- Pronouns
- he/him
Discuss this article by @David Flin here
I think we have a tendency to neglect this in modern (or mid-20th century, perhaps) descriptions and fiction, because authors are reacting against the idea that 'élan' would win the Great War against machine guns, and instead go too far the other way and think it all comes down to technological superiority.
I think we have a tendency to neglect this in modern (or mid-20th century, perhaps) descriptions and fiction, because authors are reacting against the idea that 'élan' would win the Great War against machine guns, and instead go too far the other way and think it all comes down to technological superiority.
I think this can feed into the concept of 'victory disease' - i.e. an army/country/group wins (perhaps against the odds), then wins again, then again, which leads to their leaders (and maybe some of the soldiers) starting to think that winning is inevitable and the opposition beginning to think that nothing can stop them, which then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course, as soon as they do lose a fight/battle (or even just fail to win it convincingly), they're proven not to be invincible, which can quickly lead to their forces beginning to doubt themselves and/or their leaders, coupled with the opposition gaining heart.
I don't really know how to sum this up other than the side that has great morale and okay technology and a decent plan is going to wipe the floor with a high technology enemy with shit morale or a bad plan.
I don't really know how to sum this up other than the side that has great morale and okay technology and a decent plan is going to wipe the floor with a high technology enemy with shit morale or a bad plan. I don't think colonial wars do it justice because whilst it might not be spears vs machine guns it was rifles vs artillery, machine guns, disciplined soldiers and the representatives of global empires.
Would high technology be an accidental way of getting bad planning? "We have such an advantage, how hard can it be?"
That describes a lot of post-WW2 US war planning (with a specific emphasis on air power because it worked in 1944) - though certainly not unique to the US either in the post-war, technology supremacist era.Would high technology be an accidental way of getting bad planning? "We have such an advantage, how hard can it be?"
Would high technology be an accidental way of getting bad planning? "We have such an advantage, how hard can it be?"
Yeah but it's so high that it only happens when the top ten percent fight the bottom ten percent and those matchups nearly always come with the side with more firepower also having more elan.Sure but all that last sentence says is there is a level of resource disparity that makes up for bad planning and shit morale.
Yeah but it's so high that it only happens when the top ten percent fight the bottom ten percent and those matchups nearly always come with the side with more firepower also having more elan.
And more often than not its still the weight of material superiority rather than its sophistication that tells.
Like it's not that technology has no relevance for warfare. It's that tech alone is one of the least significant factors compared to just about anything else.
I recall reading while researching it for LTTW that the Dahomeans had turned to European muskets in the 1700s as a means of defeating the invading Oyo Empire army, which failed, and shortly before that the Dahomeans had also defeated the Allada states despite the latter having been supplied with European muskets. Before the Maxim gun, it wasn't all about technology (as you say).I think we mostly agree. The Franco Dahomian War was a war between two relatively evenly equipped forces, only one was used to fighting modern warfare and one wasn't and that lack of training and leadership and belief was key. And like you say there are plenty of examples of superior technology not ultimately helping you if you plan badly or your troops don't want to be there. I mentioned Islandlwana above but Annual is probably a better example.
An army of peasants could be trained to use firearms in a campaigning season or so, which is an advantage that rather trumps most of the others in a context of poor state capacity and constrained budgets.To move back to the pre-modern era I'm generally covering, new technology was often not as effective as the technology it was replacing. Compare and contrast longbows with early firearms. On every count, the longbow was technically better. But the firearm was the way of the future ...
Another good article. Looking forward to the book.