Eastern Warfare

[Rameses the Great]

For so long I have heard the term Western and Eastern Warfare. My question to you is, are there any differences? I know the West obvioulsy got some indirect and direct tactics from the East, but how were they made to be 'Western' style.

 

My second question is who invented Western warfare, and who fought in Western style? Were they the Greeks who started it, because evidence has shown they have a fairly, 'Eastern' fighting style if I'm not mistaken.

 

Answers?

[caldrail]

Western warfare is derived from early tribal practises of europe and in particular greek or celtic influence. Eastern style is far more influenced by cavalry and archers, again typical of the early peoples who inhabited the lands.

 

There was some greek influence in eastern lands due to the campaigns of alexander the great, but I don't see any major change in eastern style warfare.

Edited December 9, 2006 by caldrail

[DecimusCaesar]

Victor Davis Hanson has written extensively on the Western Way of War. He claims that 'Western Warfare' originates with the traditional Hoplite Warfare in Greece some time before and during the Persian wars. These Hoplite tactics depended on direct confrontation on an open plain, where the two forces would clash face to face. He says that it differs from the Eastern style of warfare practised at the same time; in that Easterners would depend on lighting quick attacks and shooting of arrows, (sometimes on horseback) as Caldrail mentioned.

 

The Easterns were also more willing to adapt to different styles of warfare including ambushes and the attacking of enemy camps at night. It was only a matter of time before these tactics found their way into 'Western' warfare, yet there are still other traits that are still defined as Western style war to this day.

[caldrail]

Western warfare follows two finite paths. The romanic/greek style of rigid formations, or the horde style of western barbarians who shout very loudly and attack with complete abandon.

[Rameses the Great]

Ok, thank you. I just have another question, would the Carthaginians and Hellenistic Egypt count since they're army was basically a replica of the Greek army?

[caldrail]

Greek influenced. Remember though that the carthaginian army was largely composed of mercenaries. Despite the hellenistic leanings egypt had an individual style to its armed forces. I think its harder to put egypt in one category or another.

[Rameses the Great]

Greek influenced. Remember though that the carthaginian army was largely composed of mercenaries. Despite the hellenistic leanings egypt had an individual style to its armed forces. I think its harder to put egypt in one category or another.

 

Agreed, in many battles althought the Egyptians used archers and charioteers in many battles they depended on their infantry to win the battles. Against the Hittites and Assyrians they usually let their ground troops decimate the weaker infantry units.

 

Thanks caldrail, you sure are helping a whole lot of my questions in the thread.

[Callaecus]

For so long I have heard the term Western and Eastern Warfare. My question to you is, are there any differences? I know the West obvioulsy got some indirect and direct tactics from the East, but how were they made to be 'Western' style.

 

My second question is who invented Western warfare, and who fought in Western style? Were they the Greeks who started it, because evidence has shown they have a fairly, 'Eastern' fighting style if I'm not mistaken.

 

Answers?

John Keegan in his book A History of Warfare argues that Eastern Warfare was mostly based in surprise attacks and evasive manoeveurs. The purpose was to caught the enemy unaware and avoid as many casualties as possible on your side. On the other side, Western Warfare, was developped by the Greeks during the Classical period and was based in close combat, being the purpose to settle the dispute once and for all in the battle field instead of wasting time with prolongued campaigns as in te East.

[Gaius Octavius]

Does the term 'Eastern Warfare' include such as that practised by Scythians, Indians, Chinese, Mongolians, Vietnamese, Japanese and Arabs?

[Rameses the Great]

Does the term 'Eastern Warfare' include such as that practised by Scythians, Indians, Chinese, Mongolians, Vietnamese, Japanese and Arabs?

 

Of course not. More along the lines of Persian, Assyrian, Armenian, Hittites, etc. Not that oriental Gaius Octavius.

[Callaecus]

Does the term 'Eastern Warfare' include such as that practised by Scythians, Indians, Chinese, Mongolians, Vietnamese, Japanese and Arabs?

Yes. The Mongols and the Arabs were absolutely typical with their constant evasive manoeveurs. In the case of the Chinese let's remember Sun-Tzu's work where he argued that the best victories are those were a battle is not fought.

[Gaius Octavius]

... let's remember Sun-Tzu's work where he argued that the best victories are those were a battle is not fought.

 

... and victory goes to the general who knows his enemy and prepares best.

[Titus001]

All i got to say about eastern warfare,aka, han china favored horsearchers, and crossbows and missle war fare and mobility,the people at china history forum always putdown the greek and roman style of war saying its backwards to the oriental or aka han china,what a joke.

 

And can someone tell me where i can find the medieval vs roman thread?I cant seem to find it.Its on this forum but i cant find it, your help will be much abliged.THANKS

[Rameses the Great]

Oriental warfare to me is a joke. If you see many oriental battles they ususally revolve around manpower and maneouvers. When they get on the battlefield its like seeing robots, no srtategy, no flanking tactics, and no way to scout the enemy.

 

Titus here is the thread you are looking for.Medeival vs Rome.

Edited December 23, 2006 by Rameses the Great

[Titus001]

thanks the great