Summary Of Geoffrey Parker's Concept Of The Western Way Of War

There is an oversimplification in Geoffrey Parker’s concept of the Western Way of War. One of the major flaws of the idea is the ambiguity in the definitions of western warfare. What constitutes pitched battles fought primarily with heavy infantry as solely ‘western’? Where do we draw the line between what is east and what is west in terms of military stratagem? In The Cambridge History of Warfare, Parker’s thesis explained that western societies throughout history have generally fought battles in a similar fashion based on technological superiority, discipline, and innovation. It is easy to cherry-pick ways in which battles were conducted throughout history to fit the concept of a western way of war from those basic theories. Unfortunately,
In his book, he mentioned the astounding continuity in western military traditions based on influential strategists like Vegetius and Clausewitz. As an example, Vegetius’s compendium on Roman military practice, Concerning Military Matters remained influential for more than 1000 years and was read by notable figures in history like George Washington. Furthermore, classical works on military affairs from ancient times remained popular and influential among European leaders. For instance, the Dutch innovation in the Eighty Years’ War and subsequent success was sparked by Maurice of Nassau, who studied a classical military doctrine to improve the Dutch infantry. In World War I, Germany’s The Schlieffen Plan was modeled from Hannibal’s successful double envelopment maneuver in the Battle of Cannae. These examples showed that there was consistency in how wars were fought by the western societies. Nonetheless, Parker failed to realize the similar ideologies of Vegetius and Sun Tzu. Both strategists did not differ greatly in their core ideas of warfare despite the contrasting matter of emphasis. Vegetius was a heavy influence on generals during the Medieval period. The Middle Ages saw the emergence of siege warfare such as skirmishes that came to prominence during this period. The British performed raids called the ‘Chevauchee’ on French territory
Typically, western armies would rely on small units of well-trained infantry with technological superiority to even the odds against their enemies. In spite of that, Eastern ideologies also emphasized discipline and organization of infantry units. A closer inspection of the Persians and their elite group of soldiers called The Immortals can undoubtedly be classified as well-trained infantry. Moreover, Herodotus informed that The Immortals also wore iron scale cuirasses that provided enough protection similar to the armored Greek hoplites. Thus, the similar characteristics between elite Persian squad and Greek hoplites should not be disregarded due to the Persians’ eastern roots based on Parker’s concept. The author also mentioned that western military practice had always exalted discipline as the primary instrument that unified individuals into fighting as an organized unit rather than kinship, religion, or patriotism. In spite of that, Napoleon would not have been as successful in his battles during the Napoleonic Wars without a devoted army who were willing to sacrifice themselves for their country. The French Revolution and the rise of the Prussian army would not be possible without enthusiasm and patriotism of its’ soldiers. These exceptions to the Western Way of War certainly raised