Swagger7 wrote...
Das Tentakel wrote...
Maria Caliban wrote...
Total war didn't exist prior to the 19th century. 18th at the earliest.
Depends on your definition. If you mean full mobilization of all available manpower resources by industrial societies, you're correct. By that definition, you probably have to exclude revolutionary-era and Napoleonic warfare as well.
The American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian Wars are probably the first that can be called 'total'. And even there you can debate the issue.
However, if it is understood as the large-scale mobilization of available manpower and fighting à l'outrance, then there are plenty of examples. The later phase of Warring States China, the Peloponnesian War, the Punic Wars, to some extent the Roman civil wars and numerous smaller conflicts where a small state or a people had to fight for their lives.
A medieval example would be the battle of Visby in 1361, where the yeomanry of the island of Gotland tried to fight off a Danish invasion. It is estimated that 1,800 Gotlanders died, and at that time you're probably talking the majority of the men of fighting age in the entire island. Their graves are a rich find of armour from that time, and it varies from serviceable hand-me-downs to state of the art 'modern' brigandine armour.
By the way, in these kinds of conflicts you also see a 'rationalization' of arms and armour production. Research of Italian arms and armour from the era of the Second Punic War show clear evidence of rationalization (fewer and simpler forms) and mass production (lower quality). People armed and equipped in these 'pre-industrial total war' situations wouldn't necessarily be equipped with random stuff (provided they had some time to prepare and adapt), but a mix of older but still serviceable equipment and standardized, newly produced, possibly inferior items.
That's only half of what total war is. The other half includes the subsequent systematic targeting of civilians and industry, as they are now a vital part of the war effort. From what I can tell, the Taiping Rebellion in China (1850-1860-something) was the first war that fits both categories. (Although that's slightly debatable, as it's unknown how much of the destruction was part of a systematic strategy, and how much was simple rage induced war crime.) The US Civil War definitely counts, but only after Sherman started burning things in Georgia.......
Again, it's a matter of definition.
Goebbels in his 1943 speech, to which we basically owe the popularisation of the term, meant it primarily to refer to the 'total' mobilisation of German resources to achieve a 'total' victory. Including lovely sentences calling out for killing 'lackards' and 'blackmarketeers' and, by implication, dissenters. And he meant that quite literally.
In original 18th century German parlance, it may have meant simply a 'big' war.
Some scholarly definitions may include terms like
Niederwerfungsstrategie, i.e. a strategy aiming at complete victory, others a term like
Vernichtungskrieg, a war of 'extermination' or destroying the enemy. It's not the same. Some ancient and medieval wars aimed at the first, others at the second. The Romans conducted both kinds of war; an example of the first would be the Second Punic War; an example of the second the way in which Caesar dealt with the Eburones. These were a Celtic/Germanic people in my country (plus neighbouring parts of modern Belgium and Germany) who made the mistake of defeating one of Caesar's legions. Once old Julius was done with them, there were no more Eburones. Deliberately ravaging the land, killing non-combatants, burning crops etc. have always been common components of warfare. Ethnic cleansing and genocide were part of the toolbox too.
Our ancestors didn't need any scholarly definitions to know that, if you want to win, you often have to destroy your enemy's warmaking capabilities, including his economic base. Or maybe even wipe him out completely. Whatever works.
Anyway, you can take your pick regarding the definition you prefer
.
Personally, I would rather make a distinction between war aims, war strategies and warmaking capabilities. The latter certainly increased in the modern era, making 'total' war aims and strategies, combined with full mobilisation of the warmaking capabilities, a frightening thing. It's the change in magnitude in these capabilities that are what mainly distinguishes modern from ancient/medieval/early modern warfare.
Luckily, these three rarely coincide. Good thing too, because they're still finding bombs here from last time
.
Edit:Looking back at the OP, I doubt he had anything like a 'total-ish' ancient or medieval war in mind to be honest.
Full or partial plate for everybody? Hmmmm, doubt it...<_<
I also agree with Philippe that for a bunch of adventurers without servants or squires, late medieval full plate armour might not be practical from a 'realism' point of view. Heck, getting into chain mail, greaves and helmet is already a bit of a bother, though perfectly doable on your own...
You know what I would like? Any armoured companion NPC's getting
out of their armour when in camp or relaxing.
And I'd
loooove seeing, say, an Oghren polishing his armour muttering obscenities about Darkspawn blood & guts.
A Sten should be stoic and expressionless of course, and an Alistair would be wisecracking
.
Modifié par Das Tentakel, 03 octobre 2012 - 07:10 .
Retour en haut
