One of the defining carateristics of civilization is meatal weapons,
thus is war civilized during the period 3000 B.C.E through 1500 A.D.?

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 02 May 2004 19:07 PDT

chiefy00-ga,

Your question certainly touches on some interesting topics, but I'm
not sure I fully understand what you're asking.

Being "civilized" means different things, in different contexts. 
Discovering how to use metal, and turn it into weapons, was certainly
one of the notable advancements in the emergence of modern
technological civilizations.

But as for war, itself, being civilized, one has to question whether
there ever can be such a thing as  "civilized" warfare.  To the extent
people embrace this idea at all, I think it is in reference to the
warring sides following certain principles and rules of engagement,
such as those embodied (in the modern age) in the Geneva Principles.

So...are you asking if early civilizations during the Bronze Age and
Iron Age had any sort of civilizing rules by which their wars were
fought?  Or is your question something else entirely?

I look forward to hearing back from you.

pafalafa-ga

---

Request for Question Clarification by digsalot-ga on 02 May 2004 20:03 PDT

The time span of your question and a lack of regional interest makes a
general answer rather difficult.  If the criteria is simply the use of
metal weapons, then warfare has been civilized to some extent through
most of the time frame involved.  If the question deals with rules of
conduct and warfare, then things vary widely.  I can name at least one
battle taking place during the European Middle Ages where everything
came to a halt because one of the combatants was 'accidently' killed. 
There were also wars where capturing rather than killing an opponent
was the ultimate goal.

As it reads now, your question covers 4500 years of history and the
principles of warfare from every culture worldwide.

We need your help to narrow things down a bit.

If you give pafalafa-ga the information he wants, you will have an
excellent researcher working on your answer.

Cheers
digs

---

Clarification of Question by chiefy00-ga on 02 May 2004 22:28 PDT

I guess I am looking for an opinion on the following quesion for a project..
One of the defining characteristics of civilization is metal weapons.
Thus is war by definition civilized? Is mankind doomed to a future of
war or will civilization ever evolve beyond that point? During the
period of 3000 B.C.E. through 1500 AD.

Personally I?m a bit stumped here as well. The advent of metal weapons
brought into limelight the awesome ability to render a foe dead much
easier and much more accurately than in previous encounters. This did
lead to a ?change? in the way wars were fought, but I?m not sure it
was a ?civilized? change. The time frame, as digs has pointed out is
rather huge, and variances are all over the place and, as Digs again
pointed out again, there were some rather interesting ?civilized?
battles fought during that time. But there were also battles where the
dead were left too rot for a while and then catapulted over the walls
of a city under siege, thus causing those inside to suffer from
disease and plague. Hardly ?civilized? in anyone?s book (in fact this
is often referred to as the first battles in which chemical warfare
was used).

A steel sword can hold an edge for several hours in constant battle
conditions, in the hands of a trained solider who knows how to use the
weapon effectively enough to keep his edge from meeting the other guys
sword or shield while in combat. We are talking about an edge, which
can still sever a limb from a living body. An iron sword lasts for
about an hour, and with bronze, even less.

This was a significant difference. What it meant to those involved was
that many more deaths would occur in any given melee. Whereas before,
several deaths might occur, but after that, you were smashing each
other with blunt weapons, and not ?killing? as much with the same
blows. This caused a great strain on population. It was also
understood that winning a war or a battle was useless if you didn?t
have a population afterwards to maintain the conquered land.

But if you mean by ?civilized? that a practical look at war and its
effects on the standing nation in question was brought up and saw as a
reasonable method to conduct yourself during battle, then war had been
civilized back in the days of Sun Tzu, and the Art of War.

Both of the researchers above are very good at what they do, and they
aren?t alone in our ranks, but I?m afraid that without a better
guideline to your question, what we could give you, would not measure
up to our normal standards.

webadept-ga

Caesar - on his own approach. Civilized, or?


"caes.gal.8.44":    [8.44] Caesar, being convinced that his lenity was
known to all men, and being under no fears of being thought to act
severely from a natural cruelty, and perceiving that there would be no
end to his troubles if several states should attempt to rebel in like
manner and in different places, resolved to deter others by inflicting
an exemplary punishment on these. Accordingly he cut off the hands of
those who had borne arms against him. Their lives he spared, that the
punishment of their rebellion might be the more conspicuous. Drapes,
who I have said was taken by Caninius, either through indignation and
grief arising from his captivity, or through fear of severer
punishments, abstained from food for several days, and thus perished.
At the same time, Luterius, who, I have related, had escaped from the
battle, having fallen into the hands of Epasnactus, an Arvernian (for
he frequently changed his quarters, and threw himself on the honor of
several persons, as he saw that he dare not remain long in one place,
and was conscious how great an enemy he deserved to have in Caesar),
was by this Epasnactus, the Arvernian, a sincere friend of the Roman
people, delivered without any hesitation, a prisoner to Caesar.

I believe the understanding of "civilization" should go beyond the
mere use of tools or technology. When one is civilized, that involves
frameworks and structures of thinking over an action done by the
person or group. For example, when a tribe goes to war with another
tribe just to take their land and food stocks, one might consider that
a less civilized move. However, when the cause of war is a situation,
let's say a warrior from the first tribe insulted a warrior from the
second tribe, and the second tribe considers an insult to one member
an affront to their whole tribe and go to war because of it, that
might be considered a more civilized action. Since what you said was
that metal weapons is ONE of the DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS, there are
other defining characteristics that can be more important. I for one
would not find it difficult to believe that ancient societies may have
been civilized in martial matters in the manner that the United States
has today, such as giving ultimatums to another country or society and
negotiating before actually going to war.

Is this quite a civilized comment for you? :)

Chiefy --

I might suggest Daniel Mendelsohn's recent article in The New Yorker,
titled "Theaters of War."  It's good because it talks about standards
of behavior during the Peloponnesian War in Greece -- which started in
431 BC.

The war was the first to carry such detailed descriptions of war,
thanks to written histories and Greek plays.  It's also been the
subject of many recent books and academic studies, which Mendelsohn
notes.

Note the shifts in attitudes by Athenians towards the Mytilenes and
Melians -- both cities in which all of the men were to be killed; the
women & children sold into slavery.  (The sentence was carried out
only for one of the 2 cities.)

Both of the authors cited in the New Yorker article have released new
books.  And their analyses are topical because Dick Cheney, the
American vice-president, reportedly said to his staff that an article
titled "An Autumn of War: What America Learned from September 11 and
the War on Terrorism," drawing on the war writing of Thucydides,
"captured his philosophy."

The link to the article is below.  You may wish to print it out, as
The New Yorker website frequently removes past articles:
The New Yorker
"Theater of War" (Mendelsohn, Jan. 12, 2004)
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/?040112crat_atlarge

Best regards,

Omnivorous-GA

One, civilizations existed without significant metal-working, e.g.,
the New World civilizations in Mesoamerica and South America. The
Aztecs and Inca were highly civilized and warlike without metal
weapons. The Aztecs relied on extremely deadly obsidian weapons.

Two, war existed in cultures that are not usually regarded as having
attained civilization, e.g., Native American nations such as the Huron
and the Iroquois.

hlabadie-ga