Eastern Warfare

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Many good things were said here but none has really put the finger on what makes Western Warfare : the will to resolve the conflict by open battle and open battle only. This and only this makes the western way of war which must be opposed to an eastern way of warfare which resolves more about defeating the enemy by any available mean.

 

During the 20th century all structured countries did adopt the concept of western warfare, building armies with tanks, planes, and other tools of the trade that were produced in order to reduce the enemy fighting force in the field. Then came the war in Vietnam between the USA and the north-vietnamese communist state and Afghanistan between the USSR and the local forces which put another kind of warfare back in the spotlight : asymmetrical warfare, also called guerrilla or terrorism when civilians are deliberately targeted. Those wars, especially the second, showed to elements outside of any state structure that they could beat armies built on the western model of war.

 

The western way of war has also created a set of rules that compose the military view of honor and right way to fight, which is very different from the military view of tribal or clannic or "terrorists" or "rebels" fighters.

 

It must be noted that the chinese way of warfare is in many ways very similar to the western way of war, and developed independently for other reasons than the western way of war which, as was already said, came from the Greek hoplite way of fighting.

[Titus001]

Wrong bryaxis,the style of china or han china is very different style of fighting,han china was based around the bow,horsearchers and maneuverability.Han china used maybe 20,000 cavarly supported by archers,crossbowman,and infantry,so han china favored cavarly,archers and maneuverbilty,romans favored heavy infantry for the most part supported by archers and cavarly,as you can see they cant be any more different.

 

i knew nothing about han china 6 months ago,i found a lot of good info at china history forum,The things i learned from there is han china's territory was larger than rome's no joke,And rome and han china were around the same time also.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

The make up of the units is not really important in determining the style of warfare, at least in this debate, for the western way of warfare was not something dependent on the units ( roman army sport all kinds of troops for example, including elite horse archers, elite foot archers ( and maybe even crossbow units ), manoeuvre force, all that you want, and the style of a Caesar for example is more a battle of movement than a static warfare. What makes the western warfare in comparison to the so called eastern warfare is the way the war is supposed to go in the mind of the generals. Chinese and roman generals are here on the same way of thinking : bringing the enemy to a final battle, if possible in the best conditions in order to prevent loss of friendly forces. The so-called eastern way of war is not based around those pre-requisites but focus on skirmish and attrition of enemy force. To have a good exemple of this take a look at the Mithridatic wars in the 1st century BC between Rome and Pontus allied to Armenia. There we see the romans walk thousands of kilometers in order to bring a fleeing enemy to battle while this enemy only wants to cut of roman supply and starve the enemy in the countryside, deeming it's stronghold safe enough from the invaders. This is the way Parthia fought too for a long time ( with the additional element of city siege ), before settling for another kind of army around the 3rd century AD. China adopted a similar doctrine and it is in fact natural to adopt such a doctrine for any structured sedentarized power with empire dreams : the Inca did the same, as did the Aztecs. Only the weaker powers without enough manpower or the nomadic tribes did not fight this way.

[Kosmo]

The difference between West and East it's in the battle line. In strategic thinking they are the same. If the enemy attacks a vital center the defender it's forced to fight and a set battle takes place.

"Western" forces used skirmish and delay many times. See Rome vs Hannibal (aka second punic war), France in late 100 years war, Spain after 1809, Russia in 1812 and 1941 etc. This is not the same with Vietnam War or Afghanistan where an outside force (N. Vietnam & CCCP, Pakistan & US) could haress with impunity.

BH - still you push the term asymetric war to a past where it does not belong. Guerilla and terorism had no meaning, for let's say Rome, that could easily break the Geneva convention and use scorched earth policy against civilians and did not perceived the safety of her citizens as an obstacle. For example - IIIrd Burma War, The Boer War.

 

PS. The losses in Afganistan were low enough for soviet forces to still be there, provided Soviet Union still existed. So, the war in Afghanistan, as Vietnam, was ended not by the victory of guerilla but by political decision at home. If the Soviet Union decided to stop the war, let's say, at the procentage of population lost in WW2, they could fight for a 1.000 years.

[caldrail]

What makes the western warfare in comparison to the so called eastern warfare is the way the war is supposed to go in the mind of the generals.

 

I don't agree with this. A succesful general of any culture exhibits similar qualities. They tend to be arrogant risk-takers with strong leadership skills and an intuitive grasp of their armies relative strengths and weaknesses, plus a good eye for terrain. The difference between western and eastern styles of warfare are not black and white, its all shades of grey according to cultural leanings.

[Titus001]

Wrong caldrail,eastern and western warfare are black and white and completlydifferent,did rome ever have a army of 20,000 horsearchers like han china did?Did rome utilize archers and mobility like han china did or parthia the answer is no, they had different style of fighting,han china was based around the horsearcher and the crossbow/archers,long range warfare combined with maneuvabilty,im not saying the romans were not immobile,im just saying they were not as quick as han china.

 

but black and white comparing rome and han china,totally different systems of war and tactics.

[Rameses the Great]

Wrong caldrail,eastern and western warfare are black and white and completlydifferent,did rome ever have a army of 20,000 horsearchers like han china did?Did rome utilize archers and mobility like han china did or parthia the answer is no, they had different style of fighting,han china was based around the horsearcher and the crossbow/archers,long range warfare combined with maneuvabilty,im not saying the romans were not immobile,im just saying they were not as quick as han china.

 

Back up Titus, Middle Eastern warfare and Oriental warfare are far from the same also. Parthia was nothing like Han China in terms of tactics and troops.

[Titus001]

Ok maybe parthia and han china were not the same but they used horsearchers/archers,all im saying is the han china of warfare is very different of romes.And parthia is more like han chian than rome.

 

rameses great,parthia and han china have a lot in common,they both favored maneuvability and archers over heavy infantry, so i dont no what you are trying to say,han china was based around horsearcher,crossbowman,archers,parthia was based around archers and horsearchers and heavily armed horseman.Very much the same no?

 

or very different of romes.

[votadini]

Ok maybe parthia and han china were not the same but they used horsearchers/archers,all im saying is the han china of warfare is very different of romes.And parthia is more like han chian than rome.

rameses great,parthia and han china have a lot in common,they both favored maneuvability and archers over heavy infantry, so i dont no what you are trying to say,han china was based around horsearcher,crossbowman,archers,parthia was based around archers and horsearchers and heavily armed horseman.Very much the same no?

or very different of romes.

 

There was little emphasis, in Han China, on heavy armoured infantry and more emphasis on archers (and of course, due to Sun Tzu a general objective of victory without battle), but that doesn't necessarily make it like the Parthians. Rome's military was not like Classical Greece's, although both emphasized heavy infantry.

[Titus001]

I said parthia was more like han china than rome.Just do some research on han chian and parthia,they both favored movement/archers/cavarly over heavy infantry,if you deny it read some books.

[Rameses the Great]

I said parthia was more like han china than rome.Just do some research on han chian and parthia,they both favored movement/archers/cavarly over heavy infantry,if you deny it read some books.

 

Titus, I don't think anyone is questioning the use of archers and cavalry relative to Han China and Parthia. The only thing that is being challenged is that they were not similar in their uses and tactics. As was stated, one is Oriental the other Middle Eastern causing a contrast in styles of fighting.

 

For example, sub-Saharan Africans and Native Americans had the same type of tribal warfare however a lot of the aspects and concepts differed. Same applies here Parthia had a much different mindset and idea of warfare then did any Oriental culture.

[Titus001]

Well using a lot of horsearchers and archers is tactics correct?When the general decides what troops to use that is tactics.And i still think parthia and han china are more the same in tactics and troops that of being very different, when comparing rome and parthia and rome and han china they are both very different of rome and the greeks.

[caldrail]

Wrong caldrail,eastern and western warfare are black and white and completlydifferent,did rome ever have a army of 20,000 horsearchers like han china did?Did rome utilize archers and mobility like han china did or parthia the answer is no, they had different style of fighting,han china was based around the horsearcher and the crossbow/archers,long range warfare combined with maneuvabilty,im not saying the romans were not immobile,im just saying they were not as quick as han china.

 

but black and white comparing rome and han china,totally different systems of war and tactics.

 

You've quoted two extremes so yes it would appear to be a black and white issue. But we're talking about two cultures very remote from each other. Apart from trade, possibly some prisoners of war sold on as slaves, and an unlikely aborted attempt by the chinese to attack rome in the 90's ad, they had no contact. They were bound to be different. But the question of western vs eastern warfare is actually much closer to home in the context of roman history. In fact, the persians had developed a style of warfare much closer to medieval europe than its chinese influenced neighbours, a big development since their earlier parthian hordes of spearmen and horse archers. All the more cultured civilisations developed warfare to a much finer degree in whatever direction they thought effective. The barbarian cultures followed two vague patterns. Either the mass crowd of yelling maniacs or the swift horsemen running rings arounfd their foe. Even then you can see differences between groups concerning equipment and tactics on the battlefield. It simply isn't as clear cut a division as you seem to believe.

[Titus001]

Infantry wins the day,medieval knights are not all as they were cracked up to be.And the the cultures of gaul,germany did not just run around like mad man.Infact gaul had a good culture with trade made up by villiages almost like medieval europe,gaul was rich in gold and silver and had great metal workers,a little more advanced then just mass crowd of yelling mad men.

[Rameses the Great]

Well using a lot of horsearchers and archers is tactics correct?When the general decides what troops to use that is tactics.And i still think parthia and han china are more the same in tactics and troops that of being very different, when comparing rome and parthia and rome and han china they are both very different of rome and the greeks.

 

I explained it the best I can. The Parthians contrasted from Han China, they did not know each other well. Philosophies on warfare were different despite favoring similar troops. Middle Eastern culture is much closer to Greece and Rome then the Orient.