War requires a great deal more organisation, claity of purpose and discipline. If you’ve ever read much fantasy it’s the difference between a great big fight with warriors (people who may know how to fight, and fight extremely well individually) and soldiers (people who fight as part of a unit, and can be more or less relied upon to follow orders, usually there will be more than one type of unit, each of which has specific strengths and weaknesses and tactical roles.)
Obviously there is a continuum, but at one end we have set piece battles with cavalry, infantry, ranged weapon units of whatever type, and at another skirmishes between loose groups of men who have not trained to fight as a team, and are not capable of e.g. retreating in good order, and are much more likely to attack before the order goes out than soldiers.
I agree that there’s a continuum between engagements involving complex arrangements of heterogenous specialized combat and support units at one extreme, and engagements involving simple arrangements of homogenous combat units at another.
I agree that the former requires more explicit strategy and more organization than the latter.
I mostly agree that the former requires more discipline and more clarity of purpose than the latter.
I agree that certain tactical and strategic maneuvers (e.g., retreating in good order or attacking in a coordinated fashion) become much easier as you traverse that continuum.
I’m not entirely convinced that “war” doesn’t equally well denote positions all along that continuum, but I guess that’s a mere dispute over definitions and not particularly interesting.
(nods) OK, fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.
I wouldn’t call that an understatement. The difference between inter-tribe violence and ‘war’ is non-trivial.
Hm.
If you’re motivated to expand on that, I’d be interested.
War requires a great deal more organisation, claity of purpose and discipline. If you’ve ever read much fantasy it’s the difference between a great big fight with warriors (people who may know how to fight, and fight extremely well individually) and soldiers (people who fight as part of a unit, and can be more or less relied upon to follow orders, usually there will be more than one type of unit, each of which has specific strengths and weaknesses and tactical roles.)
Obviously there is a continuum, but at one end we have set piece battles with cavalry, infantry, ranged weapon units of whatever type, and at another skirmishes between loose groups of men who have not trained to fight as a team, and are not capable of e.g. retreating in good order, and are much more likely to attack before the order goes out than soldiers.
I agree that there’s a continuum between engagements involving complex arrangements of heterogenous specialized combat and support units at one extreme, and engagements involving simple arrangements of homogenous combat units at another.
I agree that the former requires more explicit strategy and more organization than the latter.
I mostly agree that the former requires more discipline and more clarity of purpose than the latter.
I agree that certain tactical and strategic maneuvers (e.g., retreating in good order or attacking in a coordinated fashion) become much easier as you traverse that continuum.
I’m not entirely convinced that “war” doesn’t equally well denote positions all along that continuum, but I guess that’s a mere dispute over definitions and not particularly interesting.
(nods) OK, fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.