Steven Dutch University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
It's a lamentable fact that warfare has been one of the most powerful stimuli toscience and technology. One wonders how long it would have taken to get into space if theU.S. and Soviet Union had not been locked in an arms race. Without exaggeration and withlittle effort, one could fill a large truck with literature on warfare, and this page andits companion will touch on only a few salient points dealing with the relationshipbetween warfare and technology.
The German general Clausewitz once wrote that war is politics continued by other means.War is inherently political; its only practical use is to attain a political goal. So itdoes no good to lament that things would be different if only the generals had beenallowed to have their way in the Persian Gulf or Vietnam or Korea. That amounts to wantingwhat can never be. Generals will never be allowed to have things all their own way anymore than scientists will ever get absolutely unlimited research budgets.
Certain features stand out as separating the military from the civilian world. As ageneral rule, however, all the attributes below have counterparts in the civilian world;the military differs more in degree than in kind from the civilian sphere.
One of the most obvious signs of the military is its visible use of signs of rank andits highly codified ceremony. You can't look at a businessman and tell where he's workedor what he's done, but you can a soldier. However, anyone who thinks uniforms are solely amilitary feature is sorely mistaken. Just get a job in any business firm and show up in aplaid shirt or a Packer sweatshirt and you will find out very quickly that, yes indeed,civilians do wear uniforms.
The invention of military uniforms in the modern sense is generally credited to theSwedish king Gustavus Adolphus in the 17th century, who needed large armies to fight theThirty Years' War and raised them by conscripting Swedish men. With no battlefieldtelecommunications, poor or no maps, and no aerial observation, it was all but impossibleto know where soldiers were in battle. To help commanders see where troops were located inthe smoke and confusion of battle, he dressed his soldiers in brightly-colored uniforms.Although high visibility might seem suicidal, in the days of muskets that took a minute toload and fire, the key to battlefield survival was massed troops able to keep up a steadyrate of fire. Scattered soldiers in camouflage uniforms would have been completelyineffective and easy prey for enemy cavalry.
Uniformity is prized in the military for many reasons beyond presenting a neatappearance. Even in peacetime, the military has tremendous personnel turnover as soldiersenter the service, are reassigned, or leave. Soldiers are regularly reassigned to keep upmorale, provide soldiers with a variety of experiences, prevent complacency and routinefrom setting in, and prevent insider networks from becoming too entrenched. In order tofunction effectively, soldiers arriving at a new post have to have a clear idea how to dotheir jobs and uniform procedures help ensure that they do. Uniformity also assists inadministration. To be certain that procedures are being properly followed, inspectors haveto be able to count on a high degree of uniformity from place to place.
To many people, the terms "discipline" or "obedience" are almostautomatically preceded by the adjective "mindless." Nothing could be furtherfrom the truth. American society is filled with people who cannot defer their owngratification, even briefly, even if it means the loss of something they dearly want, orbrings severe adverse consequences. If you ever deal with any of these people, it becomesvery obvious that discipline and the ability to obey are actually very high-order mentalskills.
Automata make poor soldiers. Good soldiers have to be able to adapt and showinitiative, spot and correct errors, and fill in gaps in incomplete orders. So effectivesoldiers actually have to be highly autonomous. At the same time, however, theyhave to be able to recognize and respond instantly to situations that require automaticobedience. Emergencies and fast-moving combat situations are no time for debate ordiscussion; anything other than the most immediate response may get people killed. Thekind of obedience effective armies seek to instill is actually a finely-honed intuitionthat enables the soldier to switch immediately from one mode of thought to another.
Group cohesion makes units more effective. Soldiers are more effective if they areconfident they can count on support and aid from their comrades. At the same time studieshave shown repeatedly that soldiers perform not because of their training or fear ofpunishment, but mostly because they don't want to let their comrades down.
Peer pressure is widely used in military training to reinforce weak links. A soldierwho repeatedly falls short may not respond to a tirade by a sergeant, but if his failurecauses the entire group to work longer hours or miss out on a privilege, the group willbegin exerting pressure to perform. Apart from its effectiveness in discipline andtraining, mild group punishment adds a note of realism to military life. A unit whoseposition is given away by a single soldier's mistake will suffer as a whole. It will do nogood to say "punish him - he's the one who messed up."
Uniforms and military ceremonies reinforce group cohesion by requiring soldiers to bepublicly identified with the military. In times of tension between the military andcivilians, the military will be particularly insistent on identification with the group.One of the best illustrations is the story of hair and the military.
Photographs of Civil War soldiers offer a sharp contrast to the close-shaven basictraining recruit of today. 19th century soldiers had more or less complete latitude togroom their hair any way they liked. That changed in World War I, and the reason was not adesire to present a sharp military appearance. It was much less glamorous: the need tocontrol lice.
Lice have been a nuisance of military (and civilian) life since time immemorial and fora long time they were just that - a nuisance. That changed in the late 19th century withthe discovery of disease microorganisms and the realization that lice and other parasiteswere disease vectors. Disease, until recently, was always a bigger killer of soldiers thanbattle, so by World War I there was a serious military reason to control lice. (World WarII was the first war with more U.S. deaths from battle than disease - in World War I theU.S. had 53,000 battle deaths and 63,000 by other causes. In the Spanish-American andMexican Wars, both fought in tropical areas, disease deaths outnumbered battle deaths sixto one.)
Soldiers returning home were instantly recognizable by their short hair. Short hairquickly came to confer status and an aura of masculinity, and soon short hair became thenorm for American males. World War II, Korea, and the peacetime draft all reinforced theidea that short hair was manly and patriotic.
That all changed when a war came along that wasn't seen as status-building,manly, and patriotic - Vietnam. Even before the Vietnam war escalated, dissidents werestarting to wear long hair as a means of expressing contempt for a society they saw asconformist. With Vietnam, many young males chose to present as unmilitary anappearance as possible and also began letting their hair grow. One of the most famousmusicals to come from that era was titled simply, Hair.
Military leaders began seeing hair in "us versus them" terms. With long hairbecoming a symbol of opposition to the war, they insisted that soldiers conform strictlyto military hair standards. Long hair on a soldier was seen as a symptom of dividedloyalty and possible insubordination. Official military standards compromised to theextent of allowing haircuts to overlap the shorter end of what was regarded as fashionablein the civilian world (for a brief interval the Navy even permitted beards), but manycommanders insisted that soldiers identify themselves publicly with the military byadhering to the strictest possible haircut standards.
With the fading of the Vietnam War and the protest climate from popular consciousness,hair became less of an issue, and today hair styles on both males and females run thegamut from shaven to extremely long. For the first time in three-quarters of a century,civilian hair styles are not heavily influenced by the military. And it all started withcontrolling lice.
Military training is unpleasant; always has been, always will be. The only way to teachsoldiers to work long hours under unpleasant conditions is to make them work long hoursunder unpleasant conditions. Modern military literature speaks openly about "stressinducement", not for sadistic purposes but to simulate the stress of real militaryoperations. Responsible armies work diligently to weed sadists out of training, not alwayssuccessfully, but they do try. Rigorous training also serves to identify people who simplycannot deal with the stress, but comparatively few people wash out in reality. Most peoplecan endure far more than they think, and for many, a military experience is the only timein their lives they are ever pushed close to their limits. By creating stress far beyondordinary experience, rigorous military training also fosters group cohesion by creating ashared experience that only members of the military have had.
The above remarks don't fully apply to training of elite forces like Navy SEALS, ArmyRangers, British SAS, or Russian Spetznatz. These troops enter training fully aware thatmost will not pass (the ones who fail may be perfectly adequate, even superior soldiers,just not in the uppermost few per cent). The object of this training is not to train alarge mass of soldiers but to identify and train a small elite that can endure the utmostrigors and who will simply not allow themselves to be stopped by anything. Theultra-rigorous training that successful candidates endure is a powerful force for creatinggroup cohesion and a feeling of being members of an elite.
Before the advent of cannons, Europeans employed three artillery devices. The ballistawas much like a giant crossbow mounted on a stand. In some cases it was a literal bow, inothers it consisted of two arms mounted in bundles of tightly-twisted elastic fibers. Inboth cases the projectile was propelled by a bowstring. A pouch in the middle allowedeither small javelins or stones to be fired. The ballista could fling small spears orfist-sized rocks up to a couple of hundred yards. A second device was the onager,named after a species of wild donkey for its kick. The onager consisted of a long beamheld in a thick bundle of tightly-twisted elastic fibers. A sling on the end held theprojectile. The onager could fire basketball-sized rocks or pots of flaming liquid severalhundred yards. Ancient writers have said that the fibers for both weapons were women's'hair. The third device, the trebuchet, originated in China and appeared in Europein the Middle Ages. It employed a large falling counterweight, often weighing tons, tofling projectiles. The capacity of the trebuchet was limited only by the size of theweight and it could fling rocks weighing hundreds of pounds.
We commonly use the term catapult to describe all three weapons. Ancient combatengineers would carry the critical metal parts and fiber ropes for these weapons intobattle, then cut timbers and build the weapons themselves on-site.
Gunpowder was invented in China at least a thousand years ago and used both forcivilian festivals and for military purposes. Gunpowder is a simple material, a mixture ofsulfur, saltpeter, and charcoal. On the battlefield it was used mostly for itspsychological effects and for concealment - rockets and smoke screens.
Gunpowder was the first true explosive discovered. Europeans had nothing like it. Thereis a Latin word for "bomb" - globus, but it referred to a pot offlammable liquid that burst on impact, rather like an oversized Molotov cocktail.Gunpowder reached Europe perhaps with the Mongols, and soon Europeans had devised cannons.
Before the advent of gunpowder, castles had high, thin curtain walls as a defenseagainst scaling. The walls were only as thick as necessary to support their own weight,and that was usually thick enough to withstand projectiles. At the top were toothlikeprojections, or crenellations as shields for archers. Frequently, bay window-likeprojections, or machicolations projected out from the walls. They served to allowdefenders to fire down on attackers. In peacetime they often doubled as latrines so wastefell outside the walls. This practice was not advisable in time of war since arrows canfly up as well as down! Towers were round, since that design allowed the largest area withthe least building material. This design created a blind spot beyond the tower which wasnot really a great problem since defenders could shoot down from the tower. Overall, therewas perhaps the strongest defensive advantage in the history of warfare.
To assault such a castle, there were three main approaches. Direct assault involvedscaling the walls and breaking through the gates, generally a costly approach and notusually tried unless the defenders had been seriously weakened. Sapping involved diggingunder the walls, often at the blind spot behind a tower. Once the walls were undermined,the tunnel supports would be set on fire or pulled out and part of the wall would (it washoped) collapse, allowing an easier assault. Finally, there was espionage or treachery. Ifa courier was seen leaving a concealed exit, the attackers could exploit the situation.Prisoners could be induced, by bribery or torture, to reveal hidden weak spots or traitorscould be induced to open the gates.
Because of the strong defensive advantage, most castles were besieged in an attempt toforce the defenders out through hunger or disease. Dead bodies and waste were often flungover the walls to speed up the spread of disease. Most castles had an internal watersource to prevent being forced out by thirst.
In addition to arrows, defenders dropped rocks, hot pitch, molten lead, scalding wateror boiling oil on attackers. Modern satires of medieval life treat this tactic almosthumorously. It was anything but. It was the medieval equivalent of napalm, only worse.Napalm can kill quickly; victims of its medieval precursors lingered for hours or daysbefore dying of burns.
The trebuchet inspired some changes in castle designs. By its very design, a projectilefrom a trebuchet might be ten meters off the ground upon launch. Curtain walls were madehigher and thicker. Early firearms of the 1300's were crude and weak, packing about thepunch of a ballista, but by the 1400's, they had become much more powerful. To counteractthe effects of cannon, the curtain walls were thickened still more and often faced withtimber or earth. The crenellations and machicolations were removed, since they were nowsources of lethal shrapnel when hit. To counteract the greater range of firearms, moatswere widened. (In popular thinking, "moat" conjures up images of a canal teemingwith vicious creatures. The vicious creatures were never more than figments of theimagination, and many moats were dry.
By 1450, better gunpowder and metallurgy led to iron cannonballs. Iron is twice asheavy as stone, volume for volume, and does not fragment when it hits, hence does greaterdamage. But because of its greater density, iron cannonballs required greater pressures inthe cannon barrels to be fired. Before about 1450, iron cannonballs caused cannon toburst. In the early days of artillery it was almost as dangerous behind a cannon as infront of it.
In response to the threat from iron cannonballs, the curtain walls were replaced bylower earthen structures capable of absorbing cannon fire. The greater range and power offirearms meant that a sapper team that reached a blind spot could be well protected. Toguard against sapping, the round towers were modified to triangular to remove the"dead spot." Triangular projections were called bastions. Bastions werenot wholly satisfactory since it was difficult to protect the bastion without shooting atit. Bastions were soon modified to an arrowhead shape. The notch at the base of thearrowhead was termed an oreillon. By 1500, fortifications had assumed a form theywould have for 300 years, the - "star fort." Freelance engineers often went fromtown to town designing forts, then were frequently hired in wartime as consultants byattackers to devise methods of capturing their own fortifications.
(Cannon on land recoil when they are fired. On a ship, they can't be simply anchored tothe deck because they'd rock the entire ship when they were fired. So the cannon are onwheels, tethered on a stout rope. Just imagine the havoc one could cause if the rope brokeand the cannon went careening around on a pitching deck, especially in a battle. Hence theexpression "a loose cannon.")
The big problem with artillery is hitting the target. The gunners' quadrant,invented in 1537, was a major improvement. It was essentially a protractor mounted on astick, which was inserted down the cannon barrel. A hanging weight allowed the angle ofelevation to be read off on the protractor. With accurate elevation, it was possible topredict the range of a projectile accurately, but note that this accuracy also implies theability to weigh out powder precisely and manufacture gunpowder of uniform quality.
Thanks to triangulation, invented by the Dutch mathematician Frisius in 1533, it waspossible to determine how far away a target was without actually having access to it.Triangulation involves viewing the target from two points a known distance apart. Thelines of sight to the target from each point can be drawn on a scale diagram, and thedistance to the target calculated. Originally, these sketches were made on a drumhead (thepractice of using the head of a drum as a table gave rise to the expression "drumheadcourt-martial."), but clearly something more sturdy and accurate was needed. That wasthe plane-table, invented in 1551. A plane-table is a portable table. If carefullyoriented with a compass, lines of sight can be drawn on it directly. While the problem ofhorizontal direction, or azimuth, was being solved, artillerymen were still using arelatively crude device, the cross-staff, for measuring angles of elevation. Accurateelevation is necessary for aiming at targets above or below the cannon. By 1571, LeonardDigges had combined horizontal and vertical sighting into a single instrument, thetheodolite. The theodolite is not only useful for sighting artillery; it is essentially asurveyor's transit and was the first efficient surveying instrument.
While advances in artillery aiming technology were creating the ability to makeaccurate maps, Henry VIII was simultaneously providing a powerful stimulus to use them.After his break with the Catholic Church, Henry seized Church lands in 1536. (Catholichistorians paint the incident as a defense of the Church's traditional ban on divorce andits refusal to bow to political pressure. In reality, Henry wanted an annulment,and the Church in those days granted royal annulments almost at the drop of a crown. Henrywas married to the Spanish Catherine of Aragon, the Spanish did not want to lose apolitically valuable marriage and they had their way because they put more pressure on theChurch than Henry did.) Henry's seizure of Church lands created a need to survey themaccurately as possible before selling or granting them. At about the same time, copperengraving made better map printing possible. In 1579, Christopher Saxton produced anational atlas of England, the first in Western Europe.
Maps turned out to have tremendous strategic value. The British began mapping Scotlandin detail after the failure of the Scottish revolt of 1745, and even today Britishtopographic maps are the responsibility of the Ordnance Survey. Many other countries alsomapped their own territory for military purposes. Such maps can also be valuable to theenemy, and detailed maps were classified in the former Soviet Union and still are innumerous countries. There exist maps of large areas of the ocean floor almost as detailedas maps of land, but because of their utility in submarine warfare, they are stillclassified. Because many terrestrial maps are still restricted for military purposes, weactually have more detailed topographic coverage of Venus and Mars than of the Earth.
For civilians throughout history, the approach of an army has been bad news, and itscarcely mattered which side the army was on. The only way armies could survive was byforaging for food as they went. Whether they limited their foraging to food or left localinhabitants enough to survive on depended on the discipline of the troops and thehumaneness of the generals. Armies had to keep moving simply because they could not stayin one place more than a few days.
As armies grew larger, foraging grew more impractical. After the French Revolution,France found itself at war with most of Europe (guillotining Louis XVI and MarieAntoinette was tantamount to declaring war on all the heads of state they were relatedto.) With many officers executed or exiled, the French resorted to large conscript armiesand the supply problem became acute. The story of Chicken Marengo, named for a battleNapoleon fought in northern Italy, is illustrative. It's an odd combination of chicken,tomatoes, a poached egg, and crayfish, simply because that's all Napoleon's personal chefcould lay his hands on. In 1800, Napoleon founded a Society for the Advancement ofIndustry, with the power to award large prizes, and one of the priority goals was betterfood preservation. A cook and wine-bottler named Nicholas Appert had already beenexperimenting with food preservation by putting food in sealed containers and boiling it.Being both French and a wine-bottler, he used champagne bottles. In 1810 he was awarded aprize of 12,000 francs on condition he publish his method.
It was in England, where wineries were few but the sheet-metal industry waswell-established, that metal cans were first manufactured. Cans were in use by 1812 forthe military and exploration expeditions. They were on sale in shops by 1830 and wereoriginally upper-class status symbols. A can of corned beef went for two-thirds of theweekly rent on a house. If that sounds strange to modern ears, imagine a world in whichgreen vegetables and fruit were simply unavailable in the winter at any price, thenimagine how revolutionary canning must have appeared. The one drawback was that there wereno can openers yet! Cans had to opened with a chisel, and would be until an effective canopener was invented a decade or so later. (Part of the problem was the heavy-gauge metalused in the first cans; a can-opener demands reasonably thin metal.)
Next page: The First Modern War and the Last AncientWar
Return to Outline Index
Return to Professor Dutch's Home Page
Created 16 November 1998; Last Update 15 January 2020