# War Aims



## sknox (Jan 7, 2018)

We talk a lot about war here. Tangentially, we've mentioned what this or that war was supposed to accomplish (see the WWI thread). It made me stop and think a bit (curious phrase; why don't we *go* and think?).

Have wars always had specific aims? I immediately go to pre-modern wars, in part because I'm a medievalist, but also because I know that war, like almost everything else, changed profoundly after the Dual Revolution (Industrial and French). I look to the pre-modern age for exceptions.

But the first war that sprang to mind was the First Crusade, which had fairly specific aims: the liberation of the Holy Sepulchre and the protection of sacred places in the Holy Land. We can argue endlessly about "real" motives, but those war aims were stated explicitly.

So, too, with the Hundred Years War. The King of England claimed he was also the King of France. Pretty straightforward.

But go digging around and things get murkier. What were the goals of the War of the Eight Saints? How about the Sicilian Vespers? Charlemagne's second expedition against the Saxons? How about the endless fighting along the Welsh border or between the Danes and Frisians? 

I'll let others chime in here, but I *think* there may be a sea change I can spot. Speaking very generally, pre-modern war aims were mainly aggressive. I want that bit of land over there, I want to exert my authority there, or lay claim to a title. Modern wars are almost always couched in defensive terms. It's to save something, preserve something, prevent something.

OK, have at it.


----------



## reiver33 (Jan 7, 2018)

Until WW1, resorting to force of arms in pursuit of a stated national aim was considered a legitimate escalation should diplomacy come up short (war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means). Between the world wars, international conflict was considered almost a force of nature; it could break out even when all parties were hedging against it - one view of the web of treaties which escalated the Austro-Hungarian/Serbian conflict into a global war. Hence the League of Nations was established with the aim of defusing potential conflict, or at least mitigating its effects. Post-WW2 we had the hitherto unknown crime of 'waging aggressive war' - which I've always considered a catch-all created at Nuremburg to prosecute those in the Nazi leadership who didn't fall under 'crimes against humanity' (but then again I'm quite cynical).


----------



## The Judge (Jan 7, 2018)

I'm fond of quoting Jacob Bronowski's comment that war "is a highly planned and co-operative form of theft." 

Theft of territory and/or wealth in whatever form (minerals, crops, slaves) certainly seems to be the main focus before modern times, but it was still the motivating force behind a good deal of aggression throughout the C20th and I've no doubt it will be the same a good while longer albeit dressed up in different guises ie it's recovery of land now possessed by country B but was formerly part of A; it's liberating country A's citizens/potential citizens or co-religionists from country B's oppression; it's taking back land from people who are deemed non-natives/non-nationals.

I agree that it's often now couched in different terms, because of the need to spin the story, and appear to have right on one's side in the court of public opinion, something that wasn't so necessary in past centuries.


----------



## sknox (Jan 8, 2018)

I'm a fan of Bronowski. I even taught a course based around the Ascent of Man. Alas, I have to dissent somewhat from his statement here. Some wars are mostly theft, but not all. Even when territory and goods are taken, that does not mean that was the aim. A number of wars were launched in the 12th and 13th centuries against the pagan Slavs, the main aim of which was to return those peoples to the Christian Church (the wars almost always came after an initial conversion followed by apostasy and rebellion). To look only at the territory seized (or recovered, if you prefer) would be to gravely misunderstand the nature of the conflict. And those rebellions I mentioned, would they be considered theft as well? When the aims were to free themselves of what they regarded as a foreign god (and onerous taxes)?

The need to spin the story, too, has a long history, going at least as far back as St Augustine's writings on the theory of a just war. The desire to have right on one's side can be seen even in Thucydides and Herodotus.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Jan 8, 2018)

IMO war is all about power


----------



## sknox (Jan 8, 2018)

If war is all about power, what does that say about the individual soldier who fights in one?


----------



## Narkalui (Jan 13, 2018)

sknox said:


> If war is all about power, what does that say about the individual soldier who fights in one?



It says that if he volunteered, he was a fool. To voluntarily throw yourself into such a situation all because of some misguided faith in the Cult Of The Flag in spite of all the available information on its effects on the human body and psyche (that’s assuming you survive) is nothing short of folly.

That said, when in the presence of former service personnel I always experience a deep sense of respect and awe for their courage. But not envy. Never envy...


----------



## sknox (Jan 13, 2018)

>It says that if he volunteered....

What says? Nothing in the thread spoke of power until WaylanderToo mentioned it. And no one mentioned folly. Did I miss something?

What I was asking was this: if war is all about power, as WaylanderToo said, then is the individual soldier fighting for power? I would say no. Let's go up the line. The mid-rank officer is probably a lifer, even in earlier centuries. They're not fighting for power, either, though they might say they are supporting their nation or lord in a quest to gain or retain power. If war is all about power, are we really only talking about the top? The instigators of the war? But then I would ask, what about all the other justifications that are offered for war? Is everyone lying, across all the nations and kingdoms, for all of time? Can we not admit of other motivations and goals?


----------



## Narkalui (Jan 13, 2018)

If the powers that be were honest about their aggressive overtures then no one would enlist.

I’d Blair and Dubya had stated publicly that they wanted to invade Iraq so that modern Israel could control the borders of the ancient Isrealite Kingdom thus bringing about the rapture, then they’d both have been declared insane and removed from power. 

That’s why they lied about WMDs and links to Al Qaeda


----------



## svalbard (Jan 16, 2018)

sknox said:


> >It says that if he volunteered....
> 
> What says? Nothing in the thread spoke of power until WaylanderToo mentioned it. And no one mentioned folly. Did I miss something?
> 
> What I was asking was this: if war is all about power, as WaylanderToo said, then is the individual soldier fighting for power? I would say no. Let's go up the line. The mid-rank officer is probably a lifer, even in earlier centuries. They're not fighting for power, either, though they might say they are supporting their nation or lord in a quest to gain or retain power. If war is all about power, are we really only talking about the top? The instigators of the war? But then I would ask, what about all the other justifications that are offered for war? Is everyone lying, across all the nations and kingdoms, for all of time? Can we not admit of other motivations and goals?



It depends upon your time in history, is your society a warrior culture, are your belief systems based on a warlike god etc. A few examples.

1. For the Romans the Legions provided steady employment, healthcare, a chance to learn new skills and a pension at the end of your service. Quite modern really.

2. For the Athenian Greek it was about the city and freedom. 

3. A Macedonian Greek would have fought because of fealty to his lord, plunder and glory.

4. A Persian grunt because maybe he was coerced but that very much depended upon his status and country. 

5. Mercenaries for many reasons. Personal greed, psychopathic tendencies, a way to improve their lot in life.


----------



## sknox (Jan 17, 2018)

That's the point I was hinting at. Lots of different motivations, and they're easy to list. Then, if we can admit the troops have multiple, overlapping, and even contradictory motivations, why can we not admit the same for the leaders?

"War is all about power" is reductionist. That not only makes for bad history, it does an injustice to the people involved. Humans are complex creatures. Figuring out the varying motivations is exactly where history starts to get interesting. It is also where things are interesting for us as writers. Saying something is "all about X" removes all the interesting stuff and stops the conversation dead in its tracks.

I have to respond to the Romans, though. Especially in the Republic, military service could be downright catastrophic. It took farmers away from their farms for a decade or two, during their most productive years. Many a veteran found that his farm was neglected or that he'd had to sell it off. It's one reason why resettling veterans in colonies was such a big deal. About the only skill they learned was how to kill. Even in the Empire, I'm pretty sure, there was never a pension, only a mustering-out payment. Which could be quite generous, but still not a pension.


----------



## Overread (Jan 17, 2018)

It might be more true to say that very few wars were ever conducted without at least one key goal being the gain of new lands/monies/territories; or at the very least securing ones own boarders and protecting such assets. In the end typically whoever starts a war has to have something to gain from it, and since war is one of the most expensive and disruptive things a country can do (even more so in the past when populations were far lower and the logistics and demands far greater - and the nature of technology meant that having more numbers was a key part of helping you win); so there had to be some potential gain involved. 

Not just to help pay for it, but to help convince the other "higher ups" in the country  as well as merchants and the like to go with the idea of going to war. 

Of course the pretences for war are many, but often as not its hard to think of many nations willing to go to war for reasons other than their own gain and profit from the venture. Even in today's world the various peace-keeping armies/wars/forces are mostly there to help keep other nations stable to thus provide safer conditions for the home nation, as well as helping to secure alliances to nations within those disrupted regions.

Of course the perception of wars changes depending on who is viewing them. The general, the politician, the common person, the merchant, the middle/upper classes, the attacked, the peasant, the historian etc... Each different person might well have a very different view of any single war based upon their involvement and background. Overall you could boil down wars to resources, but at the personal level things like honour, bringing civilization, religious spread, duty, orders, force, etc.... might all be way that war is viewed. A peasant force drafted into the Napoleonic Wars might well view it very differently to the King who commits their armies to their allies to help try and ensure that any such rebellion against the monarchy fails so as to ensure their own secured position (and by king you also have to include the power structure underneath of those in power at the time).


Indeed if we follow that line of thought we do somewhat come to another type of war, often civil war, whereby the goal is a change of control. This is still resource based as such; yet where you've got people not in power (or in marginal power) who wish to increase their control significantly. Thus you get civil war where the nation itself might not increase in wealth (and likely will decrease during the war) yet where its all about the balance of power and politics of the running of the country that are in question.


----------



## svalbard (Jan 17, 2018)

sknox said:


> That's the point I was hinting at. Lots of different motivations, and they're easy to list. Then, if we can admit the troops have multiple, overlapping, and even contradictory motivations, why can we not admit the same for the leaders?
> 
> "War is all about power" is reductionist. That not only makes for bad history, it does an injustice to the people involved. Humans are complex creatures. Figuring out the varying motivations is exactly where history starts to get interesting. It is also where things are interesting for us as writers. Saying something is "all about X" removes all the interesting stuff and stops the conversation dead in its tracks.
> 
> I have to respond to the Romans, though. Especially in the Republic, military service could be downright catastrophic. It took farmers away from their farms for a decade or two, during their most productive years. Many a veteran found that his farm was neglected or that he'd had to sell it off. It's one reason why resettling veterans in colonies was such a big deal. About the only skill they learned was how to kill. Even in the Empire, I'm pretty sure, there was never a pension, only a mustering-out payment. Which could be quite generous, but still not a pension.



I meant pension in the lossest possible sense


----------



## sknox (Jan 18, 2018)

>Of course the pretences for war are many,
I'm reluctant to call them pretenses. I tend to take (historical) people at their word until the evidence demonstrates otherwise. So, for example, when Charlemagne first invaded Saxony, he did so in part because the Saxons kept raiding, but also because they were pagan and he regarded it as his proper duty to Christianize them. Since they kept killing off missionaries, he resorted to force. He was victorious and he did *not* try to take their lands. He took their conversion and went home.

They rebelled. He returned and conquered them again. They rebelled a third time. Only when it was obvious that they were going to remain pagan as a people did he not only invade, he scattered them as a people and re-settled Saxony with Franks. This all happened over the course of a couple of decades. A whole complex of motivations must have been at play (our sources are thin and pious), but I would not put control of resources high on the list. On the contrary, the fighting cost Charlemagne heavily. This is in contrast with, say, his invasions in Italy or Bavaria, which absolutely were about controlling territory.

I say again, it's far more rewarding and interesting (and, I'd argue, a truer practice of the historian's craft) to take into account as many motivations as we can, and not to discount any of them as false unless we can find evidence for it. In truth, we often can, but it pains me to see it done _a priori_, out of hand.


----------



## Caledfwlch (Jan 27, 2018)

I imagine that pretty much every War ever fought, whether Waged by a traditional Nation State, an ancient Kingdom, or a Rebellion by civilians, has reasons, they may seem silly (Honduras and El Salvador going to War over a football match in 1969!!!) or not make much sense to a mind adapted to 2017 but it will exist.

Skknox - when you refer to "constant fighting on the Welsh Borders are you referring to a specific time period of such?
Post the coming into existence of States bearing in various spellings the names we now know as Cymru and England and pre 1066, it's more a case that the same War that began being fought when the first Saxons landed in Britannia in the dark ages, looked around and like far less cute versions of the seagulls in Finding Nemo began barking "Mine!" "Mine!" "Mine!" has never really ended, and continuing to be fought, at least by some Welsh Kingdoms, even if mostly reduced to small border skirmishes and the ocassional but still fairly rare compared to older times, larger battle.
Plus!! If a Welshman has no Sheepies, and an Englishman just over the border has 50 Sheepies, its only fair he gives up 3 or 4, afterall, he and his kin did take most of our land  and he's not going to starve, is he, unlike the Welshman's family, as he will still have 46 sheepies for his family  Capitalism - it's bad see, hording Sheepies, everyone should have a sheepie, then there would be no need to steal sheepies from greedy men trying to corner the sheepie owning market by having 50 sheepies, if ewe see what I mean! 

After 1066, its 200 years of repeatedly kicking (in general) Norman ass, and handing it back to them, on their way back out of Cymru, until the final defeat and murder of Llewellyn The Last, after that up to the Owain Glyndwr and the Welsh War of Independence, it's sometimes Rebels striking a blow for the Dragon, but far more often back to the Sheepie thing.

After Owain Glyndwr's defeat utter peace, never a shot fired in anger, unless the shot was being fired, in anger by English or English led Militiamen against Welsh Strikers, Rioters etc except for that 1 time in 1797 the French landed some ships in Pembrokeshire, and instead of following orders to ferment Welsh resistance, and begin arming/equipping any volunteering Welshmen to act as Resistance Fighters, and Guides/Scouts for the small invasion force, they instead act all heavy handed, treat the locals like rubbish, and some were sent scurrying away into surrender or back to their ships after mistaking some very Angry women's red shawls coming after them for Redcoat Troops.

The whole Pembs thing was very bizarre really, the men landed had almost no training, many were prisoners still with ankle chains on, hardly any equipment, and nobody involved in planning the mission appeared to have actually looked up Intel on the area they had decided to land in. Otherwise they may have seen the alternate name for where they landed "Little England Beyond Wales" - South Pembs was extremely heavily anglicised, the native population drowned out by Normans, English and Flemish settlers in an early trial of Ethnic Cleansing. Even to this day, 2017, the people of South Pembs whilst these days they mostly consider themselves Welsh and are proud of it, outside of Welsh speaking farming and some rural families, the people of the towns like Haverfordwest, Milford Haven etc have what sounds very much like an English West Country Accent, maybe Herefordshire, thereabouts. I suppose it's possible that to English ears they sound Welsh, but to Welsh ears they sound English - and it's a lot stronger than the weird Newport accent for example which sounds heavily West Country influenced but still with a chunk of South Wales within it - South Pembs though, sounds utterly English to Welsh ears.


----------



## Danny McG (Jan 31, 2018)

Only a Welshman would have a pet name for a sheep!


----------



## svalbard (Feb 1, 2018)

dannymcg said:


> Only a Welshman would have a pet name for a sheep!



What? I thought everyone gave their sheep pet names.


----------



## sknox (Feb 1, 2018)

I give my pets sheep names. 
I give my pet names sheep.
I give my named sheep pets.
I give up.


----------



## Caledfwlch (Feb 5, 2018)

My fave Sheepie is called Eldritch, after Andrew Eldritch the singer/genius of Sisters of Mercy.
Believe it or not there are domesticated Sheepies here (and in Yorkshire!)


----------



## Caledfwlch (Feb 5, 2018)

sknox said:


> That's the point I was hinting at. Lots of different motivations, and they're easy to list. Then, if we can admit the troops have multiple, overlapping, and even contradictory motivations, why can we not admit the same for the leaders?
> 
> "War is all about power" is reductionist. That not only makes for bad history, it does an injustice to the people involved. Humans are complex creatures. Figuring out the varying motivations is exactly where history starts to get interesting. It is also where things are interesting for us as writers. Saying something is "all about X" removes all the interesting stuff and stops the conversation dead in its tracks.
> 
> I have to respond to the Romans, though. Especially in the Republic, military service could be downright catastrophic. It took farmers away from their farms for a decade or two, during their most productive years. Many a veteran found that his farm was neglected or that he'd had to sell it off. It's one reason why resettling veterans in colonies was such a big deal. About the only skill they learned was how to kill. Even in the Empire, I'm pretty sure, there was never a pension, only a mustering-out payment. Which could be quite generous, but still not a pension.



Aerarium militare - Wikipedia

_The *aerarium militare* was the military treasury of Imperial Rome. It was instituted by Augustus, the first Roman emperor, as a "permanent revenue source"[1] for pensions (praemia) for veterans of the Imperial Roman army. _

The Roman Empire knew well the possibility, and perhaps fear of highly trained and very annoyed Military Veterans raising a Coup, and appears to have treated Veterans pretty well after their 25 years Service, equally, those who served a full term in the Auxillary Cohorts were given Roman Citizenship as 1 boon for example.


----------



## sknox (Feb 5, 2018)

From the same article:  "... A soldier earned a one-time _praemium_ or discharge benefit ..."
When I hear pension I think of regular payments for the balance of a person's lifetime. When I mentioned a "mustering-out payment" I was referring to the praemium. It's a small point but perhaps worth making. Maybe "pension" has a different connotation in different countries. At least we aren't talking about hotels!


----------



## Caledfwlch (Feb 6, 2018)

sknox said:


> From the same article:  "... A soldier earned a one-time _praemium_ or discharge benefit ..."
> When I hear pension I think of regular payments for the balance of a person's lifetime. When I mentioned a "mustering-out payment" I was referring to the praemium. It's a small point but perhaps worth making. Maybe "pension" has a different connotation in different countries. At least we aren't talking about hotels!



Modern English views Pension indeed as meaning "to continually pay" as you say, quite rightly, but the Roman mind viewed the word, or it's latin root words as simply meaning "to pay" which does not suggest a continual cycle of payments. So We are all technically correct I guess!


----------



## Caledfwlch (Feb 6, 2018)

Incidentally, I am sure the Roman Army DID have a Pension in the sense of a continued payment over a period of time.
I read Simon Scarrows marvellous Macro & Cato books, and I am sure he mentions that Legionaries (I think voluntarily) pay into some sort of fund administered by their Legion, which was a combination of insurance policy if injured and unable to continue to serve, and a small pension of sorts.


----------



## Caledfwlch (Feb 6, 2018)

This is more germane to our little side jaunt into Roman Pensions than the actual thread topic.
It's an interesting article from a "think tank" using the Romans, and the benefits such as Pensions they gave Imperial Troops, and how removing/downgrading those benefits contributed vastly to the collapse of the Empire, AND the Eastern and Western Empires, though when the Eastern Empire learned its mistakes (maybe they had a similar article to read?) it went on to live for another 1000 years, whilst the Western Empire stayed dead and buried - It's for Elites in the US Military & Civil Administration about the dangers of cost cutting on such things.
Lessons from the Late Roman Army


----------



## sknox (Feb 6, 2018)

It is a bit of a side jaunt, though the general topic of how a society treats its army certainly is a factor in considering war aims. What a society does with its army in peace directly affects what it may hope to do in war.

When I look at the many wars with which I'm familiar (not because I'm a military historian but because there were a great many wars in the Middle Ages), the very phrase "war aims" gets awfully shaky. In the first place, going to war was not so clearly defined. A prince went to war, not a nation. That prince typically grievances of one sort or another, or claims or both, and resorting to physical violence was simply the means to redress or assert. He would present the case to his barons, who joined him or not. The prince declared a date and place for assembling troops, and it was always a bit of a surprise to see who actually turned up, and how long they stayed in the field with him.

Still more obscure would be the activities of individual barons (I use the term to cover all the lesser to middling nobility), who would launch raids against one another that often looked more like family feuds, or gang rivalries, than like wars. Then there were cities, which had militia that they deployed in endless military adventures, offensive or defensive. Most of these leave no trace of motives, but when something like a justification pops up, it's almost always couched as a defense of liberties or rights--not the way we think of this, but as liberties as specifically attached to bits of land. 

There's the endless fighting in southern Italy, where the rules of vendetta formed the rules of war, and combat in the field blended over into kidnap and assassination. There's the almost as endless fighting in Spain between Christians and Moors, whose details look a crazy patchwork when viewed solely in terms of a war between religions. Similarly with the wars of the eastern frontier between Germans, Poles, Slavs and Russians. Broadly one can see it as Roman Catholics versus pagans versus Russian Orthodox, but in looking at specific campaigns it's clear that is more context than particular war aim.

I'm inclined to argue that it's misleading to speak of war aims during the Middle Ages in the same sense and degree that it's misleading to look at truces and peace treaties during that time in modern terms. There was a huge shift in the early modern era, and it divides medieval from modern. Because of this, I draw back from assertions that say war has "always" been this or that. Wars have changed. Looking at the specifics will tell us more than will any broad generalization.  Humans are always more interesting than humanity, or so sez I.


----------



## Caledfwlch (Feb 7, 2018)

I think it depends on whether we decide there is a formal set of "proper" War Aims, and if something does not fall within those, then it's "muddled" etc.

I could see that "proper" aims would be stuff like "defend our land" "conquer land for its wealth/agriculture/resources etc" "Revenge against opponent for past issues " "flex my muscles so nobody will mess with me and my dawgs"

Whilst "im going to war because Lord X cheated at our last Poker game" would be more muddled.

Even your example of Moors v Christians - whilst as you say describing them simply as "Religious Wars" is a very simple Aim to subscribe to a complex situation, it does still essentially boil down to "Us" vs "Them" in a context where "Them" came from somewhere else.
Sure, a Christian Lord may well work with a Moorish Lord in order to take out, or take from another Christian Lord, and all sorts of combinations of that, but that's more a case of immediate Greed perhaps getting in the way of an ideal Long Term Goal.
The Germanic Invasions of dark ages Britannia for example fairly simply boil down to 1 aim on each side: Germanics: "We need to steal good Land to settle" the Britons "We need to stop our Land being stolen, and send those barbarian thugs back across the Germanic Ocean"
That's the long term ideal aim of both sides. But the reality is, British Kings would have allied with Germanic Kings, to attack and harm rival British Kingdoms, Saxon Kings would betray Saxon Kings to the Britons, in order to achieve an immediate aim based on personal greed, or even as part of the ultimate aim - maybe betrayed King was a danger to the goal of "steal Good Land to protect for me and my people" and for whatever reason, the alliance with the British King has caused that ultimate Aim to be delayed by 10 years, BUT not going for that alliance/the betrayal could have seen that ultimate aim defeated within 4 years - the British King actually wanted to come after you first, he wasn't being bothered by your now betrayed rival, also because your betrayed rival knew the British King wasn't coming after him, he was planning on attacking you from the rear, once your lads were engaged with the Britons, however, you either promised a better deal, or paid a bit more gold, so your deal, despite being less advantageous to the British King, in terms of his ultimate Aim, was taken, thanks to the British Kings own immediate greed.


----------



## sknox (Feb 7, 2018)

I guess it's the boiling down that gets under my skin. As a historian, it's the variation that interest me, not the reduction. Pretty much all human behavior and all human societies can be boiled down until there's nothing left but bones, and yes bones merit study in their own right, but that's not the whole of the story. 

Where I get bothered is when people look at the bones ("the bottom line", "what it all boils down to", "what it really is", and all such variations) and speak as if they have found some truer truth and further examination is unnecessary. The rhetoric of boiling down invites that. We have, the words imply, arrived at the destination and the journey is over. We have the core truth, so the discussion is over.

I'm pretty sure I worry over this not least because I'm a teacher. My whole job is to teach students to keep going, that the discussion is never over, to get them to elaborate rather than to boil down, to explore rather than to declare. And because it is a human instinct to simplify, my job is eternal. Sometimes it spills over into forums.   This is exacerbated because I'm now also a writer. I never want characters who have only one motive, one behavior, and there is never a core truth. Finally, I worry over this because I'm sure I'm right, that the proper practice of the historian's craft is precisely not to boil down, but to describe human behavior in all its complexity and resist the temptation to reduce, for reductionism is a cardinal sin among our folk.

All that taken together can make me a bit of a bore.

>I think it depends on whether we decide there is a formal set of "proper" War Aims
Exactly. The phrase should be used with some awareness of historical context. Is it the same in 400BC as in 400AD as in 1400 as in 2000? I argue it is not; therefore, it is a mistake to speak of war aims as if they were a universal and constant concept.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Feb 27, 2018)

Very few wars have been waged against countries that have nothing or relatively little for the aggressor to gain.

Most wars have been fought with some justification from the aggressor for their actions. Whether those justifications were justified depends on whether they won or not. The Americans used the atomic bomb against Japan to end WW2 quicker; the British firebombed major German cities for the same reason. If it had been the Japanese or Germans that had carried out those acts, they would have been seen as warcrimes or crimes against humanity. As it was the victors who did it they were seen as necessary acts.


----------

