"In low tech warfare, the fiercest and most cohesive side wins, even if they're outnumbered 10 to 1.. Industrialization changed the balance."
I'm not sure who's more 'fierce' between the Romans and the Germans. Technological advantage existed long before industrialization: the macedonian pike, the persian archers, the roman phalanx.
I'm not sure who's more 'fierce' between the Romans and the Germans.
That's why I said fiercest and most cohesive. There's no single word for it, but the key to winning in ancient warfare was never to run away.
Ancient battles usually lasted one day and continued till one side broke, whereupon a rout ensued. So the way to win was to be willing to stay at your post and fight to the death. If you were willing to, you didn't have to.
Perhaps the closest thing to a one-word recipe would be "steadfast."
There is always technological advance, but the examples you give are really more social than technological.
I consider the way of life Macedon constructed -- allowing superior funding and training of armies -- a technological/logistical advantage accompanied with more rapidly-evolving tactics. You call it just 'social'. It is a minor disagreement.
I agree: For most of history battles were not based on technological advantage against superior numbers, but were simple wars of attrition between increasingly equal opponents in numbers and technology. (That mindset culminated in WWI.) Warrior aristocracies did control territories out of proportion of their numbers. Especially in times of peace, when subjugating their own populations.
Being more steadfast can't defeat 10-1 odds (that requires significant technological advantage), but it was still worth a lot.
---
I wasn't sure how to talk about cohesiveness. Cohesive can be just stubborn persistence, or it can be more harmonious tactics.
Technology always has a social component. For the macedonian pike to arise you needed the social infrastructure around it that allowed Philip to train soldiers, then send them out to become battle-hardened defending trading routes from pirates. (That's a pretty common pattern, and explains why islands often grow into great powers; the right social infrastructure for warlike technology often arises after trade for several generations.)
But by no means is it so simple a matter as just being more steadfast. I can't think of a single battle that was won against 10-1 odds in numbers without technological advantage (including dramatically superior generalship and training). In fact, it's battles like in WWI or involving General Marlborough that relied on steadfastness and attrition because there was no other advantage, of technology or of generalship or of numbers.
Here's how joining an ancient army is like joining a contemporary startup: your goal is to compete with more numerous enemies by means of superior technology. You mobilize a group of people with promises of loot, rape and pillage, a share of the profits. The people around you take on risk for a chance to make it big. It's not as volatile as before, of course. Instead of losing your life you take a paycut, a hit in opportunity cost.
Here's how joining an ancient army is not like joining a contemporary startup: then your goal was to destroy and assimilate the enemy. Now it is to be happily assimilated.
---
People tend to consider the feudal system a step back from the glorious states that were ancient Greece and ancient Rome. In reality it's a step forward, employing standing armies in a decentralized 'p2p' organization rather than mobilizing armies for specific invasions.
Taking away loot as the primary incentive makes becoming a soldier more of a 'normal' career and less of a risk, more stable and less reliant on big payouts. This in turn gives a society as a whole less incentive to go marauding against its neighbors. The stability we have today in the west began then, with the barbarian Germanic tribes that later came to have knights and chivalry. Before we could have stock markets and acquisitions we had to stop fighting among ourselves.
> the key to winning in ancient warfare was never to run away.
Not really true. "Hold the line" battle is practically a modern invention. Battle for most of human history looked more like guerilla campaigns and surprise massacres.
The Vikings, Mongols, Iroquoi and so on had no problem with the "He who fights and runs away..." sentiment. Thinking strategists win wars, not pumped up jocks.
You can defend territory with guerilla techniques, but not conquer it. An aggressive warrior society has to be ready to fight pitched battles. And if you try to run away in a pitched battle, the cavalry rides you down and you get a spear in the back.
The best book I know of on this subject is Hanson's The Western Way of War. Though frankly for such a basic point any book on ancient warfare would do.
Hoplite battle is specific to a time and place. The Mongols conquered more territory than anyone, ever, with mounted archers and ready retreats. Accounts of battle in the French and Indian War probably best represent the norm when it comes to human warfare. It was characterized by raids and slaughter of civilians, not pitched battle with no retreat.
I have to agree with kingkong here. Organized Horse Archers cannot be beat by any pre-gunpowder army. People like to the label the mongols as "The Horde." But a Mongol Army of 25k consistently beat armies 5 times its size. It basically comes down to the fact that they have faster horses than you, and their composite bows have 150% the distance of even the English Long Bow (and can be fired from the saddle). If your army had these two qualities, what would you do?
The downside is that its hard to defend the empire that you've conquered using horse archery.
Alexander the Great reputedly defeated Scythian horse archers, but he left no records as to how this is was achieved. He probably used his companion cavalry to chase the horse archers against a river or into a forest. Like what the romans did to Hannibal's father. I think the Egyptians were able to beat the Mongols ONCE but only with superior numbers and a lot of preparation.
Anyway, it is USUALLY true that winning a war is about who's side has stronger will to fight. Who said that? Xenophon?
But tactically, horse archers that always run away cannot be beat. They rain arrows down upon you, burn your farms and supply lines, and taunt your huge 200,000 man armies out to be crushed in a simulatenous attack on all sides by 5 different columns of Horse Archers all arriving at the same time. They are will-breakers. Like startups picking away at slow thinking corporations.
This is similar to how the Athenians eventually defeated the Spartans by never engaging them in close combat and raining arrows and spears on them. Tactics. Not exactly the bravest thing, the Spartans would have called this Womanly fighting.
With the advent of gunpowder, artillery, and combined arms. You can't pull this off anymore. Thank god.
Lesson: Mongols only fight pitched battles they've already won.
Although for us startup guys, the point that PG might be impressing is that, its the company with the most determination that wins. Not the one with the most money/people.
kingkong here is implying that tactics and adaptive thinking is the key, not just having a hard head and tunnel vision.
I'm not sure who's more 'fierce' between the Romans and the Germans. Technological advantage existed long before industrialization: the macedonian pike, the persian archers, the roman phalanx.
Has anybody read "The Fates of Nations" by Paul Colinvaux? Recommended. Especially if you've read Guns, Germs and Steel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fates_of_Nations