Upcoming Military Robot Could Feed on Dead Bodies

[PeZook]

The true strength of "assymetrical warfare" doesn't lie in any latent strength that "repressed peoples" can be said to possess, but in the sheer strength of political will which a "regular" power needs to bring to bear in order to fight such an irregular force to some very often poorly defined "victory."

If foreign support is the only thing which allows a resistance movement to form and survive, then how do you explain the Polish resistance movement during WWII?

The Nazis had no shortage of political will to fight the AK, and the support it got from other great powers was minimal at best due to logistical concerns, yet the Reich was unable to defeat the partisans, and they in fact grew in power throughout the war.

How did it happen? By your own theory, the lack of support by the Allies should've doomed the AK to certain death, if the local people's will to fight has nothing to do with it.

This is a particular problem in today's world. The prevalence of the "mass media" ensures that brutal wars of conquest are sure to be unpopular with the more "wish-washy" elements of Western "liberal" society (lets face it, the "West" basically rules the world at this particular point in history), while the international "status quo" enforced by the proliferation of nuclear weapons ensures that no one power is able to amass the military power necessary to simply trample any power in their path.

In other words, the entire theory about brutality being able to secure you victory in the long term is totally divorced from reality.

That being said, however; I would argue that "brutal warfare" can be approached successfully if you are able to prevent foreign powers from interefering (as the Cold War's "Reds" were able to do in Eastern Europe,

What? Since when was the USSR installing puppet governments in Eastern Europe a "brutal war of conquest"?

Furthermore, how was it a succesful conquest, seeing as the entire Eastern Bloc seceded from the Union at the first freaking opportunity, and had been a constant course of rebellions and problems for the Soviets? Poland erupted in violence and rioting every 15 years, for fuck's sake, and Czechoslovakia had to be put down with tanks.

or Franco did in Spain)

Yeah, the Spanish Civil War surely was a "brutal war of conquest" fought without any interference by foreign powers

and you can rigidly control what the media shows of your atrocities. Besides, counter-insurgency tactics have become very sophisticated since the days of Vietnam or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If the US is able to pull off something akin to victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, the threat of "assymetrical warfare" may prove to be something of a paper tiger.

The US is able to actually somewhat control Iraq and Afghanistan to varying degrees because they don't brutalize the local populace.

When was the last time when the US executed a bunch of civilians in retaliation for a roadside bombing? Even when they drop bombs on innocent people, they at least claim it's a mistake.

[Knobbyboy88]

If foreign support is the only thing which allows a resistance movement to form and survive, then how do you explain the Polish resistance movement during WWII?

The Nazis had no shortage of political will to fight the AK, and the support it got from other great powers was minimal at best due to logistical concerns, yet the Reich was unable to defeat the partisans, and they in fact grew in power throughout the war.

How did it happen? By your own theory, the lack of support by the Allies should've doomed the AK to certain death, if the local people's will to fight has nothing to do with it.

Well, not "form and survive" necessarily, but succeed. As the Roman Empire demonstrated rather handily, a conquered people can riot and rebel to their hearts content. As long as the big bad "oppressor" they are rebelling against has the political will and military strength to knock these malcontents down a peg every time they become too uppity (and no major foreign powers intervene on the rebels' behalf), the overall balance of power in a conquered nation will change very little. The Poles likely wouldn't have been able to throw off the yoke of Nazi oppression if the Allies and the Soviets hadn't thoroughly thrashed the German army.

I also think that the Nazis are a particularly bad example here. Let's face it, Hitler WAS a #$&@ing moron. He declared war on just about every major power in the world simultaneously and then didn't even have the foresight to lay off his genocide against the Jews long enough to devote the full strength of German industry and the German people to his conquests.

In other words, the entire theory about brutality being able to secure you victory in the long term is totally divorced from reality.

I never said that I thought that the use of "brutal" tactics was a "good idea." I was simply responding to the misconception held by a lot of people on this board that "brutal warfare" supposedly has no successful historical precedent. History has actually shown the exact opposite to be the case. Brutality has been a rather useful tool of war throughout history. It is not really feasible to use such "brutal" tactics now and in our modern "liberal" societies, but that doesn't mean that this will always be the case. j/k

What? Since when was the USSR installing puppet governments in Eastern Europe a "brutal war of conquest"?

Furthermore, how was it a succesful conquest, seeing as the entire Eastern Bloc seceded from the Union at the first freaking opportunity, and had been a constant course of rebellions and problems for the Soviets? Poland erupted in violence and rioting every 15 years, for fuck's sake, and Czechoslovakia had to be put down with tanks.

Considering the various purges and other "brutal" practices that went into the post WW2 conversion of Eastern Europe to "Red" Communism, I would say that it was a rather "brutal conquest."

As I said before, people can riot and rebel until they rot. As long as the oppressor lording over these people steps in to set things back to the way they were before these revolts, things will change very little. The excessively brutal tactics that the Soviets used to resore control in the old Soviet Bloc time and again only proves this point. The Soviets maintained their dominance through military "brutality" until their own highly tenuous economic situation caught up with them.

Yeah, the Spanish Civil War surely was a "brutal war of conquest" fought without any interference by foreign powers

Lol. I was referring more to the "brutal" tactics which Franco's regime used against the various Leftist guerilla movements which sprang up in Spain after the Republicans' defeat than to the actual civil war itself, but I take your meaning.

The US is able to actually somewhat control Iraq and Afghanistan to varying degrees because they don't brutalize the local populace.

When was the last time when the US executed a bunch of civilians in retaliation for a roadside bombing? Even when they drop bombs on innocent people, they at least claim it's a mistake.

True, but I was never really using the United States invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan as "successful" examples of the use of "brutal warfare." I was simpy pointing out that the age of "assymetrical warfare" as a viable weapon of war may very well be drawing to a close.

Besides, quite a few tacticians have actually argued that the US might have been able to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan much more quickly if they had utilized more comparatively "brutal" tactics. While I tend to take these claims with a grain of salt (and detest their amorality), this viewpoint might very well be true for all we know.

[Samuel]

I agree. However, you cannot deny that a VERY large degree of "shock and awe" tactics and wanton "brutality" went into Roman warfare. Mass crucifictions, gratuitous massacres, gladiatorial executions, and in some cases even small scale genocide were facts of life in the Roman occupied world. Granted, the Romans were no where near as brutal as the Mongols, and were even rather average compared to their contemptoraries. However, their tactics would still be considered to be rather "brutal" by modern standards.

Brutality is judged in relationship to your contemporaries- after all people won't fear you if your methods are less ruthless than everyone else.

The "resentment" of local peoples had nothing to do with it. The Romans managed to hold on to their empire for centuries regardless of the considerable "native" resentment their actions garnered. Besides, the splinter empires spawned by the original Mongol Hordes continued to rule and ravage these conquered lands for centuries after the greater empire split apart.

Such as? For the most part individuals in the Empire prefered to be in the Empire- with the exception of Israel I don't think there were provinces that were chronic trouble spots.

As I have already pointed out, the Mogols didn't simply obliterate every last enemy city either. They merely made an example out of one or two cities in order to reap the benefits of the psychological effects this would create. Ghengis Khan actually went to great lengths to try and integrate conquered peoples into his empire.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Mongol

They did more than "just a few cities".

You are underestimating the sheer terror Mongol tactics inspired. They would quite literally herd together tens of thousands of peasants from nearby villages and use them as meat shields for their siege armies. You literally couldn't fire arrows at the Mongol army that was attacking your city without killing hundreds or possibly thousands of YOUR OWN helpless women and children.

Excellent- the corpses will interfere with calvary charges. Not to mention that if you are taking cities individually it is pretty clear the idea of national loyalty was pretty weak.

I never that such tactics were impossible today. I simply stated they tend to be very uncommon.

First Gulf War. It wasn't intentional, but we did target anything that could be used against us and embargoed the country afterwards. As you can imagine the death rate climbed.

As the Roman Empire demonstrated rather handily, a conquered people can riot and rebel to their hearts content. As long as the big bad "oppressor" they are rebelling against has the political will and military strength to knock these malcontents down a peg every time they become too uppity (and no major foreign powers intervene on the rebels' behalf), the overall balance of power in a conquered nation will change very little.

As long as the conquers have the strength to control their territory, they will be able to control their territory is a bit of a tautology.

Considering the various purges and other "brutal" practices that went into the post WW2 conversion of Eastern Europe to "Red" Communism, I would say that it was a rather "brutal conquest."

Except it was extremely limited- Albania and Yugoslavia both turned on the Soviet Union.

[PeZook]

Well, not "form and survive" necessarily, but succeed. As the Roman Empire demonstrated rather handily, a conquered people can riot and rebel to their hearts content. As long as the big bad "oppressor" they are rebelling against has the political will and military strength to knock these malcontents down a peg every time they become too uppity (and no major foreign powers intervene on the rebels' behalf), the overall balance of power in a conquered nation will change very little. The Poles likely wouldn't have been able to throw off the yoke of Nazi oppression if the Allies and the Soviets hadn't thoroughly thrashed the German army.

The point here is the magnitude of the problem, since we're comparing the effectiveness of brutal vs. 'less brutal' (for lack of a better word) occupations. Success or failure of the insurgency has nothing to do with it: of course that a rebellion against a major power will always fail on its own. However, to make Poland calm down, the Nazis would've had to kill every single Pole, or at least enough of them so that the support network for the AK fell apart.

I also think that the Nazis are a particularly bad example here. Let's face it, Hitler WAS a #$&@ing moron. He declared war on just about every major power in the world simultaneously and then didn't even have the foresight to lay off his genocide against the Jews long enough to devote the full strength of German industry and the German people to his conquests.

Yeah, so? This just proves very well that brutality doesn't help anything. The nations that Nazis didn't brutalize (such as Finland or Romania) were often willing to go along with them, providing troops and supplies rather than sapping them in guerilla campaigns.

I never said that I thought that the use of "brutal" tactics was a "good idea." I was simply responding to the misconception held by a lot of people on this board that "brutal warfare" supposedly has no successful historical precedent. History has actually shown the exact opposite to be the case. Brutality has been a rather useful tool of war throughout history. It is not really feasible to use such "brutal" tactics now and in our modern "liberal" societies, but that doesn't mean that this will always be the case. j/k

It's not that people say you can't succeed in whatever short term goal you have by using brutal warfare. The actual point was that brutality is less effective at securing peace in conquered territories, and that the resentment it creates feeds a cycle of vicious violence in the long term, that may lead to some serious trouble once your Evil Empire isn't as mighty and other nations can use the people who fucking hate you as proxies.

Considering the various purges and other "brutal" practices that went into the post WW2 conversion of Eastern Europe to "Red" Communism, I would say that it was a rather "brutal conquest."

Yeah, they brutally conquered Eastern Europe and then proceeded to rebuild and industrialize it

The purges in Eastern Europe were insignificant compared to Nazi brutality from a few years ago. Consequently, the "conquered" populaces still caused non-insignificant amounts of trouble (since we were opressed, especially compared to the West), but never quite rose to the level of armed insurgency, which was the default state of being for countries conquered by the Nazis, because it was so freakin' obvious they wanted to kill everyone in conquered territories.

As I said before, people can riot and rebel until they rot. As long as the oppressor lording over these people steps in to set things back to the way they were before these revolts, things will change very little. The excessively brutal tactics that the Soviets used to resore control in the old Soviet Bloc time and again only proves this point. The Soviets maintained their dominance through military "brutality" until their own highly tenuous economic situation caught up with them.

Again, the point is that brutality causes you more trouble in the long run than treating the conquered people generously, not that it will inevitably result in you losing the conquered territorry (though it often does, mostly when somebody else decides to support the people who would love to see you dead and piss on your grave)

Lol. I was referring more to the "brutal" tactics which Franco's regime used against the various Leftist guerilla movements which sprang up in Spain after the Republicans' defeat than to the actual civil war itself, but I take your meaning.

Ah, right. The statement was rather unclear.

True, but I was never really using the United States invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan as "successful" examples of the use of "brutal warfare." I was simpy pointing out that the age of "assymetrical warfare" as a viable weapon of war may very well be drawing to a close.

How so? The US is still massively tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq by a force both vastly smaller and lighter than the US Army.

Besides, quite a few tacticians have actually argued that the US might have been able to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan much more quickly if they had utilized more comparatively "brutal" tactics. While I tend to take these claims with a grain of salt (and detest their amorality), this viewpoint might very well be true for all we know.

You could've prehaps pacified the country a bit faster, untill a new generation of insurgents grew up and violence flared up again and again in a vicious cycle, which is the entire point people are making: that brutality can cow the populace into submission, but not forever.

And when it does flare up, and somebody else helps such a conquered territorry regain its independence, and they grow strong while you grow weak, what do you think will happen a hundred years from your initial succesful conquest? You don't even need examples of particularly brutal conquests to make the point: the Poles were hardly exceptionally brutal occupiers in the Ukraine, but when we did put down a series of rebellions with extreme force, the resulting resentment caused a wave of retaliatory violence by the UPA three hundred years later.

Machiavelli put it best: Men should be either treated generously, or utterly destroyed, for they take revenge for slight injuries: for heavy ones, they cannot.

Even then, you can't simply apply this to entire countries, since the world will decide to collectively fuck you up sooner or later, in order to prevent the same from happening to them.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, not "form and survive" necessarily, but succeed. As the Roman Empire demonstrated rather handily, a conquered people can riot and rebel to their hearts content. As long as the big bad "oppressor" they are rebelling against has the political will and military strength to knock these malcontents down a peg every time they become too uppity (and no major foreign powers intervene on the rebels' behalf), the overall balance of power in a conquered nation will change very little.

Yes, but there's a catch. Why would you even want to conquer another nation on those terms, expecting one rebellion after another in an unending wave for decades? Especially in a world where it is so very easy for the rebels to cause damage even when operating on a shoestring budget, because the world is so wealthy that today's shoestrings are stronger than the ancients could have dreamed of?

There are reasons to do something like that- valuable resources, a strategic buffer against another power. But the actual history suggests that it's more trouble than it's worth. Keeping indefinite control of a small nation is possible, if you are larger than they are and willing to pay an infinite price. But why pay an infinite price?

To make matters worse, even if you're willing to do so, and to keep paying for what amounts to forever, that still doesn't give you permanent control. Sooner or later something will blow your concentration. Absolute, iron willpower lasting forever is simply not something possible for human institutions. The internal politics falls apart, or an outside power attacks, or the ideology that drives the system turns out to be broken. At which point your empire, which relies entirely on your having the power and will to crush the inevitable rebels, will collapse.

And being more brutal won't make it any easier to avoid this, because it gives everyone the ultimate reason to escape your control the moment they think it possible. You may have fewer revolts per year when times are good... but you'll have a much bigger spike of rebellion when things go bad.

[Knobbyboy88]

Brutality is judged in relationship to your contemporaries- after all people won't fear you if your methods are less ruthless than everyone else.

The Romans were rather brutal by anyone's standards. They may not have been the most horrific killers on the planet at their particular point in history, but they committed atrocities which would have absolutely terrified any of their contemporary opponents nevertheless.

Such as? For the most part individuals in the Empire prefered to be in the Empire- with the exception of Israel I don't think there were provinces that were chronic trouble spots.

This is because the Romans tempered their "brutality" with cultural progress and social benefits. They extended Roman "citizenship" to those peoples whom they conquered, and promised them all of the benefits that regular Romans enjoyed.

The people of those nations which didn't "get with the program" (i.e. the Jews) were generally wiped out while more politically "pliant" peoples were encouraged to settle their lands.

They did more than "just a few cities".

Yes, they wiped out any city or population center which resisted their conquests.

Excellent- the corpses will interfere with calvary charges. Not to mention that if you are taking cities individually it is pretty clear the idea of national loyalty was pretty weak.

When was the last time you saw any historical power try to use a cavalry charge to take a city? Lengthy sieges have always been the domain of infantry (particularly those native auxillaries the Mongols went about conscripting from conquered populations that I mentioned earlier).

Besides, you misunderstand the major advantage that the Mongols held. Their armies were essentially unbeatable on the open field. Their unparalleled (at that point in history) tactical mobility, organization, and utilization of "combined arms" tactics allowed the Mongols to quite literally run circles around any army which was foolhardy enough to go up against them in their own element.

The only defense the peoples of most nations had against this unstoppable war machine was to hide away in their cities and hope that the Mongols' natural disadvantage in siege warfare would preserve them. Accordingly, siege warfare was the area where the Mongols' terror tactics were honed to be the most gruesome and therefore effective. The use of such tactics basically allowed the Mongols to "mop up" entire empires in detail.

First Gulf War. It wasn't intentional, but we did target anything that could be used against us and embargoed the country afterwards. As you can imagine the death rate climbed.

Good point. Debilitating trade embargos can be viewed as a modern form of (comparatively) "brutal warfare." However, they rather fundamentally contradict Machiavelli's maxim on either "utterly destroying" men or treating the generously.

Trade embargos against "rogue nations" have never really been much more than a "quick fix" on any given international dispute that the world community at large simply isn't willing to address directly.

Except it was extremely limited- Albania and Yugoslavia both turned on the Soviet Union.

Yugoslavia and Albania were something of a special case. Tito had the political and military strength to stand on his own against the aggression of the Soviets and the Albanians simply followed his lead. The Soviets couldn't really move against either of them without shattering the "united" Communist front they liked to portray for the benefit of us "decadent" Western Capitalists.

However, it should be noted that situations like what happened in Yugoslavia and Albania were hardly common in the "Soviet Bloc" at the time. Soviet dominance of this region was never "extremely limited."

[Knobbyboy88]

However, to make Poland calm down, the Nazis would've had to kill every single Pole, or at least enough of them so that the support network for the AK fell apart.

Unfortunately, this seems to have been more or less exactly what the Nazis had in mind. The Polish were the next targets on Hiter's ethnic genocide hitlist.

The Romans utilized something of a similar strategy in Judea after the Jewish revolts. As far as "brutal tactics" go, it would seem to have *technically* worked on both a short and long term basis. A scattered people can do very little to resist.


"that may lead to some serious trouble once your Evil Empire isn't as mighty and other nations can use the people who fucking hate you as proxies."

To be honest, I'd say that its all relative. The Roman Empire was rather brutal, and it did eventually fall.

However, this "inevitable" fall only took place after centuries of historically unparalleled Roman dominance. I find the idea that Rome wouldn't have inevitably been conquered by one power or another after roughly 1000 years of (relative) cultural and political prominence regardless of their conquests or "brutal" tactics to be rather questionable.

As far as the counterproductive nature of Nazi brutality goes, I totally agree. The Nazi approach to foreign policy was simply far too aggressive and genocidal to have any chance of success. They would have done far better to utilize a far more generous "divide and conquer" strategy similar to Napoleon's rather than simply try to take on most of the world all at once. The Nazis endorsed brutality almost for sheer brutality's sake, and it did eventually catch up with them. The Soviets fared slightly better in this respect as the political conventions of the "Nuclear age" largely served to keep their ambitions at bay and prevent large scale warfare among the major powers. However, they too eventaully ran into problems.

Again, the point is that brutality causes you more trouble in the long run than treating the conquered people generously, not that it will inevitably result in you losing the conquered territorry

Of course. As I said before, brutality for brutality's sake is rarely a viable tactic. If a conquering power is going to have a snowball's chance in Hell of using "brutal warfare" tactics successfully, they are going to need to counteract their violence with at least some measure of generosity.

The Mongols and Romans were masters of such tactics. They would make gruesomely brutal examples of any force or city which resisted their rule, and then try to counterbalance the negative pyschological effects of such conquest and hasten the assimilation of these conquered peoples into the greater "empire" afterwards. Through the use of such practices as extending the benefits of association with their empires to local peoples (technolgical advancement, "citizenship," increased trade, protection, etca), drafting "natives" into their militaries, or by sending some of their own citizens (or at least some of their more loyal client peoples) to settle newly occupied territories, the Romans and Mongols were largely successful in these efforts.

However, due to the more generally "advanced" state of the world these days, such tactics can be rather difficult (but not impossible) to employ successfully.

The Israelis, for instance; lacked the political will and international support to achieve such a feat of "assimilation" in the Palestinian territories. While the Soviets, on the other hand; were somewhat more successfully in Eastern Europe due to the economic and political benefits they offered to the nations under their control, but still eventually faltered due the weakness of their own political and economic system.

"How so? The US is still massively tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq by a force both vastly smaller and lighter than the US Army."

True enough, but we are also becoming more skilled in fighting "assymetrical" wars with each passing year. With the rapidly broadening military technology gap developing between the "First" and "Third" world (UAVs, robotic weapon's platforms, computer programs capable of tracing projectiles back to their places of origin, etca), it isn't too hard to imagine that within a few decades a couple of guys with AKs, IEDs, and RPG-7s might not exactly cut it against a first rate military power any more.

You could've prehaps pacified the country a bit faster, untill a new generation of insurgents grew up and violence flared up again and again in a vicious cycle, which is the entire point people are making: that brutality can cow the populace into submission, but not forever.

I agree.

Machiavelli put it best: Men should be either treated generously, or utterly destroyed, for they take revenge for slight injuries: for heavy ones, they cannot.

Exactly, if someone is going to pursue a "brutal war" then they need to approach this task with an "all or nothing" point of view. This doesn't necessarily mean that the aggressor in such a conflict needs to behave with nothing but wanton brutality, but what "brutal" demonstrations they do make need to be carried out to the utmost in order to send a definite message. "Generosity" can be shown to the "utterly" conquered afterwards.

However, outside of such wars of conquest, "brutal warfare" really serves no effective purpose. After all, if you fail to "utterly destroy" or permantently dominate your enemy, but still use excessively "brutal" tactics nevertheless, all you are going to achieve is the stirring up of resentment among the people your tactics oppress.

[Simon_Jester]

Again, even if you do manage to "utterly dominate" a nation by being so brutal no one wants to fight you, you're still screwing yourself over in the strategic long term- and the strategic long term may not even be all that long, because it's quite possible you'll find yourself forced to withdraw some of your garrisons to fight another enemy within your own lifetime.

[Knobbyboy88]

Again, even if you do manage to 'utterly dominate' a nation by being so brutal no one wants to fight you, you're still screwing yourself over in the strategic long term

Again, I'd say that its all relative. The Romans were able to hold on to their Empire for a not insignificant period of time. Even if this strategy did eventually lead to Rome's downfall, this collapse didn't occur until CENTURIES afterwards.

Rome might've have very well fallen sometime over the course of this rather long period even if they had never bothered to expand their borders at all. All powers ultimately fall regardless of their latent "brutality."

If you want to argue that such "brutal warfare" tactics are more or less useless in our current historical period, I totally agree. National identities are simply too strong, political structures too stable, and "assymetrical warfare" too effective for such tactics too really be useful in today's world. The interconnectedness of the current international system and the squeamishness of modern "liberal" political sensibilities (Imperialism = eviiiiiiillll in the minds of most people these days) compels "Democratic" governments (and even despotic governments who don't want to be penalized or obliterated by said Democratic governments) to utilize such "brutal" tactics sparingly, if at all. Additionally, the threat of "mutually assured destruction" inherent to all modern warfare and the comparative dominance of American political and economic hegemony ensures that the ambitions of the major powers are held in check.

However, I think it would be rather naive to completely discount the effectiveness of latent "brutality" as a weapon of war. A major change or advance in military technology (the refinement of "clean" low yield nuclear weapons for instance), existing societal structures, popular attitudes, or the global balance of power could very easily push relatively "brutal warfare" back to the forefront of human interaction.


I'm not saying that this would be a positive change, but I do think that the idea that "brutality = unsustainability" is something of an unwarranted assumption.

[Simon_Jester]

Again, I'd say that its all relative. The Romans were able to hold on to their Empire for a not insignificant period of time. Even if this strategy did eventually lead to Rome's downfall, this collapse didn't occur until CENTURIES afterwards.

This strategy had nothing to do with the Roman downfall because in relative terms they didn't use it. They made being part of the empire honestly preferable to not being part of the empire, and not just because "being conquered" was preferable to "continuing to fight."

Moreover, the Romans also had a clear-cut policy of rewarding their friends, which was at least as important as what brutality they did use. And it's largely uncorrelated with their willingness to be brutal- it is possible to reward your friends without punishing your enemies. And many rulers have been far better at brutality than at rewarding allies: see Tamerlane for an example.

[CmdrWilkens]

Knobby since I've made my points and you've gone after other points I'll instead jsut ask a simple question of you:

Have you ever served in the armed forces of any nation in a combat zone or failing that studied military history at the collegiate level?

[Knobbyboy88]

Lol. We're more or less saying the same thing in different ways. I just read your PM, and it made your viewpoint a bit clearer for me (sorry, I'm not on here often and I'm not really in the habit of checking ).

Let me set something straight here. It was never my intention to defend open_sketchbook's all or nothing "brutal warfare" strategem. As sketchbook describes it, such a strategy would absolutely never work for reasons which you, I, and various other posters have already made abundantly clear.

I was simply pointing out that the use of (logical) "brutal" tactics has been a highly effective weapon of war throughout history, and that such tactics (or their proportional equivalents) could conceivably be just as successful in the future (admittedly, however; this would require a social and military model of human affairs vastly different than what we possess today).

Thing is, even with exceptionally brutal rulers in the past, you had assurance that their brutality was limited. If you surrendered to Ghengis Khan fast enough, he would not slaughter you out of hand.

They made being part of the empire honestly preferable to not being part of the empire, and not just because "being conquered" was preferable to "continuing to fight."

This is almost exactly what I have been saying this whole time.

Both the Mongols and Romans were HIGHLY "brutal" in the tactics they used to subdue their enemies. However, this brutality was tempered by other factors.

The Romans and Mongols basically utilized calculated brutality and massive displays of force in order to make examples out of those who opposed their power. A modern (if somewhat less "heavy handed") analogy for such techniques can be seen in the "shock and awe" doctrines utilized by Western militaries.

Furthermore, both the Romans and Mongols were sure to reward those people who "got the message" that their "brutal" tactics were meant to convey. Those who surrendered and were willing to cooperate with their new overlords were usually granted the social benefits and military protection that association with the greater collective "empire" would be sure to provide them. The sheer terror invoked by these empires' "shock tactics," when considered in conjunction with the dichotomy of "punishment vs. reward" inherent to their conquistadorial dealings, virtually ensured their success. Fear can be a powerful tool of control, especially when it is coupled with generosity.

Once again, modern analogies for such behavior can be seen in such historical examples as Soviet involvement in Eastern Europe after WW2, and the intimidation techniques that modern mafias use (not unsuccessfully) as a matter of course.

The Nazis tactics fell somewhere in between what Sketchbook described and the modus operandi of these ancient empires, and ultimately failed miserably for it. They simply were not "brutal" nor powerful enough in the Roman or Mongol sense of the word to make it work. Hold on, hold on...Don't blow an outraged fuse on me .

By this statement, I simply mean that the Nazis' talents for "terror tactics" (due both to the technology of their time period and the more complex nature of international affairs in the modern age) were insufficient for the sheer level of arrogance with which they chose to treat those peoples quashed beneath their bootheels.

Most of the terror tactics utilized by the Nazis were of the more decidely "mundane" variety. For example, herding villagers into a town square and then machine gunning them down in retaliation for partizan attacks on your forces is certainly a "brutal" and despicable practice, but it hardly creates enough lasting fear to foster lasting dominance. While such tactics may have served the Mongols and Romans well, the world is simply too big for them to work these days, and the effectiveness of "assymetrical warfare" ensures that such "old school" methods will simply take too long and be far too costly in terms of manpower and material to really be strategically justifiable. Likewise, the Holocaust may have been one of the most horrificly mind-numbing feats of irrational hatred in history, but it was hardly an effective means of keeping a conquered population in check through fear. If anything, it polarized populations into action in the interests of self preservation.

In essence, the Nazis utilized largely ineffective "terror tactics" which stirred up more resentment and rebellion than actual fear, and had absolutely no interest in "rewarding" conquered populations in return for their cooperation. When considered in conjuction with their idiotically aggressive approach to foreign policy, the Nazis' "world domination" tactics were always doomed to disaster. The only way that the Nazis could have ever conceivably held on to their empire would have been through sheer military strength, and as WW2 proved, they simply possessed niether the global position nor brute strength necessary to pull off such a feat.


Any modern power attempting to imitate the success of Rome would...well...pretty much have to behave like an uber powerful (way, waaay more powerful than what we have today) and ultra-militaristic version of the United States. Whereas imitating the success of the Mongols would probably require a "Star Wars" type missile defense system (to stave off that whole nasty "Mutually Assured Destruction" problem) and extensive use of "clean" nuclear weapons or orbitally placed mass drivers against nations which have no real defense against such tactics to achieve the same sort of effect.

As I said before, both scenarios are pretty far fetched in our current world. That being said, however; we really have no way of knowing what the future may hold in this respect...

[Knobbyboy88]

Have you ever served in the armed forces of any nation in a combat zone or failing that studied military history at the collegiate level?

Yes (but not in a combat zone...yet anyway), and yes.

[Samuel]

but they committed atrocities which would have absolutely terrified any of their contemporary opponents nevertheless.

How? Sacking cities, executing the leaders, enslaving the populance, killing those who oppose you... pretty standard for the time period.

This is because the Romans tempered their "brutality" with cultural progress and social benefits. They extended Roman "citizenship" to those peoples whom they conquered, and promised them all of the benefits that regular Romans enjoyed.

The people of those nations which didn't "get with the program" (i.e. the Jews) were generally wiped out while more politically "pliant" peoples were encouraged to settle their lands.

That is how all empires work. If a province of any nation revolted the government would secure it and crush the rebellion. Note that they didn't wipe out the Jews- there were large populations that lived throughout the empire, even in Palestine. They did torch the temple and kill all those they considered ringleaders, but they did not practice genocide in that case. Of the top of my head they did to Carthage, but that was just out of sheer hate and not any plan.

When was the last time you saw any historical power try to use a cavalry charge to take a city?

I ripped the line from the a Warhammer Codex. It is a bad joke, but it is true that using corpses as shields can backfire if you want to move the horses over that ground.

Their armies were essentially unbeatable on the open field. Their unparalleled (at that point in history) tactical mobility, organization, and utilization of "combined arms" tactics allowed the Mongols to quite literally run circles around any army which was foolhardy enough to go up against them in their own element.

The only defense the peoples of most nations had against this unstoppable war machine was to hide away in their cities and hope that the Mongols' natural disadvantage in siege warfare would preserve them. Accordingly, siege warfare was the area where the Mongols' terror tactics were honed to be the most gruesome and therefore effective. The use of such tactics basically allowed the Mongols to "mop up" entire empires in detail.

All strategies have weaknesses. The Mongols was their horses. Burn everything and leave nothing for them to eat and they will suffer the same fate as the Huns.

It is worth noting the fact that the Mongols had to repeatedly use their terror attacks (judging by the insane death tolls) imply they didn't work- they did not cause the enemy to surrender their major cities without a fight.

Good point. Debilitating trade embargos can be viewed as a modern form of (comparatively) "brutal warfare." However, they rather fundamentally contradict Machiavelli's maxim on either "utterly destroying" men or treating the generously.

Trade embargos against "rogue nations" have never really been much more than a "quick fix" on any given international dispute that the world community at large simply isn't willing to address directly.

That is because the strengthens the ruling government. However they are brutal- few nations on Earth are close to self-sufficient and the standard of living, not to mention military hardware, starts to degrade after an extended blockade. It does destroy the country- why do you think the loses were even more one-sided in the 2nd Gulf War than the 1st?

Unfortunately, this seems to have been more or less exactly what the Nazis had in mind. The Polish were the next targets on Hiter's ethnic genocide hitlist.

To bad they were importing Poles as slave labor into the Reich.

The Soviets fared slightly better in this respect as the political conventions of the "Nuclear age" largely served to keep their ambitions at bay and prevent large scale warfare among the major powers. However, they too eventaully ran into problems.

Even without nuclear weapons there was a limit to how far they could go. They lacked the naval strength to confront the US and once we had effective enough missiles, there conscript spam would no longer be effective.

The Mongols and Romans were masters of such tactics.

What did the Mongols give?

The Israelis, for instance; lacked the political will and international support to achieve such a feat of "assimilation" in the Palestinian territories.

That is a nice way to put kicking the inhabitants out.

While the Soviets, on the other hand; were somewhat more successfully in Eastern Europe due to the economic and political benefits they offered to the nations under their control, but still eventually faltered due the weakness of their own political and economic system.

Aside from mandating communism and following the party line in foreign policy, I don't think the USSR offered so many benefits. The various states varied alot and some of them were truly shitty. Romania and East Germany come to the top of the list immediately, although the others might have been decent.

it isn't too hard to imagine that within a few decades a couple of guys with AKs, IEDs, and RPG-7s might not exactly cut it against a first rate military power any more.

Life is cheap. A UAV is millions of taxpayer dollars. They just have to outlast our willingness to spend money to win and all these new toys are extremely expensive.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the aggressor in such a conflict needs to behave with nothing but wanton brutality, but what "brutal" demonstrations they do make need to be carried out to the utmost in order to send a definite message.

So it only works when you are already in a position of strength and dominance...

[Simon_Jester]

All strategies have weaknesses. The Mongols was their horses. Burn everything and leave nothing for them to eat and they will suffer the same fate as the Huns.

As I understand it, Mongol horses could subsist quite well on forage, which makes it difficult to burn them out of an area for long. But that's a nitpick.

[Knobbyboy88]

How? Sacking cities, executing the leaders, enslaving the populance, killing those who oppose you... pretty standard for the time period.

That is how all empires work.

Well, yes. This has been my point more or less the whole time. Creating "empires" requires a certain measure of brutality.

Whether or not the Romans were any more or less brutal than the other "empires" of their era isn't really important. The fact remains that they relied entensively on the use brutal force in order to intimidate their opponents into submision and expand the limits of their political influence. Furthermore, they were largely successful in these efforts. Out of necessity, this is simply how wars of conquest generally tend to fought. There just really isn't any "good" way to "humanely" quash a people under the boot heels of your military.

Unlike what Sketchbook was suggesting, however; the Romans approached such brutality in a logical and essentially limited manner. Their violence was also tempered with a certain measure of security and social generosity.

While I guess that you might bring up the modern concept of winning "hearts and minds" as evidence of a less brutal methodology being used to pacificy nations, I would argue that it is brute force and the sheer political and military stamina of the combatants involved which ultimately tends to decide the outcomes of such issues regardless. The modern concept of "economic development vs brutal conquest" has something of a mixed track record (the NVA and Vietcong, for instance; were rather brutal in comparison to the US and the French and by-and-large did not have the suport of the Vietnamese people, but still managed to win the strategic war due to their geater staying power). Additionally, I think it should be noted that, outside of WW2, the Cold War antics of the Soviet Union, and a few other scattered instances across the globe, no one has really fought an honest "war of conquest" for at least half a century. The objective of most modern warfare seems to be centered more around getting in and getting out again quickly than ensuring any lasting military presence or cultural assimilation.

The reasons for this change have already been addressed thoroughly (the effectiveness of "Asymmetrical Warfare" in the modern era, the concept of "Human Rights" endorsed by the dominate Western powers, the proliferation of the mass media, the growth of the concept of "Nationalism," the relative size and effectiveness of modern militaries in comparison to the populations of modern nation states, etca, etca..) so I will not discuss them here. However, as I have already noted, this may not always be the case.

"Empires" need a certain measure of brutality in order to function, and to claim that we have seen the last of such political structures would strike me as being more than a little naive.

All strategies have weaknesses. The Mongols was their horses. Burn everything and leave nothing for them to eat and they will suffer the same fate as the Huns.

It is worth noting the fact that the Mongols had to repeatedly use their terror attacks (judging by the insane death tolls) imply they didn't work- they did not cause the enemy to surrender their major cities without a fight.

The Mogols were able to destroy many of the largest and most heavily fortified cities of their age using such tactics. However, you are correct. All strategies have their weaknesses.

The Mongol's cavalry dominated armies were next to worthless in densely forested areas or on extremely rought terrain (i.e. Vietnam, Central Europe). Their bows also tended to perform poorly in very damp environments. On the dry, open plains of the Eurasian steppes, the Middle East, and China, however; the Mongol's were well nigh unbeatable. They were ultimately only really undone by the chaotic nature of their own government and the limits of their supply lines.

That is because the strengthens the ruling government. However they are brutal- few nations on Earth are close to self-sufficient and the standard of living, not to mention military hardware, starts to degrade after an extended blockade. It does destroy the country- why do you think the loses were even more one-sided in the 2nd Gulf War than the 1st?

Embargos can be very successful from an economic or military standpoint. They simply have a VERY mixed record when it comes to actually accomplishing regime changes or forcing nations to conform with international rulings. In fact, they often seem to only strengthen the resolve of the peoples' they deprive of essential goods. Castro's Cuban regime, for instance; has successfully resisted a rather thorough US embargo for well over half a century.

To bad they were importing Poles as slave labor into the Reich.

They did the same with the Jews. I think we all know what the Nazis ultimately viewed their "end game" as being where these people were concerned.

What did the Mongols give?

The "privilege" of not being butchered like livestock.

In all seriousness, however; association with the Mongols also ensured a certain degree of military security and trade with newly conquered lands.

Life is cheap. A UAV is millions of taxpayer dollars. They just have to outlast our willingness to spend money to win and all these new toys are extremely expensive.

True, but you must admit that "asymmetrical" wars are becoming easier and easier to fight with each passing decade.

Just compare the death tolls of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan with those of the Vietnam War or the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan to see what I mean. We have been able to achieve some truly insane "kill to casualty" ratios through the use of modern technology. Things still might not exactly be a cake walk, but professional militaries can certainly be said to be bridging the tactical advantage gap that "asymmetrical" forces have traditionally held over them.

So it only works when you are already in a position of strength and dominance...

Not necessarily, insurgent movements across the globe have been able to rather effectively utilize "brutal warfare" tactics in order to draw media attention to themselves and discredit the professional militaries opposing them.

Additionally, the Vikings were able to use extremely "brutal" tactics in order to intimidate much of Western Europe into compliance with their demands in spite of technically being much less developed in terms of population, industry, and overall military strength than most mainland European kingdoms.

It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

[Samuel]

Well, yes. This has been my point more or less the whole time. Creating "empires" requires a certain measure of brutality.

Actually for any state to exist, there has to be consequences for leaving. It doesn't have to be brutal- we didn't hang the Southern leadership for open treason for instance.

Out of necessity, this is simply how wars of conquest generally tend to fought. There just really isn't any "good" way to "humanely" quash a people under the boot heels of your military.

Send all potential political enemies to prison, integrate their army into your own, put puppets into power... it can be done and very effectively.

no one has really fought an honest "war of conquest" for at least half a century.

Israel. They were defensive measures but it fits perfectly. China in Tibet, China in Vietnam, India versus Pakistan, Iraq versus Iran and Kuwait, etc.

The objective of most modern warfare seems to be centered more around getting in and getting out again quickly than ensuring any lasting military presence or cultural assimilation.

Mostly because ew are dumb enough to mess with a first world nation. Falklands is a good example what happens if you do.

Not necessarily, insurgent movements across the globe have been able to rather effectively utilize "brutal warfare" tactics in order to draw media attention to themselves and discredit the professional militaries opposing them.

Like Sri Lanka?

Additionally, the Vikings were able to use extremely "brutal" tactics in order to intimidate much of Western Europe into compliance with their demands in spite of technically being much less developed in terms of population, industry, and overall military strength than most mainland European kingdoms.

Weren't they just brutal because people were between them and the stuff they wanted to grab?

[Knobbyboy88]

Actually for any state to exist, there has to be consequences for leaving. It doesn't have to be brutal- we didn't hang the Southern leadership for open treason for instance.

True, but it can hardly be denied that many of the policies imposed upon the South during the "Reconstruction" era were rather harsh and punitive in nature. This was hardly a coincidental development.

Send all potential political enemies to prison, integrate their army into your own, put puppets into power... it can be done and very effectively.

To be honest, this really isn't a whole lot different than what the Mongols and Romans did on a regular basis. Some empires may have killed more people than others through imposing such policies, but the basic scheme is very much the same.

Put your people in power, neutralize any potential military resistance through either eradication or assimilation, and kill or imprison everyone who opposes your take over. Its a rather common sense strategem.

However, it should be noted that only taking this strategem into account glosses over the tactics which are used to achieve victory in the first place. These can be rather brutal in and of themselves.

Israel. They were defensive measures but it fits perfectly. China in Tibet, China in Vietnam, India versus Pakistan, Iraq versus Iran and Kuwait, etc.

These were the "few other scattered instances around the globe" I was referring to earlier. East Timor and various other conflicts and occupations could be included in this list as well.

However, I mainly meant that no major power had attempted a serious war of conquest of any significance for quite some time (largely due to the cost of such wars and the threat of "Mutually Assured Destruction"). Third World conquests are a rather different matter as they only tend to last so long as none of the major powers takes enough of an interest to intervene.

Mostly because ew are dumb enough to mess with a first world nation. Falklands is a good example what happens if you do.

Exactly.

Quote:
Not necessarily, insurgent movements across the globe have been able to rather effectively utilize "brutal warfare" tactics in order to draw media attention to themselves and discredit the professional militaries opposing them.


Like Sri Lanka?

I was primarily referring to the tactics utilized by the NVA and Vietcong in the Vietnam War (i.e. the Tet Offensive), and the current tactics employed by Islamist insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you are correct. Most modern insurgencies use such tactics.

Quote:
Additionally, the Vikings were able to use extremely "brutal" tactics in order to intimidate much of Western Europe into compliance with their demands in spite of technically being much less developed in terms of population, industry, and overall military strength than most mainland European kingdoms.


Weren't they just brutal because people were between them and the stuff they wanted to grab?

What's the difference? If someone has something that you want and they won't hand it over, you persuade them to give in to your demands in any way you can.

The Vikings were masters of terror. The fact that they weren't really looking for conquest and couldn't be easily followed back to their homelands only meant that they were free to ignore all of the usual adverse effects such brutal tactics can tend to create in "oppressed" populations.



Ugh...I forgot to proof read my last post. Let me correct a few things.

extensively* submission* to be fought* dominant western powers*