(Modern Warfare Generations)

The idea that governments are uniquely able to start fight and finish wars is a product of the treaty of Westphalia. This ‘irregularity’ of western civilization survived long enough that the average idiot can’t… https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/1015638886

—“This is a pretty gross misreading of history.”— Ed Rotski

That’s not an argument. Make one.
“Modern War begins after Westphalia.”
“Westphalia Gave The State A Monopoly on War.”
“Through all of history families, clans, cities, ethnic groups, religions, private companies (conquest of india) … fought wars.”
“The Church lost it’s ability to conduct warfare in Europe”

—“1. Treaty of Westphalia is hardly unique.
2. The whole arc of state building in the middle ages was to arrogate war making to the central government, that is, to abolish private war. That process was largely done by turn of the 16th century.”—- Ed Rotski

—-“Whoever told you modern war starts with Westphalia is just wrong.”— Ed Rotski

I will let you argue with William Lind, and every other military historian. Rather than waste my time with someone lacking basic knowledge of the generations of modern warfare and their beginnings in the 1640’s.

—“Really? Talk to Delbruck, or Kauper, or Lynn, Potter, Wilson, Weigley, Dodge, Duffy, Chandler, Nosworthy, or even Comines. Your assertions are not just bad, they’re “the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor” bad. You are hideously ignorant.”—-

1) OK. Game on. It’ll be good education for the audience. Here is the Generations of Warfare definition I made use of.

2) Delbruck defines ‘modern’ as beginning with the italian renaissance. Kaeuper is a medievalist and I don’t know how he defines ‘modern’. …

3) As far as I know Lynn defines modern as 1650 – the end of ‘pillaging’. So he agrees. Potter doesn’t make a distinction that I know of and I don’t know why you’d include him. Same with Wilson unless you’re referring to someone other than the Tower collection historian.

4) Same for Nosworthy? Are you just spamming names?

5) And Why not Lind, Keegan, or Van Creveld? Why aren’t they in your list?

6) Just search for “Generations of Warfare”.

7) And how does any author you listed have anything to do with my OP and its argument? How does it have anything to do with 4/5gw and the return of non-state actors? What rock do you live under?

8) an endless stream of morons waste my time.

—“Modern warfare doesn’t start until nation in arms and mass conscription, and the final adoption of the modern organizations, battalion, brigade, division, corps. That is so clear. And Lynn is wrong if he thinks people stopped pillaging in the 1650s.”— Ed Rotski

OMFG. Look, do you know how many historical models and cycles have been proposed? You can make any distinction yuo want. However, the one that I referred to was the one that every theorist I know and every other think tank I know of, uses.

So between your …. ‘opinion’. Your ‘straw men’ list, and the fact that the only person on your list who said anything close agrees with 1650, and that I pointed to a reference for an index of generations that gets 36M google hits, I”m gonna cast you as a basement dwelling loon.
May 29, 2018 7:39pm