Metaphysics of War (original) (raw)
Related papers
Understanding War's Theory: what military theory is, where it fits and who influences it
Australian Army Occasional Paper - Conflict Theory and Strategy, 2018
Many military professionals and academics outline the importance of military theory and the need to study it. Some, like Colin Gray, even highlight how understanding it allows the profession of arms to better adapt in war. Given these wise words, would it not seem important to know ‘what’ military theory is? Is it not significant to know who has shaped it? How do we, as professionals, tell if something is military theory, or just opinion and conjecture? Knowing what military theory is, and what it is not, is vital. It helps identify what writings further our understanding of war and warfare, and guides professional military education and research for future doctrine and training. This work answers the questions of what military theory is, where it sits within the wider context of the study of conflict, and which theorists are key in defining its body of knowledge. The work first defines what military theory is. Military theory is a field of study that seeks to understand the phenomena of war and its links to wider conflict; and provides a framework for the valid creation and dissemination of the knowledge of war and warfare. In other words, military theory is the epistemology of war. This definition highlights that research into military theory is grounded in the philosophy of scientific inquiry and, much like applied history, must use broad scientific methods – using hypothesis and empirical data based in history; not just a single incident, war or technological advancement – to develop its concepts. Understanding this also provides a guide to test whether a new or modern idea is effective ‘military theory’, or merely ‘military notion’. The definition also indicates that the focus of military theory is the development of first principles knowledge about war and warfare. It is this knowledge that allows planners, commanders and senior decision makers to adapt their know-how of war fighting to changing situations, environments and political objectives. It is also this knowledge that can be enhanced through wider study. The analysis of what military theory is, also demonstrates where military theory fits within wider academic disciplines. Although other humanities disciplines like history can support military theory, its focus on applied theory gives it strong links to other applied social sciences like political science, international relations and economics. These other disciplines overlap with military theory, and provide an avenue to potentially advance military theory’s understanding of power, influence and war’s wider links to conflict. Such links assist in broadening the military theory body of knowledge – a body of knowledge that is not codified, but is instead shaped by foundational theorists. Who these foundation theorists are, or who is most influential, is also answered by this work. By analysing the curriculums of staff colleges around the world, this work has identified the top 20 theorists currently accepted as most influential. The analysis also suggests a normalising of military theory across the globe, including a possible convergence between the conceptual Eastern and Western ways of war. Overall, this work provides a definition for military theory and highlights the key theorists that shape our views on it now and into the future. This is supported with guidance that allows us to test future theories. Understanding what military theory is and who shapes it lays the foundation to allow the profession to debate where future advancements in military theory should focus to best support planners, commanders and senior decision makers.
A Matter of Life and Death: Studying the History of Warfare
Academia Letters, 2021
Over the years, a great deal has been written about military history's place in academia. Recently journalist/historian Max Hastings took time to opine that American universities were hostile to the subject of military history. Despite the study of war being essential to understanding a persistent threat to civilization, Hastings argued that for many academics, embracing an ignorance of war's history provides a smug and false sense of insulation against war itself. As Hastings stated, the bias of American academics against the study of war is a source of embarrassment. "North America's great universities should be ashamed of their pusillanimity. War is no more likely to quit our planet than are pandemics. The academics who spurn its study are playing ostriches. Their heads look no more elegant, buried in the sand." 1 If Hastings is correct, and the mainstream of America's history professors are hostile to the formal study of war, then they are doing the discipline of history and their constituents (the communities and students their colleges and universities serve) great harm. War is an eternal human problem that is not easily understood. As a former head of the history department at the United States Military Academy wrote, "In the final analysis, war is far more than an extension of politics or the image one sees on a computer or television screen. It is the most complex, demanding, and unpredictable of all human endeavors. . ." 2 Perhaps above all others, historians ought to understand that the inability to comprehend the challenges of war leads only to greater suffering. Among the many things the study of military history illuminates is that war is not a science, and formulas do not exist to guarantee desired outcomes. So, most frequently, wars do not go according to plan (certainly not for
War Studies Working Group Conference Report
Technical Report, International Chair’s Report: The War Studies Working Group’s Contributions to the 2017 Annual Conference of the International Society of Military Sciences, Norwegian Defence Command and Staff College, Norwegian National Defence University (FHS), Oslo, 8 February , 2018
The 2017 Annual Conference stands out as a particularly notable and successful assembly of Military Science professionals and scholars. Notable for the centrality of the thematic focus on military education and its curricula and programs within our Society’s academies, universities and colleges. Successful for the organizational acumen and flair of the NDUC Presidency and Conference Committee that offered participants an unequaled opportunity to learn from international colleagues and to cooperate in the essential process of interpreting and refining existing knowledge clusters within the Military Sciences and, perhaps even more importantly, developing new paradigmatic syntheses of that rapidly expanding empirical and conceptual universe of War and Peace Studies that unites our efforts and gives structure and coherence to our individual research priorities.
A Paradigm for the Study of War and Society
War and society in the ancient and medieval worlds: …, 1999
IG-IU-.I ponooMl_~). _ .... doo..bt oitniIo.. tbiDp h.o~ cIontIoat. Staru. p~ fannlaad WlU COlii, .. ,od in on<iml Grtoa. ....... hopIi .... """PI on \ha, t-d lOt tlorir t-d-(bollaub IU, 1)1). Sbana III"1IIia wm: ..." 10 apru ... ond J>I1"PA'" (.. on IitI<h (y .... I.). In ~ omtht pi 01 wu ..... '0 .ru.c «Intral 01 produrins ap;. cWtlUoIl)'IUiIIO (1Io.chndI11'). Rtw&td.o of fumlaad were uocd .. "" incm• tiYo 10 motivo .. ooIdi< .. in Now rinsdom £cypt (Gain an Rqlublicuo Rom< (....... trin 1"). Coro/irIciorl _'mI E"""", (!ado. om 1a7). and for Iop-.. _ wtliil"'; (ilthry «I1Ild btp hold of II, Forrl, 6~lJ- .-clth""gh iftbn ..... rt.<Jl thi fIMOi\ bt!titld 'ho war, II II only .tt ... land .... il&bility w .. 5ltcml tItroup .... ti&oliott .,........ JU. .... ~dc 10 land _1m .. _ linkrd 10 on inhrrltod duty 01 militaty ........illocbroch 215-lI6: Hoidoa 260; R.u!l.oub Il7: a-nr'rin:!On no.. <~ otion of farmina militatycolcWa, fm tlntq:i< drfmoc""; to ;m>d_ • "of ruNito. io roponod for Efypt from tt..lotc-.d miIlermi ..... LC. (Gnu. 90). SoWcid Srrio (1Umihon 179), ... 01 Ramo &om W 10 .. IIq>uNic: ........-d (c-plooII lUi). A _ dimmoion rrptdina t-d io oddod '" 11M tcrricoriaI chonn. ..
Pre-modern warfare presents significant challenges to those who would attempt detailed analysis. Unlike post-Napoleonic era militaries, pre-modern armies rarely have any standardized organizational structure or guiding doctrine that enables us to make assumptions of how components were arrayed and employed on the battlefield. Unfortunately, this means much historical analysis simply glosses over or fails to examine details which would significantly affect our understanding of what occurred on the pre-modern tactical battlefield. This does not mean, however, that we must accept generalizations and assumptions. My research into inconsistencies in historical analysis of the Battle of Nagashino (Japan, 1575) has demonstrated the value of using certain concepts of contemporary military analysis as a construct for reexamining pre-modern conflict. Comprehensively viewing a battle or campaign across the levels of warfare, diving into the details of how each combatant army was organized and equipped, and in-depth analysis of terrain and weather effects provide insights beyond those that can be gleaned from reading old texts. With this approach, the need to drastically reevaluate how samurai armies utilized firepower at Nagashino becomes obvious. The goal of this paper is to explain these approaches as an analytical model to augment textual analysis by traditional historians, material analysis by archaeologists, and anthropological methodologies focused on participants, bringing these disparate approaches together in complementary ways.
The Literature of War ✣ Volume 1 ✣ Approaches – Finals
xi I ntroduction T here is something counterintuitive about "the literature of war." How can war, a phenomenon of destruction, give rise to literature, an act of creation? What sort of fi ction, poetry, or drama might thrive on mass death, injury, and loss, other than the voyeuristic, the exploitative, or the simply sadistic? Might war writing even perpetuate war, glorify violence, and obscure suff ering?