The problem is that it is not a theory at all; it is a mere daydream about a world in which there is no material basis for fighting and therefore all parties will observe silly rules aboau how to go aboaut kiloign each other. Hence there can be neither examples nor counter-examples for the non-theory.
Carrol On 6/18/2011 5:52 PM, raghu wrote: > This is a new and intriguing take on the history of warfare, but > somehow does not seem completely plausible. Anyone more knowledgeable > on the subject care to comment? > > http://www.law.harvard.edu/.../whitman.legal.history.workshop.spring.2011.doc > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvOreuZ8TaI > > -------------------------------snip > Having a successful pitched battle allows us to decide the issue of > war in a rela- > tively contained setting—and that means that the warring parties will > be spared the hor- > rors of worse forms of warfare. And other forms of warfare, let us > not forget, are far > worse than battles. The alternative to staging a pitched battle is, > after all, one or another > form of total war or “hard” war. There have been many such forms in > the history of hu- > man warfare: the siege; the chevauchée, in which medieval horsemen > terrorized a coun- > tryside; the Muslim ghazw or razzia, much like the chevauchée; the > systematic pillaging > of conflicts like the Thirty Years War; the Sherman-style March to the > Sea; the guerilla > war, the terrorist campaign; or the modern bombing raid. These are > all much more indis- > criminately violent than pitched battle—they are all much more > dramatic and uncon- > trolled descents into barbarism. > > [...] > > It is part of the modern condition that we > have lost the capacity to resolve conflict by staging a single day of > judgment in pitched > battle. In the societies of the past, contained pitched battle was > probably a universal hu- > man institution, as we shall see in Chapter One of this book. Our > ancestors staged con- > tained pitched battles (though only occasionally) for thousands of > years. It is easy to > amass examples from all parts of the pre-modern human world, and from > all periods of > western history into the Napoleonic period. The period 1700-1815 is > particularly well- > remembered as a classic “age of battles,” when warfare, if often > indecisive, was neverthe- > less largely confined to formal pitched combat at such famous sites as > Malplaquet, > Leuthen, Fontenoy, Yorktown, Marengo, Jena or Waterloo. > > Since 1815, however, this ancient human institution has unmistakably broken > down. Post-Napoleonic wars have generally been hard and > uncontainable, and they have > generally ended only the way World War II ended—in general death and > devastation, ex- > haustion and shock. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
