history and reverse in warfare

shane9689 · 15-08-2013 3:10pm #1

Is it possible or even slightly plausible that man kind could slip to pre renaissance warfare? i mean we have advanced so much as a species that even if we wanted to, would it be impossible to drag ourselves back to medieval times? or will there form now on, always be someone with some sort of gun or technology? considering the amount of information we've stored and people whom understand it, would it be impossible to wipe them all out? are we officially stuck into post medieval times (in terms of warfare). will an ancient battle never be experienced again?

jonniebgood1 · 15-08-2013 7:28pm

Is this really history Shane???

Please rephrase the OP taking in mind the forum you have posted in. Thread left open temporarily to allow you do this.
Moderator.

shane9689 · 15-08-2013 8:21pm

if you like move it to after hours...i just thought history buffs could give a clearer argument for or against the possibilities and how it would happen

Jolly Red Giant · 15-08-2013 8:35pm

shane9689 wrote: »

if you like move it to after hours...i just thought history buffs could give a clearer argument for or against the possibilities and how it would happen

In a word (or three) - no - not possible.

Fratton Fred · 16-08-2013 11:06am

OP, have you been watching Revolution on Sky?

The nature of warfare is that you use any advantage you have to defeat your enemy, that is why major conflicts have sparked technological advancement.

Manach · 16-08-2013 11:15am

It some eras, it was the age of the professional warrior. Such on the Condotteri of Italy or the medieval knights, where due to the cost of the weapon systems - special groups or castes were the only ones who were tasked for war. Hence the mass-conscription model that occurred from the French Revolution of 1789, is now past, due to economics and lack of popular will.

shane9689 · 16-08-2013 1:30pm

Manach wrote: »

It some eras, it was the age of the professional warrior. Such on the Condotteri of Italy or the medieval knights, where due to the cost of the weapon systems - special groups or castes were the only ones who were tasked for war. Hence the mass-conscription model that occurred from the French Revolution of 1789, is now past, due to economics and lack of popular will.

not sure that entirely answers the question, also mass conscription still takes place to this day

Jawgap · 16-08-2013 1:58pm

No, the genie is out of the bottle - the paste is out of the tube!

I think there's only one incidence in history of a country taking a step backwards in technology terms as it applies to warfare, and that was in Japan in the 17th or 18th C when firearms were prohibited and confiscated - ostensibly to prevent peasant revolts and uprisings - I'll admit to being wide open to correction on this point.

I think you can argue that perhaps the era of inter-state war is fading rapidly. Conflict in the world today is completely different to that experienced even 20 years ago - there is very little 'war' but still significant conflict, combant and 'military operations other than war' (!)

We also perceive conflict differently because of social media, so sometimes it can seem like there is more than there actually is and that it's more intense.

But when all is said and done, nobody really knows what the next 'war' will be like.

Riddle101 · 17-08-2013 3:39pm

Sure in the renaissance they were using state of the art equipment back then, and technological advances to win wars. So it was not much different back then, to today. As technology advances, so does warfare or is it the other way around.

shane9689 · 17-08-2013 4:22pm

Riddle101 wrote: »

Sure in the renaissance they were using state of the art equipment back then, and technological advances to win wars. So it was not much different back then, to today. As technology advances, so does warfare or is it the other way around.

i know that, but my point was will we ever go back to their form of fighting i.e. hand to hand combat...or is it impossible to slip that far back in terms of technological advance.

Riddle101 · 17-08-2013 8:17pm

shane9689 wrote: »

i know that, but my point was will we ever go back to their form of fighting i.e. hand to hand combat...or is it impossible to slip that far back in terms of technological advance.

Albert Einstein once said “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Take it for what you will. But I don't think it is possible myself.

Reekwind · 17-08-2013 8:47pm

shane9689 wrote: »

i know that, but my point was will we ever go back to their form of fighting i.e. hand to hand combat...or is it impossible to slip that far back in terms of technological advance.

Which is a question as to what a post-apocalyptic world would look like... and that's more science fiction than history. You'll not find any such equivalent technological 'slippage' in history books

shane9689 · 17-08-2013 8:50pm

suppose medieval times would be the closest comparisons then, when more barbarian type tribes took over from roman disciplined warfare? ...or the absolutely useless design of knights armour

Reekwind · 17-08-2013 9:03pm

shane9689 wrote: »

suppose medieval times would be the closest comparisons then, when more barbarian type tribes took over from roman disciplined warfare?

The idea that technology plunged back a few centuries following the fall of Rome is a myth. Whatever the subsequent decay and simplification of political/economic structures and mechanisms, there was no real technological retreat or collapse. Certainly nothing on the scale of wiping out the last millennium of progress. Nor were the 'barbarians' inferior to Rome in arms; if they had been then there wouldn't have been a fall in the first place

Manach · 17-08-2013 10:21pm

Offhand, from my reading of various medieval history's - where it was tactically sound (for instance not charging against bowmen on muddy ground) the armour of the Knight's was the premier weapon system of the day.
Also, Re 'Barbarian' vs Rome, that Reekwind has a point. The cultural assimilation that took place across the European limes in the late empire meant that many of 'Barbarian' units/cultures had similar tech levels to the Romans. Also during the early Medieval period preceding the fall of the empire in fields such as agriculture (pun unintended) various technological improvements boosted the crop yield in Western Europe to what it had been previous - eg better plough design.

shane9689 · 17-08-2013 11:26pm

guess my dream of joining a Roman legion is crushed then :'l

Manach · 17-08-2013 11:34pm

Well, there are a number of reinactors of Roman legions - more in the UK than here. Was once at a demo of some Roman weapon weaponry (Pilums, gladii etc,) and was impressed with their effectiveness.

Pompey Magnus · 18-08-2013 7:43pm

Reekwind wrote: »

The idea that technology plunged back a few centuries following the fall of Rome is a myth.

Whatever the subsequent decay and simplification of political/economic structures and mechanisms, there was no real technological retreat or collapse. Certainly nothing on the scale of wiping out the last millennium of progress.

I think it depends on where in the former Empire you look and what technology you mean, weaponry may have continued to advanced but I'm not so sure that this is representative of technological complexity as a whole in post empire Europe. I am currently reading Bryan Ward Perkins' The Fall of Rome and he uses items such as pottery and roof tiles as evidence that indicates that in Britain there was a dramatic collapse in technological capabilities after the empire, which we know descended basically into a second prehistoric period with the complete loss of literacy. For instance there is absolutely no evidence for wheel turned pottery or any kiln use in Britain from about 425 to 700, the quality and quantity of the pottery that was created declined massively and almost all were created locally. The decline in the Mediterranean world was not as total and not as rapid but, as late empire mainland Europe was at a more advanced stage than late empire Britain the impact may have been just as significant.

There is absolutely no evidence of building in mortared brick or stone in Britain between 400 - 650 and apparently all existing brick buildings fall into disuse, the single known exception being a church in Canterbury. There is a comparable picture in Italy, where brick building did continue but became more or less limited to churches, of that which was constructed the vast majority was done recycling material produced during the empire. Flooring quality declined in all but palaces and large churches to simple beaten earth. Roof tiles only become as abundant in Italy in the 14th Century as they had been in the 5th Century. Even animal sheds during the empire have been found which were tiled, a luxury which ordinary people weren't experiencing after the empire fell. As for the rich in post empire Italy there is no evidence of a continuation of the building of large country houses and with their underfloor heating and piped water.

Ward Perkins claims that economic complexity in Britain post-empire was many centuries behind that which existed even in 43AD and it wasn't until the 700s that Britain crawled back up to a level of complexity comparable to that which Claudius's legions found when they arrived. Good quality pottery, native silver coinage and coastal proto-towns which were at least partially dependent on trade were all found in Britain in 43AD and all disappeared for 300 years after Rome left.

He argues that sophisticated products did continue to circulate to some degree after Rome falls but only for the very highest level of society, the evidence available indicates that good quality and easily available everyday functional items declined or disappeared across the board for everyone else. The highest levels of society continued to enjoy a somewhat comparable access to high quality materials and luxury items but for the ordinary people, in a very short space of time, the impact of the fall of the Empire was most certainly felt.

Jawgap · 19-08-2013 8:30am

@Pompey Magnus - that view is also supported by Peter Heather. He suggests that as the Roman Empire declined and was undermined it was the loss of the 'system' not technology that had the most significant social impacts.

The trade networks which provinces had been a part of were all but destroyed which meant fewer goods circulating. It also meant fewer people journeying, as opposed to migrating, and this had a knock-on effect in terms of ideas etc moving from area to area.

In some regions technology stagnated relative to other areas, but there was no reversal.

The other point I've seen made relates to agricultural surpluses. The expansion and existence of the Empire and the ability to maintain a standing army depended on an agricultural surplus of at least 2%. If surpluses fell then that obviously created a reduced tax take, but as they approached and went below 2% it seems the capacity to maintain non-agricultural professions declined sharply, which impacted towns (making them less viable) - leading to a dispersal of populations, making it more difficult to tax and feed them efficiently.

Reekwind · 19-08-2013 9:52am

Jawgap wrote: »

@Pompey Magnus - that view is also supported by Peter Heather. He suggests that as the Roman Empire declined and was undermined it was the loss of the 'system' not technology that had the most significant social impacts.

The trade networks which provinces had been a part of were all but destroyed which meant fewer goods circulating. It also meant fewer people journeying, as opposed to migrating, and this had a knock-on effect in terms of ideas etc moving from area to area.

In some regions technology stagnated relative to other areas, but there was no reversal

And that's what I was hinting at above with references to the decay of economic structures. From my reading (and Chris Wickham's The Inheritance of Rome is excellent, BTW) the major centres of pottery production, such as Africa and Cologne, continued to operate after the Empire's demise, albeit at reduced output. What changed was the collapse of the vast trade/logistics network that previously transported goods across the Roman world and its replacement with smaller regional trading blocs. For an outpost like Britain it wasn't until the Carolingians established the Paris-Rhine axis as Europe's economic hub that this was corrected

Now you could argue that from the perspective of Britain this was indeed a massive step back in technology but this was more about availability than people 'forgetting' how to do something. Which is what I think the OP was asking about

Incidentally, I just picked up Peter Heather's work this weekend. Any good?

Jawgap · 19-08-2013 10:02am

Reekwind wrote: »

And that's what I was hinting at above with references to the decay of economic structures. From my reading (and Chris Wickham's The Inheritance of Rome is excellent, BTW) the major centres of pottery production, such as Africa and Cologne, continued to operate after the Empire's demise, albeit at reduced output. What changed was the collapse of the vast trade/logistics network that previously transported goods across the Roman world and its replacement with smaller regional trading blocs. For an outpost like Britain it wasn't until the Carolingians established the Paris-Rhine axis as Europe's economic hub that this was corrected

Now you could argue that from the perspective of Britain this was indeed a massive step back in technology but this was more about availability than people 'forgetting' how to do something. Which is what I think the OP was asking about

Incidentally, I just picked up Peter Heather's work this weekend. Any good?

Which one?

"The Fall of the Roman Empire" - excellent, accessible and very readable.

"Empires and Barbarians: Migration, Development and the Birth of Europe" - extremely detailed, very interesting, thorough but not one you'll fly through in a weekend!

markesmith · 20-08-2013 12:06am

I think Einstein said, 'I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones'

shane9689 wrote: »

guess my dream of joining a Roman legion is crushed then :'l

Rome 2 Total War is coming out next month :cool:

Jawgap · 20-08-2013 9:59am

markesmith wrote: »

I think Einstein said, 'I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones'

Rome 2 Total War is coming out next month :cool:

I think World War III will be fought with 1's and 0's.

Manach · 20-08-2013 10:27am

I've read Peter Heather and found the work both well written and convincing. However other authors, James Hannam, for instance mention that in Western Europe, in the medium term to 1000AD, there was a steady innovation that boosted rural production : such as better ploughs, stirrups, iron-horse shoes.

- OT, there is always Civ 5 to play whilst waiting for Total war.

Jawgap · 22-08-2013 3:40pm

Reekwind wrote: »

.....

Incidentally, I just picked up Peter Heather's work this weekend. Any good?

Just ordered "The Restoration of Rome: Barbarian Popes & Imperial Pretenders" - seems to overlap with the other two and bridge the gap between them.

shane9689 · 24-08-2013 2:16am

guys...please dont argue about the collapse of the roman empire... god knows that argument is endless..... also rome 2 will have to satisfy i suppose.

history and reverse in warfare

Comments