God of War, War gods

Posted on 17 September 2024 by Les armes et la toge

Many cultures have their own god of war, but this function is often tied to other roles. This shows us how each culture perceives war. Here’s an overview of the main war gods from different cultures around the world. The list is, of course, not exhaustive.

War gods in Africa

Ogun (West Africa, mainly among the Yoruba). Ogun is the god of war, iron, and hunting. He is also linked to technology and industry. He is the patron of blacksmiths and symbolizes both violence and justice.

Gu (Benin, among the Fon). He is often associated with Ogun but also represents strength, metallurgy, and destruction.

Sekhmet (Ancient Egypt) is a goddess of war, destruction, and healing in Egyptian mythology. She appears in the form of a lioness, symbolizing her ferocity in battle. According to myths, Ra, the sun god, sent her to punish humanity, and she nearly wiped out humanity in her rage. However, she is also a healer, capable of curing diseases, making her a complex deity, embodying both war and healing.

Western Europe: tension between brutality and intelligence

Greek and Roman mythology

Ares (Ancient Greece). God of brutal war, violence, and destruction, Ares embodies the wild side of conflict. He is associated with bloody and disorganized battle.

Athena (Ancient Greece). Goddess of wisdom but also of strategy and intelligence in war. Athena symbolizes just war, protection, and military strategy.

Mars (Ancient Rome). Inspired by Ares, Mars is the god of war but also a protector of fields and agriculture. Rome venerates him as a god of military power and honor.

Gaul

Teutates (Gaul). In Celtic religion, Teutates is one of the three main gods mentioned by Roman sources, often compared to Mars. He is a protector god of tribes and warriors, invoked in warrior rituals. Some human sacrifices were offered to him before battles.

Camulos (Gaul). Another Celtic god of war, Camulos is revered in Gaul and Great Britain. He is often compared to Mars and is depicted with military symbols of power.

Sucellos (Gaul). While generally seen as a god of fertility and blacksmiths, Sucellos also has warrior aspects, particularly as the wielder of the mallet, a symbol of strength and destructive power.

Astérix and Obélix (France). Astérix and Obélix are the two major warrior figures of the French pantheon. Always invoked at the start of battles involving French troops, they continue to inspire strategists and warriors. They fear only one thing: that the sky will fall on their heads.

Norse mythology

Thor (Norse mythology) is the god of thunder, lightning, and protection in Norse mythology, but he also plays an important role as a war god. While Odin and Týr are more specifically associated with war, Thor is often invoked by warriors for his unmatched strength and destructive power. He fights giants, enemies of the gods, and protects humanity with his famous hammer, Mjölnir. He represents bravery, raw power, and the defense of order against chaos.

Odin (Norse mythology). Although he is a god of wisdom, Odin is often invoked by Viking warriors to guide them in battle.

Opposite: the Norse god Odin enthroned, flanked by his two wolves, Geri and Freki, and his two ravens, Huginn and Muninn, and holding his spear Gungnir.

Týr (Norse mythology). Týr is the god of courage, honor, and war. He symbolizes war as an act of justice.

Opposite: Týr et Fenrir

Asia, some war gods

Indra (Hinduism, India). King of the gods and god of war, storms, and the sky. Indra is also the defender of the heavens, the one who fights demons.

Kartikeya (Hinduism, India). God of war and commander of the celestial armies. He also rules over victory, youth, and courage.

Hachiman (Japan). Shinto god of war and protector of samurai warriors. The Japanese also considered him a protector god of their country.

Aresha (Zoroastrianism, Persia). God of victory and justice, he represents balance in conflict and triumph over chaos.

Chi You (Ancient China). An ancient war chief and god of war in Chinese folklore. He is also considered a legendary figure who led rebellions and epic battles.

Middle East, gods of war and destruction

Anat (Phoenicians). Goddess of war and fertility, she is a powerful and aggressive figure associated with destruction in battles.

Nergal (Mesopotamia). God of war and destruction, he is also linked to the underworld. A god of violence, epidemics, and chaos.

America, celestial figures

Huitzilopochtli (Aztecs, Mesoamerica). God of war, the sun, and patron of the Aztec capital, Tenochtitlan. Huitzilopochtli is also associated with victory and human sacrifice to maintain cosmic order.

Tezcatlipoca (Aztecs). Though primarily a god of the night, he also plays a role in conflicts and conflict.

Opposite: Quetzalcoatl andTezcatlipoca

Mixcoatl (Aztecs). God of hunting and war, he is also linked to stars and celestial paths.

Viracocha (Incas, Andes). Creator god, but also a god of war for bringing order by conquering darkness.

Oceania – God of war

Ku (Hawaii). God of fighting, masculinity, and conquest. Ku is also worshiped for strength and victory, often through warrior rituals and sacrifices.

Tūmatauenga (Maori, New Zealand). God of human conflict. He is one of the principal gods in Maori mythology and represents the destructive aspect of humanity.

To conclude, these deities illustrate how cultures around the world have often personified war, each with its own characteristics, sometimes linked to violence, destruction, or wisdom, justice, and protection. They also give us insight into the place of war in each civilization.

Also read: Ares and Athena, gods of war.

Understanding Liddell Hart’s Indirect Approach

Posted on 5 September 2024 by Les armes et la toge

In Strategy, Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart develops the concept of the indirect approach. He provides a broad overview of military history from antiquity to World War II to demonstrate that the indirect approach yields far more decisive results at a significantly lower cost than the direct approach.

In Strategy, Sir Basil Henry Lidell Hart develops the notion of the indirect approach. He surveys military history from antiquity to the Second World War, to demonstrate that the indirect approach allows for much more decisive results at a significantly lower cost than the direct approach.

Avoiding Strength Against Strength

Liddell Hart contrasts the indirect approach, which he advocates, with the direct attack on the enemy’s army, for which he views Clausewitz as the main proponent. Indeed, in a strength-against-strength approach, even in the case of victory, it is likely that the winner will no longer be in a position to exploit their success.

One example he uses is the Battle of Malplaquet. In 1709, the French were on the ropes; the numerical superiority of the coalition (England, Austria, the Netherlands) was overwhelming. As a result, Marlborough and Prince Eugene opted for a direct approach, with the well-known outcome. Their losses were so severe that, despite their victory, they destroyed any hope of winning the war.

Liddell Hart’s Indirect Approach : A Geographical Approach

According to Liddell Hart, a series of movements along the line of least expectation, threatening multiple objectives at once, should allow for surprising the enemy and striking them where they are weakest while keeping them uncertain, “on the horns of a dilemma” (Sherman). This method has proven far more decisive and economical throughout history than the direct attack on the enemy’s army.

For example, in 1864, Sherman’s raid did not target the Confederate army but the cities. He took care to always move in a direction that forced Confederate forces to defend multiple objectives. This movement proved decisive and hastened the defeat of the Confederacy.

The indirect approach for Liddell Hart is initially geographical, but it also has another dimension.

Deception and Psychology

The geographical dimension of the indirect approach, which brings surprise and indecision, is inseparable from its psychological dimension.

Liddell Hart recounts numerous instances of military deception in Strategy, such as Napoleon’s ruse at Arcole, where he sent his trumpeters behind enemy lines to signal a fake charge. The purpose of deception is to create a psychological effect, targeting the mind of the opposing commander. The indirect approach seeks to unbalance the enemy psychologically as much as physically.

Liddell Hart cites the example of Germany’s capitulation at the end of World War I. In 1918, the German armies were undoubtedly in a bad situation, but they were not yet defeated. Nevertheless, Germany surrendered. This can be explained by the fact that the Entente’s offensive in the Balkans shattered the German High Command’s confidence, leading them to believe—perhaps wrongly—that there was no way out of their situation.

Imbalance and Center of Gravity

The goal remains to unbalance the enemy, through actions on their forces, but also on the psychology of their leader.

Ultimately, the core of Liddell Hart’s analysis is the search for the enemy’s center of gravity, which is not necessarily their army. It can be material, such as their rear supply lines, or immaterial, like the mind of their commander.

It’s not about simply attacking the enemy where they are weakest, but rather identifying the point that, when pressured, will unbalance the enemy’s entire system with minimal effort. Liddell Hart is probably much closer to Clausewitz than he thinks…

Strategy and Grand Strategy

Liddell Hart’s analysis is limited to the use of military means within an armed conflict. This is because, for Liddell Hart, “strategy” is confined to warfare and is limited to the use of military forces. Only “grand strategy” looks beyond the horizon of war and considers the use of non-military means.

Finally, it’s worth noting that Liddell Hart’s reading of Clausewitz seems somewhat superficial. His thinking is reduced to a doctrine of frontal and reckless attacks on the enemy’s strongest point, whereas On War contains much more than that. However, discussing it here would take us too far…

Aristotle’s Five Forms of Courage

Posted on 4 September 2024 by Les armes et la toge

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses morality, the good, and virtues. In Book III, he dedicates a few pages to courage.

Courage in Aristotle’s View

For Aristotle, courage is a virtue marked by moderation, a balance between recklessness and excessive fear.

A courageous person is one who can endure the risk of death, particularly in war, “in the midst of the greatest and most glorious dangers.” But there is a condition: their actions must be guided by reason. In fact, reason must lead to the conviction that facing dangers is beautiful, meaning it aligns with the highest values of the city. Without the nobility of the motive behind the action, there is no true courage.

Aristotle examines five forms of courage, or rather five behaviors that more or less resemble courage as he defines it.

Civic Courage for Aristotle

This is the form that comes closest to true courage. Indeed, “citizens, it seems, face dangers as much out of fear of the penalties imposed by laws and dishonor as out of desire for honors.” It is therefore driven both by the pursuit of honor and the will to avoid shame. The courage of troops compelled by their leader is of a lower order, as these men act out of fear not of dishonor, but of punishment. They are forced to appear brave, but the goal they seek does not align with their conduct.

Martial Attitude

Courage can also come from experience with the proximity of dangers: professional troops know how to distinguish between a situation with no real risk and a true danger. However, this only gives the appearance of courage, as this experience allows them to recognize the real nature of danger, but not to face it bravely. Thus, professional soldiers may seem courageous in the presence of dangers they alone know to be harmless, only to turn and flee when a real threat emerges.

Courage from Anger

The courage that comes from anger is again just the appearance of true courage. Choices made under the influence of passion are not driven by a pursuit of honor. This is the courage of animals. A man driven by passion only becomes truly courageous if he is first guided by reason and pursues a noble goal.

Courage from Confidence

The courage of overconfident people is not true courage. Their confidence stems only from past victories and from believing they have nothing to fear. It is, therefore, a reassuring illusion. When a setback occurs, that confidence crumbles.

Ignorance of Danger

Finally, ignorance of danger cannot be equated with courage. It is merely carelessness.

For Aristotle, courage is an individual and warrior-like virtue. It is only realized through noble action carried out for a noble cause. This virtue fits within the framework of Greek society’s values: it is the city that determines what is noble or shameful. Courage, though an individual virtue, is thus politically constructed.

“The courageous man is as free from fear as man can be. While even he feels fear in things not beyond human strength, he faces them as he should and as reason demands, for a noble cause.”

— Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics

Strategy according to General Beaufre’s “Introduction to Strategy”

Posted on 2 September 2024 by Nicolas Blanchard-Farce

In Introduction à la stratégie (Introduction to Strategy), French General André Beaufre presents the conclusions of his reflections on strategy in a dense, concise, and clear text.

According to Beaufre, the meaning of the term “strategy” is often misunderstood. Historically, it was the science and art of supreme command, transmitted by example. However, with the evolution of warfare, this empirical transmission became obsolete, giving way to strategic research.

Nevertheless, this research remains inevitably influenced by the conflicts of its time. Only an abstract approach truly allows one to grasp the nature of strategy.

The Purpose of Strategy According to Beaufre

Before defining strategy, one must understand its purpose. Strategy does not unfold in a vacuum; it has a clear goal:

“The purpose of strategy is to achieve the objectives set by politics by making the best use of available means.”

Beaufre’s Definition of Strategy

Following the purpose, comes the definition. The famous definition of strategy appears early in Beaufre’s work. It is “the art of the dialectic of wills using force to resolve their conflict.”

In war, each side seeks the opponent’s acceptance of the conditions it wishes to impose. Ultimately, it’s about convincing the other that continuing the fight is futile. Strategy thus targets the opponent’s will.

It is by placing a strategic problem within the psychological terrain of the adversary that one can properly assess the decisive factors. Therefore, the goal is to “reach a decision by creating and exploiting a situation that leads to a moral disintegration of the opponent, sufficient to make them accept the conditions one wants to impose.”

Thus, both sides aim simultaneously for the moral disintegration of the other. Strategic action is therefore dialectical: each side seeks to act while countering the actions of the other. Strategy becomes a struggle for freedom of action.

In the final analysis, according to Beaufre, strategy should be considered an art, as it requires the strategist to assess key elements based solely on their judgment. It is impossible to establish a set of rules that would apply in every circumstance.

The Means of Strategy According to Beaufre

Both belligerants choose their means by confronting the possibilities and vulnerabilities of the adversary. The question becomes: who do we want to defeat?

This leads to very concrete questions. For example: is capturing the enemy’s capital essential or not? Is the enemy particularly sensitive to human losses? The goal is to find the best way to achieve moral disintegration. From this confrontation of possibilities and the adversary’s vulnerabilities, a strategic objective emerges.

Strategic “Models”

General Beaufre identifies five strategic “models” based on means and objectives:

Very powerful means for a modest objective: exerting a direct threat (nuclear deterrence).
Modest objective, but insufficient means: limited freedom of action, requiring indirect pressure.
Important objective, but limited means and freedom of action: successive limited actions, like Hitler between 1935 and 1939.
Great freedom of action but weak means: prolonged total struggle of low military intensity, leading to the adversary’s moral exhaustion.
Strong military means: military victory through the destruction of the enemy’s forces and occupation of its territory. However, the objective remains the opponent’s will. This model only works with a quick victory; otherwise, its cost becomes disproportionate to the stakes.

*

For General André Beaufre, strategy is “the art of the dialectic of wills using force to resolve their conflict.” It serves to “achieve the objectives set by politics by making the best use of available means.”

Strategic reasoning thus combines both material and psychological factors. It is a method of thinking that allows one to direct events rather than merely endure them.

Arms and Toga

The general and strategic culture site

Monthly Archives: September 2024