Author Topic: Did Scipio have it right all along? (Read 304 times)

ravells · « **on:** March 04, 2004, 06:35:03 PM »

Taken from Basil H Liddel Hart's book: Scipio Africanus - Greater than Napoleon' (written in 1929)

------------------

...it is not too much too much to say that Scipio had a clear grasp of what is just dawning on the mind of the world today - that the true national object in war, as in peace, is a more perfect peace.

War is the result of a menace to this policy, and is undertaken in order to remove the menace, and by the subjugation of the will of the hostile State 'to change this adverse will into compliance with our own policy, and the sooner and more cheaply in lives and in money we can do this, the better the chance is there of a continuance of national prosperity in the widest sense. The aim of a nation in war is, therefore, to subdue the enemy's will to resist with the least possible human and economic loss to itself'

the lesson of history, of very recent history moreover, enables us to deduce this axiom, that, 'A military victory is not in itself an equivalent to success in war.'

Further, as regards peace terms, 'the contract must be reasonable; for to compel a beaten foe to agree to terms which cannot be fulfilled is to sow the seeds of a war which one day will be declared in order to cancel the contract'

There is only one alternative - annihiliation.

------------

Isn't it interesting how that is the exact philosophy being applied by the United States in Iraq today. It also explains why bombs are going off in Iraq every day.

Struck a chord with me when I read it today.

Ravs

Toad · « **Reply #1 on:** March 04, 2004, 06:42:12 PM »

Yeah, it's impossible.

We're trying to compel them to have a internally designed Constitution and a freely-elected government.

At the same time we're trying to rebuild their country's infrastructure to a higher standard than it reached under a ruthlesslly burtal dictator.

What an unreasonable contract.

ravells · « **Reply #2 on:** March 04, 2004, 06:46:32 PM »

and this.... a propos the people who have said that Bush, Kerry and Osama bin Laden are 'cowards'

(here said about Scipio after he performed one act of gallantry and then upon promotion, did not do so again unless absolutely necessarry)

To the present generation, with personal experience of war, the point may have greater force than to the closeted historians. To the former, the highest commander who aspires to be a platoon leader, thrusting himself into the fight at the expense of his proper duty of direction, is not the herioic or inspired figure that he appears to the civilian.

To some too, not the natural lovers of danger for its own sake - and these are rare in any army, - the point will touch a chord of memory, reminding them of how by the moral hold on their men given by one such exploit they were thereafter enabled to take the personal precautions which better befit the officer entrusted with the lives of others.

The civilian at home poured scorn on the German officer 'leading' his men from behind; not so the fighting soldier, for he knew that when the occasion called, his officer enemy did not hestitate to risk,nay throw away his life as an example. The story still lives of the German officer who led a forlorn hope mounted on a white horse.

ravells · « **Reply #3 on:** March 04, 2004, 06:49:27 PM »

Toad, that is precisely why the bombs are going off in Iraq - because the contract IS reasonable and the only way to undermine it is to continue the bloodshed.

Ravs

MrCoffee · « **Reply #4 on:** March 04, 2004, 06:54:41 PM »

Quote

There is only one alternative - annihiliation.

Can you name one conflict in history where the opposing side was annihiliated. Wars are won at the strategic level, period.

ravells · « **Reply #5 on:** March 04, 2004, 06:57:14 PM »

The second Punic war - the one that Hart was writing about.

Carthage was razed to the ground and sown with salt so nothing would ever grow there again (the equivalent of a nuclear bomb in 200 bc) and all its inhabitants killed or sold into slavery.

Ravs

Toad · « **Reply #6 on:** March 04, 2004, 06:58:49 PM »

Rome v Carthage comes pretty close to annihilation.

CC, Ravs; just pre-empting. They'll be along shortly.

Toad · « **Reply #7 on:** March 04, 2004, 06:59:20 PM »

Dang, Ravs.. yer quick!

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #8 on:** March 04, 2004, 06:59:50 PM »

Didn't the Incas/Incans or Aztecs get annihilated?
-SW

ravells · « **Reply #9 on:** March 04, 2004, 07:00:04 PM »

lol!

snap!

Ravs

MrCoffee · « **Reply #10 on:** March 04, 2004, 07:00:35 PM »

Ok, well there may be a few examples but they are far and rare and inefficient way.

ravells · « **Reply #11 on:** March 04, 2004, 07:03:20 PM »

Mr Coffee! Shame on you!

If you are an American, take a look at the history of your own country!

Or Australia for that matter.

Ravs

[edit or the Jutes or the Icenii in England] - just to be fair and balanced.

MrCoffee · « **Reply #12 on:** March 04, 2004, 07:27:00 PM »

Ravells, you are talking about more or less genocide as the overall plan or strategy. Off all the wars there ever was, there are still few wars where total annihilation was the result of some sort of victory. I havent even had my coffee today, cough ***.

ravells · « **Reply #13 on:** March 04, 2004, 07:34:14 PM »

The destruction of which Hart speaks is not necessarrily of human life, but of a way of life. Nevertheless, there are many examples of the former (in ancient history) and many of the latter.

Grab a double expresso and get back to me!

Ravs