What are the main characteristics of “modern” forms of war?



Since the end of Cold War and the collapse of USSR have appeared some notions such as the “new wars”, theorized by Mary Kaldor or post-modern wars. These new notions imply that before them existed some old or “modern” wars. We are used to consider that modern war was born during the thirty years wars, even if there had some precursor features with the Renaissance. However, the author who has really theorized this new way to wage war was a contemporary of the Revolution and the Napoleonic wars: Carl von Clausewitz. This Prussian officer describes war (we have to understand it as “modern war”) as “merely the continuation of policies by other means”. That is why it appeared with the notion of state and raison d’Etat (or national interest). The modern war was not born in one single day. It is a long process which began at the end of medieval times to the advent of the twentieth century. Thus, the problem is to know if there are common features between the wars that took place between the end of medieval times and the 20th century, and if so, what are they? To demonstrate this, we will analyse first the link between sciences and war, which allowed to modern form of wars to come up. Then we will focus on the role of state hence we will develop the emergence of nations and the nationalist feeling which have transformed the way to wage war for ever. To conclude we will develop the aims of modern forms of war. In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed—but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. This quote underlines that paradoxically, modern war appeared at the end of the middle age, when the West had just experienced a golden age in art, thought, science compared to the fourteenth century which is a century of plagues (black pestilence, wars, or starvations). Also, we talk about “modern times” to describe the period which extends from 1492 to 1789. According to Michael Roberts the modern war was born during the sixteenth century that is to say at the beginning of modern times. If modern war appeared along with modern times it is due to the progresses in sciences. Indeed, modern war and science are intimately linked as we will see. Scientific advances have implications on the way to wage war. Renascence is known to be a prosperous period for sciences. Indeed, it is at the end of Middle age that Gutenberg created the printing or that Iberian kingdoms have colonized the world thanks to improvements in shipping. But it is also a prosperous period for the creation of new weapons. If the Europeans knew the gunpowder since the XIII century, fire guns are too vestigial to be really more effective than traditional bows. Nevertheless, the improvement in technology enables to use more efficiently these new weapons. The example of bronze cannon brings this out. Indeed, at the beginning cannons were made of iron. However, this material has two disadvantages. First it takes time and labour to sculpt it. Secondly, there is a high probability that the pipe falls to pieces when the cannon shoots. The appearance of bronze allows a more important resistance to this risk and also to create more cannons. Indeed, the bronze can not only be sculpted, but also be merged, which implies a higher productivity. This is one factor which explains the French victory in the hundred’s years war in spite of the terrible defeats against English armies such as Crécy (1346), Poitiers (1356) or Azincourt (1415), according to Jeremy Black. Artillery has been used for battles like Castillon (1453) or to besiege bastides in Guyenne or Gascony. It is the same with individual fire guns such as harquebus’s which were not quick enough to reload at its beginning. But it became a standard gun with improvements. These technical improvements had huge consequences on the way to wage war and on society. Indeed, castles became useless due to the development of artillery. Castles turned out to be pleasure palaces without any real defences such as Chambord, Chenonceau , Amboise in the Loire valley, or Hampton court and Nonsuch Palace in England. The first modern forts appeared as substitutes to castles, causing the end of feudal society. The rise of trace à l’italienne in Renascence Europe and the difficulty in capturing these fortifications brought profound changes in methods of warfare” explains Geoffrey Parker. Modern times are also marked by the rise of modern states, of nation-states. According to Norbert Elias, a German sociologist, modern states came out at the end of Middle age, when Princes, sovereigns were able to monopolize two kinds of resources, of capitals: the tax capital and the military capital. At the end of medieval times in great kingdoms, lords lost some privileges such as the right to beat coins. They continued to levy some taxes but in parallel was taking place a royal tax administration, in France and in England which are both the two oldest European nations. These allowed the states to fund them for wars. A striking example of military taxes is the British land tax. Created in 1692 to fund the royal navy during the nine years war, this tax of 20% of lands value equalled to 52% of tax revenues. With such a lever modern states could raise more important armies. The second resource is the military capital. Before the hundred year’s war there was a feudal system based on allegiance to a lord. Every warrior had to equip himself at his own expenses. Furthermore, it was not unusual for a vassal to take up arms against his overlord. Kings of England who were vassals of king of France have led a lot of wars against the Capetians before the hundred year’s war. After this war appeared the first professional army in England and in France. Bowmen for English were the first standing soldiers, but the whole standing army was created in 1439 by Charles VII King of France. Such a reform caused some rebellions as the “Praguerie” by the lords who had lost their military power. These standing armies were characterized by their mass. Indeed, in Clausewitz’s paradigm armies are huge. For example, at the battle of Castillon (1453), which put an end to the hundred’s year war, they were 19?000 warriors in both side. At the battle of White Mountain (1620), during the Thirty years war there were 50?000, in Leipzig (1813), during the Napoleonic wars 525?000 on the same battlefield and in Stalingrad (1942-1943) there were more than one million! First, we can explain this phenomenon of mass armies by the emergence of a state tax monopoly which allows raising huge armies. Furthermore, a kind of democratisation of the military job between 1560 and 1789 occurred. Military thing was not yet the prerogative of a privileged aristocracy. Indeed, the development of fire gun allowed the emergence of infantry and artillery under Guillaume of Nassau and Gustav Adolf, which until now were just in support of cavalry created a need in footmen, and so in commoner soldiers who was increasing. Before the French Revolution, the Prussian army of Friedrich II which according to Von Schrotter “is not a country with an army, but an army with a country” was almost composed of sons of peasants, even if it was ruled by aristocracy. Nevertheless, the main turning point came from France. Indeed, the French Revolution abrogated the privileges of the clergy and the nobles. The 6th article of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen disposes that ”Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents”. By this way everybody could reach the highest responsibilities if they deserve it. The example of Napoleon Ier, who is “the god of war” according to Clausewitz allows to show it. He became general when he was twenty four, first Consul when he was thirty and Emperor when he was only thirty five year-old, whereas when he was born all seemed closed for him. The Revolution has really created modern nations, and so modern war. A modern war reposes on the Nation, on the State, which “claims successfully the monopoly on legitimate use of violence” .Secondly I reckon it is a consequence of the rise of nations and of one element of the fascinating trinity: emotions, and among them nationalism and anger. We used to consider that Nation states were born with the Westphalia Peaces (1648) which enunciate the principle of “cujus region, ejus religio”[“whose realm, his religion], but which did not challenge the existence of the Holy German Empire. This principle links nation to religion, which is not a reality. However, French revolution has created a modern idea of nation, which can be defined as “a great aggregation of men, sane and warm of heart, which creates a moral conscience”. The French Revolution has really created this moral conscience of having a common future that should be defended. Fran?ois-René Chateaubriand said that “when the war of Revolution broke out, kings did not understand it; they so a revolt while they could see the change of nations, the end and the beginning of a world” . This sentence underlines that French revolution was a tipping point in nation’s history with influences on the way to wage war. To defend our nation in modern times, it needed mass armies certainly but above all, a mass support. Before the French Revolution there has been such a democratization of the military thing, but there were a lot of mercenaries in all European armies. During the thirty years war, this is commonly considered as the rise of nation states and modern wars, both sides used a great number of Landsknechte (German mercenaries). However with the Revolution wars appeared a national conscience in France. Mercenaries were not used in French republican army. It had been offset by the creation of conscription and the mass levy of 300?000 soldiers who defended their nation. We can consider as Johan Goethe that from a battle as Valmy (20th September 1792), where the French national conscience was born that “from this place, and from this day forth begins a new era in the history of the world” an in the way to wage war. This is from 1792 that there is a real mass support. Indeed modern war is based on a dichotomy linking the idea of nation to a territory or such a culture, an ideology. Almost all of the conflicts that happened between 1792 and 1945 in the western world are/were due to ideologies or territorial issues. Sometimes both, revolution and Napoleonic wars where partisans of a kind of democracy fought against proponents of absolutism; Crimean war to protect Turkish straights from a Russian hegemony, the second Schleswig war for little territories, the first and second world war for territories (Alsace-Lorraine or Polish Corridor) and ideological reasons (democracies against Empire or totalitarian regimes). According to the French anthropologist René Girard, modern territorial wars are thus “mimetic wars”. This notion of mimicry, already developed in La violence et le sacré (1972), is that people want what others own or covet. Girard argues that European wars since the Renaissance were due to this mimesis. If Iberian realms shared the new world with the treaty of Tordesillas (1497), France and England which had refused to fund Christopher Columbus claimed their share of territories by mimicry, and made the seven years war for “few acres of snow”.So, modern wars are intrinsically linked to the notion of modern state, which are the main actors of war by funding them. This implies ideological and mainly territorial conflicts, but also mass support from the population and high intensity of conflicts. In On war, Clausewitz talked of a “fascinating trinity” including emotions, chances and reason. The first have strong links with the people. Emotion, generally anger, appeared with the French revolution and the notion of modern nation: according to the Institut de Stratégie et des Conflits “It is, in fact, the French Revolution, by introducing the popular passion and ideology in conflict, abolishes the traditional boundaries and is distantly behind orgies of violence in the twentieth century”. Indeed, we can consider that with the Revolution war, began an era of high intensity in conflicts. We have seen that the emergence of modern states as actors of war and the popular passion of peoples for war allowed creating huge armies. The main consequence of the appearance of these huge armies is a high intensity. Already, the Napoleonic wars caused the death of several million of people including one million of civilians, one century and a half before World War Two. The war of thirty years was also so fierce, but the worst on a human plan was without any doubts the Second World War. During this war, this possesses by the way main features of modern war. There have been more than fifty million of victims, military as civilians, but, among this thirty eight millions of civilians killed. It is the first conflict in human history which murdered more civilians than soldiers. The cause of this high intensity is the main consequence of the rise of nation and within countries, the increase in nationalist feeling, due to the desire of revenge; the desire to conquest some territories also. It remains to describe the objectives of modern war. We have already demonstrated that war “is merely the continuation of policies by other means”. The example of the Iran-Iraq war underlines that war has some consequences on domestic policy. Indeed, this war allowed to the Islamic Republic to increase its hold on the Iranian society by legitimating the ayatollah regime, which embodied the resistance of Persian nation against an Arabic and laic Iraq. We have also already seen that modern war has some territorial or ideological issues. This is why Clausewitz talks about a total war whose aim is to destroy the other, his ideology, or to conquest his territory. If it is working with ideological conflicts-the example of Second World War in which democracies wanted to eradicate national-socialism proved it-it is not so right for territorial motives. Indeed, during the Napoleonic wars which were attended by Clausewitz, there was not one huge empire which has been destroyed. Certainly Napoleon increase in size French territories, but he maintained most of countries he defeated: Spain, Austria, Prussia... Germanic confederation replaced the Holy Empire. That is why the real goal, the main feature of modern war is to be in a strong position during peace negotiations. Indeed, the aim is not to destroy the enemy, but to “intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will”. That is why “his immediate aim is to throw his opponent in order to make it incapable of further resistance" So, according to Liddel Hart who thrashed “the apostle of total war” (Clausewitz) total war is impossible because the real aim of modern war is peace, contrary to antique wars which aim was really to destroy the enemy (cf. “Carthago delenda est”).To conclude, we can say that modern wars began to emerge with the modern times, during the Renascence thanks to technical and scientific improvements which allowed a military revolution in the way to wage war according to Michael Roberts. However, it is with the emergence of national consciences, with the French Revolution that modern war took its real form. Indeed, with the French revolution, we enter in an era of mass support and real mass armies thanks to conscription. This also marks the real beginning of ideological cleavages in history, whereas before the motivations of wars were territories and sometimes religion. So, the aim of this form of war was the stamping out of other’s ideology. All these features of modern forms of war may suggest that despite the appearance of new war paradigm, there is a link, a continuity between old (or modern) and new wars. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download