroe then common sense. To think in that time they did mad things, and seeing this "common sense" is like light in the dark.

 

[yossarian22]

"Unless the army is fully equipped with in all respects it is not possible to win the war"

Really? Shocking!

 

[yossarian22]

In the immediate sense, it stops that person from bashing your head in with a mace. Assuming that you consider yourself a good person (and who doesn't?) and your enemy a bad person (a logical assumption, since he's trying to kill a good person... namely you), this could be seen as making the world a better place.

Of course the enemy sees it a different way

In the larger sense, the whole idea behind "just war" doctrine is that war can be just if the evils brought about by war are less than the evils that would occur by doing nothing. If bashing somebody's head in with a mace stops him from participating in the slaughter of a village, then it could be seen as helping others.

But its not as if he pillages for no reason. Perhaps for food. It is rarely a case of black and white.

You might want to read the Art of War, too.

Now that is quite relevant, but tends to be overstated

A war can (but does not always) end quickly any time one side recognizes that the war is unwinnable. This can happen with any types of weapons in any era.

But it rarely does. More often than not, the sides are equal. Look at World War I. World War II was almost as bad. The whole shock and awe thing hasn't worked to well. Blitzkrieg worked for a while, until Germany ran out of steam. The most successful example is the Gulf War, which is not the norm.

 

[painted wolf]

one could argue that the Gulf War is far from decided.

wa:do

 

[Don Penguinoini]

"Unless the army is fully equipped with in all respects it is not possible to win the war"

Really? Shocking!

1000's of years old

To everyone, if you posted you voted.

 

[yossarian22]

one could argue that the Gulf War is far from decided.
wa:do

Shock and awe didn't go so well the second time around...

 

[yossarian22]

1000's of years old

So? Its mind-numbingly obvious to anybody.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Ok, maybe on of the only ones.

 

[yossarian22]

Ok, maybe on of the only ones.

Much of what is said is exceedingly obvious.
Warriors should defend their country
Warriors should know how to use their weapons.
etc etc.
Perhaps if they actually had a revolutionary doctrine I would be more impressed, but nothing you posted shows anything of such a nature

 

[Don Penguinoini]

They should know, some don't. In fact, a lot didn;t this was their manual.

 

[yossarian22]

They should know, some don't. In fact, a lot didn;t this was their manual.

Even the thickest peasant could grasp the concept of a weapon and armor. Most of this is little more than a recording of the obvious. It is impressive in no way shape or form

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course the enemy sees it a different way

Of course.

But its not as if he pillages for no reason. Perhaps for food. It is rarely a case of black and white.

Or perhaps for acquisition of material wealth; sometimes the just war doctrine works, sometimes it doesn't. I think it always allows for war when necessary for survival, though.

Now that is quite relevant, but tends to be overstated

Sure, there's military knowledge that isn't contained in the Art of War, but I think it represents one of the largest shifts in military thinking... right up there with the idea of the New Model Army (i.e. "Hey... instead of pressing the private armies of each of our hereditary lords into service when we go to war, let's have one cohesive fighting force that's trained to work together").

But it rarely does. More often than not, the sides are equal. Look at World War I. World War II was almost as bad. The whole shock and awe thing hasn't worked to well. Blitzkrieg worked for a while, until Germany ran out of steam. The most successful example is the Gulf War, which is not the norm.

Even in WWI and WWII, Germany didn't fight to the last man. They may have gone beyond the point where it was obvious (at least to the decision-makers) that there was no hope of winning, but they did recognize a point when there wasn't any more purpose in fighting.

 

[yossarian22]

Or perhaps for acquisition of material wealth; sometimes the just war doctrine works, sometimes it doesn't. I think it always allows for war when necessary for survival, though.

Depends on the doctrine. though

Sure, there's military knowledge that isn't contained in the Art of War, but I think it represents one of the largest shifts in military thinking... right up there with the idea of the New Model Army (i.e. "Hey... instead of pressing the private armies of each of our hereditary lords into service when we go to war, let's have one cohesive fighting force that's trained to work together").

Yes, The Art of War was a book that radically changed how warfare was thought of.
Even as an abstracton though, its nigh on worthless now.

Even in WWI and WWII, Germany didn't fight to the last man. They may have gone beyond the point where it was obvious (at least to the decision-makers) that there was no hope of winning, but they did recognize a point when there wasn't any more purpose in fighting.

But they still fought. WWI was stagnant until America got involved, at least on the Western front. The problem is that Blitzkreig and similar tactics don't work. They fail miserably when applied to an army of roughly similar capabilities, and casualties are high when you fight an army of equal capability. Not when you fight a weaker enemy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, The Art of War was a book that radically changed how warfare was thought of.
Even as an abstracton though, its nigh on worthless now.

I wouldn't say that. AFAIK, it's still taught in military academies and officer training programs. Also, Mao based his strategy and tactics in the Chinese Civil war on the Art of War, and he did pretty well (militarily speaking, anyway).

But they still fought. WWI was stagnant until America got involved, at least on the Western front. The problem is that Blitzkreig and similar tactics don't work. They fail miserably when applied to an army of roughly similar capabilities, and casualties are high when you fight an army of equal capability. Not when you fight a weaker enemy.

Blitzkreig probably wouldn't have worked in WWI. The needed high-speed mobility didn't exist. Yes, the automobile and airplane had been invented, but in terms of actually moving whole armies, mobility was still in the previous century: the main mode of troop transport was the troops' own feet, supplemented by trains for long distances and the occasional horse or truck.

For the most part, I don't think the problems in WWI came from equal capabilities per se (though I acknowledge that if one side were ten times the size of the other, that it could've been overrun easily). I think a great deal of the stagnation and the "war of attrition" mindset came from a peculiarity of the time: progression of defensive tactics (especially the machine gun and trenching) dramatically outstripped progression of offensive tactics. By World War II, offensive tactics had progressed again (especially aerial warfare) to the point that the static war that characterized WWI couldn't be repeated.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

I am shocked that this thread has got so far.

Thanks Yoss and 9_10's.

 

[yossarian22]

I wouldn't say that. AFAIK, it's still taught in military academies and officer training programs.

Its great for a train of thought and large scale abstractions. Not for an actual war doctine.
edit: I will accept that it is a decent abstraction for the creation of a doctrine though

Blitzkreig probably wouldn't have worked in WWI.

Blitzkreig requires military superiority and/or surprise. Even then, its effectivness is limited if you have enough land to throw away. Its worthless between two roughly equal armies barring supreme idiocy on one side.

For the most part, I don't think the problems in WWI came from equal capabilities per se (though I acknowledge that if one side were ten times the size of the other, that it could've been overrun easily). I think a great deal of the stagnation and the "war of attrition" mindset came from a peculiarity of the time: progression of defensive tactics (especially the machine gun and trenching) dramatically outstripped progression of offensive tactics. By World War II, offensive tactics had progressed again (especially aerial warfare) to the point that the static war that characterized WWI couldn't be repeated.

The major reason why such static warfare in WW2 was impossible was fast armored units which nullified the use of trenches. Stagnation is still highly possible in modern warfare between rough military equals. The Eastern front of the European theatre comes to mind. While Germany was on the bleeding edge of technology and training, the USSR was playing with half their population base and had roughly equal military capabilities. The Battle of Stalingrad lasted a bit over 6 months. Only one ezample, and I will admit a poor one at that. I'll think of someting better. Korea and Vietnam do come to mind.

 

[astarath]

yeah it's Blitzkrieg baby!!!

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Yeah! What he just said!

(Did you vote, could you vote please?)