THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
WARFARE
2
THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
WARFARE
FROM EARLIEST TIMES TO THE PRESENT DAY
Adrian Gilbert
3
© Brown Partworks Limited 2000
All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in
whole or in part in any form
For information, write to
Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers
310 Regent Street
London W1B 3 AX
UK
or
Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers
919 North Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60611
USA
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the
British Library
A Cataloging-in-Publication record for this book is
available from the Library of Congress
ISBN 1-57958-216-8
For Brown Partworks Limited
Editors: Pete Darman, Chris Westhorp
4
Designer: Matthew Greenfield
Cartographer: Bill LeBihan
Picture research: Susannah Jayes
Managing editor: Lindsey Lowe
Production manager: Matt Weyland
This edition first published by
Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers 2000
PICTURE CREDITS
AKG London: 13, 15, 18,
20, 34, 39, 40–41, 42, 45,
47, 49, 57, 61, 67, 72–73,
77, 89, 97, 98, 100, 104,
110, 112, 126–127, 131,
132, 135, 141, 143, 144,
145, 146, 154, 164, 172,
177, 178, 188, 189, 190,
194, 201, 209, 210
Bridgeman Art Library:
50
Brown
Partworks:
National Archives: 174
Corbis: 215
5
Mary
Evans
Picture
Library: 8–9, 16, 21, 22,
23, 30, 55
Hulton-Getty
Picture
Library: 44, 56, 102, 115
Robert Hunt Library: 169,
184, 207, 212–213, 214,
217, 219, 221, 222, 224,
225, 229, 231, 238, 240,
241, 242–243, 244, 245,
249, 250, 251, 253, 255,
257, 258, 260, 263, 265,
268, 272, 281, 283, 284
Peter Newark: 11, 14, 29,
37, 52, 70, 78, 82, 83, 84,
88, 93, 95, 96, 101, 106,
114, 116, 120, 121, 122,
129, 134, 135, 136, 139,
149, 150–151, 152, 157,
159, 163, 166, 171, 173,
179, 180–181, 182, 185,
187, 195, 199, 202, 205,
233, 235
Rex Features: 291
TRH
Pictures:
246,
274–275, 277, 278, 294,
295, 298, 299
6
Contents
Introduction
Warfare in the Ancient World
Medieval Warfare
Warfare in the Renaissance World
Warfare in the 18th Century
Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars
The American Civil War
The Changing Face of War
World War I
World War II
Warfare in the Modern World
Glossary
Bibliography
Index
7
Introduction
arfare has played a key role in human progress,
profoundly influencing political, economic, and
social change. Indeed, the history of mankind and the
history of warfare are inextricably linked, with both the
rise and fall of civilizations often depending on the
application of military force. This volume charts the
development of warfare over several millennia, from its
earliest origins in prehistory to the present day.
W
As far as can be ascertained from documentary and
archeological records, organized warfare between
warriors, rather than skirmishes between groups of
individuals, probably dates back to at least the sixth or
seventh millennium BC. But our knowledge of such
warfare is necessarily limited, and it is only with the
advent of the Egyptians and Summerians – who left
pictorial and written records – that we have any clear
idea of how our distant ancestors fought. From this
period (approximately 3000 BC) onward, we can trace
the history of warfare with reasonable certainty.
The first great army was that of the Assyrians, whose
knowledge of strategy and tactics, including such
complex matters as siegecraft, set the pattern that other,
later classical armies would follow. The latter included
the armies of the ancient Greeks, most notably those of
Philip of Macedonia and his son, Alexander the Great,
and the Romans. The foot soldier held the key to victory,
be he the Greek hoplite or the Roman legionnaire.
However, after the collapse of Rome in the fifth century
ad, warfare in Europe degenerated, the highly trained
8
legions replaced by marauding and ill-disciplined
mounted war bands. In the East, however, the armies of
Islam, and later those of the Mongols, proved highly
effective in harnessing the power of the horse, carving
out huge empires in the Middle East and Eurasia by
using large cavalry armies.
Notwithstanding the introduction of the stirrup, which
made the control of horses and hence cavalry formations
easier and so increased their effectiveness on the
battlefield, the weapons of warfare had changed little
since ancient times: men were still slaughtered by
swords, lances, axes, spears, and bows. Toward the end
of the 15th century, though, gunpowder technology
made its appearance on Western battlefields, and marked
the first beginnings of European military ascendancy.
The success of what has become known as the Western
way of warfare depended on technological advance,
allowing small, highly trained European armies to
destroy far larger forces virtually anywhere in the world.
Central to this
ascendancy was ocean-going sea power, which provided
economic riches from international trade, as well as
enabling European armies to strike at will around the
globe.
By the end of the 19th century, most of the world had
been colonized or was in thrall to Europeans and their
descendants. During the 20th century, however,
following two world wars, the balance of power swung
inexorably away from the states of Europe to the two
superpowers of the United States and the Soviet Union,
although by the end of the century the latter state had
9
been broken up following the collapse of Communism.
Today, the United States occupies a unique position as
the only genuine global superpower.
Despite the many changes that have taken place in the
history of warfare, certain constants remain. Success in
war goes to those who are best prepared for it, and the
training, equipping, and organization of armies are the
key factors in this preparation. Armies as
chronologically distant as the legions of Julius Caesar
and the German Army in World War II displayed similar
characteristics, benefiting from tight discipline, flexible
and imaginative leadership, sound logistical support, and
an effective tactical doctrine.
Alongside adequate preparation, the general and his
political masters must have agreed aims: that armed
conflict is the best option to secure an objective, and that
once war has been chosen the general has the means to
secure the objective. When the combination of aims and
means are mismatched even the most powerful nations
can falter, as was the case with the United States in
Vietnam.
Leadership is another of the constants in warfare,
ranging from the commanding general to the most junior
NCO. If leadership is poor, then it follows that an army
will perform poorly. The general must have a sound
knowledge of strategy and tactics, and all other technical
aspects of his profession. He must also be confident in
his own plan of action, to be able to seize the strategic
initiative and impose his will on his opponent. Lastly, he
must be able to empathize with and inspire his troops: to
know what they are capable of, and to encourage them in
10
the execution of the most difficult of tasks. The great
captains of history – Alexander the Great, Hannibal,
Julius Caesar, Frederick the Great, and Napoleon
Bonaparte – all had the above qualities in abundance.
Field officers must direct their troops competently on the
battlefield, while junior officers and NCOs require the
ultimate courage to advance into utmost danger so that
their men will follow.
The five thousand years of recorded warfare provide a
fascinating and instructive overview of the history of
mankind. War seems innate to the human condition, but
now that military technology has provided us with the
means to bring about our annihilation, war must
necessarily be limited. And the more that we know of
war, the greater our ability to restrain its worst
consequences.
11
Warfare in the Ancient World
arfare has dominated human activity since the
earliest times. In prehistory, wars were localized
and short-lived tribal conflicts, engagements between
men on foot, armed with wooden or stone weapons. But
by the time of the classical age – approximately 500 BC
onward – wars had become more complex, fought
between nations and even empires. Conflicts became
longer in duration and distances increased. Battlefield
tactics developed to the highest levels, and several
generals, notably Alexander the Great and Hannibal,
were truly outstanding leaders against whom all other
generals have come to be compared.
W
Our knowledge of warfare in the prehistorical period is
sparse, derived from patchy archaeological findings or
comparative evidence gleaned from more recent
stone-age societies in the Pacific islands and New
Guinea.
Anthropological research suggests that prehistorical
warfare was limited in nature and bound by ritual. Once
a dispute could not be resolved without recourse to
violence, then “battle sites” were prearranged by the
combatants and the fighting confined to a number of
rapid, one-on-one engagements without any higher
direction. The action might be preceded by displays of
martial prowess intended to overawe the enemy. The
weapons were those used when hunting: stone axes,
knives, and flint-tipped spears and arrows. Deaths were
few and were confined to young males – biologically
and economically the tribe’s most dispensable members.
12
The reasons why stone-age tribes went to war remain
conjectural, although plunder and the enhancement of
warrior prestige seem likely. The stone-age pattern of
life suggests that warfare became more organized when
competition increased for scarce resources, such as
access to water or good grazing land. And as societies
became more numerous and widespread across the
globe, so the possibility for competitive conflict
increased.
The Persian emperor Darius (center, mounted on chariot)
tries to rally his fleeing troops at the Battle of
Gaugamela (also known as Arbela) in 331 BC.
Ancient Egypt
The first battle of which we have any sort of knowledge
took place at Megiddo in 1469 BC between a force of
Palestinians and an Egyptian army of 20,000 men.
Surprise and mobility both played their part in the
13
victory secured by Pharaoh Thutmosis III, but while the
exact tactics remain unknown, the compositional
elements that were to last centuries were already in
place: chariots, cavalry, and infantry units.
he first evidence of a systematic approach to conflict
was discovered through the archaeological
excavations of sites in the Middle East, which have dated
fortified structures at Çatal Hüyük in Anatolia (7000 BC)
and Jericho (6000 BC). But apart from the fact that these
early cities were protected by walls, little more is known
until the advent of writing, and our knowledge is
therefore very scanty until about 500 BC. Even then, our
knowledge is concentrated in the Mediterranean and
Middle East, with some detail from China and India. For
warfare over most of the globe, we must simply guess at
causes and methods.
T
Warfare in the ancient world was about fighting at close
quarters. Most missile weapons would give at best a
striking distance of tens of feet rather than hundreds.
There were important technological advances (such as
the use of iron rather than bronze) that gave one state or
another an advantage; there were also significant tactical
developments like the Macedonian phalanx; generalship,
as shown brilliantly by Hannibal, was important; and
logistics, as in the superb organization underpinning the
triumphs of the Roman legions, were often critical.
However, in the end battles were won or lost by the
courage and confidence of the troops doing the fighting
and killing. Confidence that their comrades and leaders
would not let them down, and that their fighting
formation or weapons were capable of victory, was
14
crucial to success. Thus relatively small forces often
defeated much larger ones, and some military forces –
such as those of the Assyrians, the Macedonians, or the
Romans – enjoyed centuries of success in battle as a
result.
At the Battle of Kadesh, Ramses ll’s superior leadership
was offset by his enemies’ use of iron weapons, while
his own men had bronze swords and spears.
Sumeria, in southern Mesopotamia, and Egypt were the
first two areas of human settlement to develop an urban
civilization with its own written records, sometime
between 3500 and 3000 BC. They had the agricultural
surplus to create complex societies, and warfare became
15
part of their culture. At much the same time they began
to use metals to make objects, including weapons. The
first metal weapons were made from copper, but this
element was so weak that such weapons were more
commonly used for ceremonial purposes than combat.
The real breakthrough came at some time in the third
millennium BC, when early metallurgists began to
combine tin with copper to make bronze, a fairly hard
alloy that enabled weapons to take an edge.
Sumerian records tell of Sargon of Akkad, a bronze-age
king who reigned from 2371 to 2316 BC and fought 34
battles to create an empire that controlled
Mesopotamia. Although nothing is known about his
campaigns, like most rulers of the time it would seem
that Sargon led his armies personally and was expected
to fight the enemy himself to win personal glory.
Despite the information relating to the Battle of
Megiddo, such knowledge is rare. And until around 750
BC the paucity of written records prevents any certain
knowledge of how military operations were conducted.
In the second millennium BC, it is thought the armies of
the Middle East were largely made up of cavalry and
chariots, and semi-trained foot soldiers who might be
armed with bows, slings, clubs, or spears. Bronze was
used to make weapons, and armor, if worn at all, was
made from leather, wicker, wood, or quilted cloth.
16
A carving of Sumerian troops advancing in battle
wearing helmets and carrying large wicker shields.
The infantry was recruited from the poorer classes of
society, and their function was to provide a stable mass
of men around whom the more mobile elements –
cavalry and chariots – would maneuvre. What
distinguished the major civilizations like the Sumerians
and Egyptians from smaller states, was not only their
greater natural and human resources, but the
organizational sophistication in which they employed
these resources. Sumer and Egypt formed the first
armies, which contained soldiers who were uniformly
17
armed and equipped and who fought in units rather than
as individuals.
For a period, horse-drawn chariots dominated the
battlefield. The stirrup, which gives a horseman stability
in the saddle and enables him to wear heavy armor,
swing heavy weapons, or put his body weight firmly
behind a lance thrust, was not in general use until around
AD 700. In a chariot, with a driver to control the horses, a
warrior could fire a bow or wield a heavy hand weapon
from a secure platform. Chariots may also have reflected
the social hierarchy, in that the upper classes may have
monopolized them.
Chariots were probably introduced to the Middle East by
invading tribes from the north, most notably the
Hyksos who conquered and dominated Egypt between
1800 and 1600 BC. The most famous battle between two
armies of chariots occurred at the Hittite-held city of
Kadesh, Syria, in 1294 BC between Ramses II of Egypt
and the forces at the disposal of the Hittite Empire.
In 1294 BC Ramses invaded Hittite territory to capture
Kadesh on the Orontes River. His army consisted of four
divisions: the Amurru, the Amun, the Re, and the Ptah.
While the Egyptians were crossing the Orontes,
supposedly “defecting” Hittite spies informed Ramses
that the Hittite Army was at Aleppo, farther to the north.
In fact the Hittite king, Muwatallis, and his army were
concealed at Kadesh. Ramses believed the Hittite
deception plan and marched ahead with the Amun
division. The Amurru was deployed to guard the
crossing for the Re and the Ptah. Muwatallis now sent
18
2,500 chariots across the Orontes, and attacked the Re as
it crossed the river. The Hittite strike force routed the Re,
but was in turn attacked by the Egyptian Amurru
division. The Amurru broke through the Hittites and
joined Ramses and the Amun.
The Middle East at the height of the Egyptian Empire.
The Battle of Kish was an Assyrian victory.
Muwatallis then released another 1,000 chariots from his
reserve. These were defeated by the combined attack of
the Amurru and the Amun. The next day Ramses, his
forces somewhat the worse for their experiences,
19
withdrew across the Orontes because Muwatallis still
had 30,000 fresh infantry.
Although something of a hard-fought draw, Kadesh was
particularly noteworthy for the Hittites’ use of iron
weapons, while the Egyptians relied on bronze. Iron was
harder than bronze and, most importantly, could be
worked into a much sharper cutting edge. Gradually iron
replaced bronze as the medium for edged weapons (and
for spear and arrow heads), although the wearing of
bronze armor continued until Roman times.
The Hittites lived in central Asia Minor and for two
centuries they fought Egypt for control of what is now
Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, and Syria. The action at
Kadesh enabled Hittite influence to extend to Damascus
and halted the Egyptian resurgence in Syria. The Hittites
also fought several wars in Syria against the Mitanni
from northern Mesopotamia. These conflicts were fought
to gain tribute from smaller states.
Chariot Warfare
The horse-drawn chariot relied on speed in combat.
Lines of chariots would race toward the enemy, the
bow-armed crew rapidly shooting arrows at the foe.
This kind of attack could cause heavy casualties
among tight-packed masses of infantry who wore
no armor, as they could not run fast enough to catch
the chariots or to escape them.
Prior to a charge, the chariots were spaced far
enough apart to allow them to turn at the end of
20
their run. This also allowed two lines of chariots
charging one another to pass through the other’s
formation, and as they passed each other, the crews
would throw spears or shoot arrows. Because horses
were very valuable if captured, both sides tended to
aim at the smaller targets of the crew instead. But
the shaking of the chariot as it bounced along over
rough ground did not allow very accurate missile
fire.
Chariots were very fragile vehicles, and the long
pole to which the horses were harnessed was easily
damaged and was difficult to replace. For chariots
to be effective, both crews and horses had to be
trained to a high degree.
Egyptian rule over Palestine illustrates some of the aims
and methods of warfare at that time. The Egyptians
established their authority over Palestine during the reign
of Amenhotep III (1390–1353 BC). In each city in the
region the Egyptians placed a small garrison, which was
fed and paid for by the city’s inhabitants. The cities also
sent an annual sum of money or amount of produce – a
tribute – to the Egyptian pharaoh. In return, the cities
could appeal to the pharaoh to help them settle disputes.
The pharaoh would sometimes allow the Egyptian
garrison to join a city’s army during a dispute with a
neighbor.
In 1200 BC, about 500 years after the Hyksos swept
through the ancient Middle East, another similar
21
migration shook the region. The Egyptians called these
enemies the Sea Peoples. The Sea Peoples at first
attacked the Hittites, and it is possible that they
destroyed their empire. They subsequently moved south
against the Egyptians. The contest between the Sea
Peoples and the Egyptian Empire was decided by a naval
battle fought off the coast of Egypt in 1189 BC. The
Egyptian fleet was victorious and the Sea Peoples
scattered throughout the Mediterranean. Some of them
settled in Palestine, where they became known in the
Bible as the Philistines.
Toward the end of the second millennium BC, a
ferocious new aggressor, Assyria, brought new
perspectives to warfare. The Assyrians – or people of
Assur – had established a presence in northern
Mesopotamia as early as the third millennium BC, based
around the three city states of Ashur, Nineveh, and
Arbela. Constantly at war with their neighbors –
including the Hittites – they became a major military
power in the 12th century BC.
The first Assyrian army reached the Mediterranean coast
during the reign of Tiglath-Pileser I (1120–1093 BC).
The Assyrian state was organized around war, and
Assyrian rulers left many detailed carvings glorifying
their various campaigns. Attacks by Aramean nomads
from Babylonia in southern Mesopotamia halted
Assyrian expansion around 1050 BC. Assyrian power
then went through cycles of decline followed by military
expansion. The Assyrians invaded Babylonia, Iran, and
eastern Asia Minor. But after the death of Shalmaneser
22
III (824 BC), civil war in Assyria enabled many cities to
rebel against their masters.
23
A fanciful depiction of the Battle of Kadesh, in which a
total of 6,000 chariots are estimated to have taken part.
There are no records of lions being present!
The Assyrians and Persians
Both the Assyrian and Persian empires were notable for
the massive, well-organized armies they could put into
the field. Of particular interest was the fact that their
forces were composed to a significant degree of subject
peoples of the empire, rather than of manpower from the
imperial homeland itself; the Persian Army that invaded
Greece in 480 BC, for example, contained men from 20
provinces of the Persian Empire.
ike the Egyptians, the Assyrians did not establish
direct political control over the lands that they
conquered. The imperial power demanded tribute from
its subjects, and any rebellion was subject to savage
reprisals. The era of weakness that followed the death of
Shalmaneser III only ended in 745 BC, and in that year
an Assyrian general called Pulu became king and took
the name Tiglath-Pileser III. He reorganized the
governmental system and army. Particular attention was
paid to training, weaponry, siege warfare, and logistics.
L
Before Tiglath-Pileser III, the Assyrian Army was
probably a part-time militia composed of soldiers who
served the king for a certain number of days each year
and then returned to civilian life. To enhance army
effectiveness, Tiglath-Pileser III created four different
categories of soldiers. First there were the royal guards.
Most of these were units of cavalry and chariots,
although there was an infantry unit known as the
24