Featured Download
Speak Like a CEO
This chapter describes ten helpful actions and behaviors that will bring you...
Content provided in partnership with
Government Industry
Some Reflections on the Future of War
Naval War College Review, Autumn, 2000 by Martin van Creveld
The purpose of this article is to offer a brief, late-twentieth-century account of what has happened to war during the last millennium and where it may be going in the near future. To this end, the article is divided into four parts. The first provides a very brief outline of the development of major war from about A.D. 1000 to 1945. The next part explains how that development was affected, not to say interrupted, by the introduction of nuclear weapons. The third part shows how, even as major war began to retreat and wane, the period since 1945 has witnessed the growth of forms of war that are simultaneously old and new and that now threaten to take over many countries all over the planet. Finally, we conclude with observations on the consequences of all this for the future of air forces, navies, armies, and even war itself.
- Most Popular Articles in News
- The Ten Best Laptop bags
- Tata plans cheapest-ever car for Indian market
- GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD
- Corn is good for you; Corn is not only a tasty treat, but also a cereal that ...
- THE 50 BEST STYLISH HANDBAGS TO CARRY
- More »
THE DEVELOPMENT OF WAR, 1000-1945
Looking back, the outstanding characteristic of war since A.D. 1000 or so has been its progressive consolidation. [1] As might be expected, this consolidation took place more or less simultaneously in all possible fields: namely the political, the economic, military, and the technological. The following paragraphs will attempt to provide an outline, however brief, of the main developments in each of those four spheres.
First, the political: In A.D. 1000, Western, Central, and Northern Europe were divided into thousands, if not tens of thousands, of small political organizations. Most of the organizations in question were secular, but others were ecclesiastical. Most were of the type known as feudal, but some (particularly in the relatively undeveloped north) belonged to an older type that is best characterized as tribal. Still others consisted of urban communities that, resting upon various legal principles, contained within themselves the seeds of future political power. [2] To one extent or another, all had this in common: they possessed the legal right to defend themselves, weapon in hand. This right they exercised by setting up and maintaining armed forces of some kind, be they retainers, feudal warriors, or mercenaries; by manufacturing or purchasing defensive and offensive arms; and, the most visible symbol of all, by building fortified walls, of which they were often inordinately proud.
For reasons beyond the scope of the present article, the number of political units that possessed the right and the ability to wage war tended to decline over the centuries. To be sure, the process was not unilineal, nor did it proceed with equal speed during all periods and in all countries. There were many ups and downs, particularly in France during the Hundred Years' War, which was as much a civil conflict as it was a war with England. The same was true of England during the so-called Wars of the Roses, and of Germany during the Thirty Years' War. Nevertheless, the direction of development appears clear in retrospect. Some political organizations developed into big fish and, swallowing others, expanded. Others were fated to serve as bait and, having been swallowed, disappeared. Some acquired the quality known as "sovereignty," whereas the majority lost it. [3] The number of war-making political units decreased, and the power of the remaining ones increased.
Again for reasons that cannot be explored here, the most important agglomerations of power appeared in Europe; [4] indeed, such was the discrepancy in power between European-type states and the political organizations that formed themselves on other continents that by the late nineteenth century the former were capable of taking over most of the remaining world almost as an afterthought.
The process of political consolidation was supported by, and in turn supported, growing economic power. Even during the late Middle Ages, feudal lords, kings, and even emperors were not necessarily much richer than their vassals--one remembers, for instance, how Emperor Maximilian died penniless (during the last days of his life, no inn could be found that would lodge him and his followers) and how Charles V's election was brought about by the money provided by the Fuggers family. Later, the situation changed. In England, Henry VIII, having changed his religion and confiscated church lands, was able to increase his revenue by a factor of three and thus become the first monarch who was richer than all his lords put together; in France, between 1523 and 1600 the royal income quadrupled. [5] Once the Thirty Years' War had ended, the economic power first of rulers and then of states vis-a-vis their own subjects continued to grow. By the second half of the eighteenth century, the personal resources of even the mon archs themselves were being dwarfed by those of the political organizations over which they ruled. [6]
The industrial revolution that began in England around 1750, the transport revolution that followed it, and the communications revolution that accompanied helped reinforce these trends. Throughout the nineteenth century, the economic power of the state grew and grew; not only that, but the first successful experiments were being made to decouple money itself from bullion and turn it into a state-manufactured commodity. [7] By the time World War I broke out, states had become richer and more powerful than ever.
