![]() ![]() It is the interplay of this second trinity that this article will aim to reframe in order to show the inapplicability of it to Mesopotamian society during the Akkadian period (ca. According to Clausewitz, the interplay between the people (incorporating hate and violence), the armed forces (incorporating chance and probability), and the government (incorporating reason) is what makes the pure essence of war. Derived from this first trinity is a second trinity, which is represented by physical carriers of the emotional and intrinsic feelings of the first. This first trinity is, even in this case, timeless, though Clausewitz’s assessment basis for “policy” was distinct from what could be observed in modern-day scenarios or even in younger ancient empires such as that of the Romans. The third pillar is considered to be policy, which subordinates the first two pillars and makes them subject to reason. The second pillar is the interplay between chance and probability. The initial pillar of Clausewitz’s first trinity is a dialectic interplay between hate, primordial violence, and enmity. To maintain a clear distinction between the current perception of Clausewitz’s trinity and the one that will be presented in this article, the author will briefly depict the view that Clausewitz had when thinking about war. Absent any of these elements, and what you’re talking about is not war, but something else.” 3 Stemming from that approach, a logically consistent narrative has evolved that ranges from ancient times to today and argues that war, government, and the people together are inseparably intertwined to form Clausewitz’s famous trinity. Christopher Mewett writes, “War’s nature is violent, interactive, and fundamentally political. There is broad agreement among professional military philosophers and researchers that the nature of war can be applied without a specific reference in time. 2Īccording to Clausewitzian dogma, the battle between one and one’s enemy will encompass the main features of the nature of war. ![]() Although Clausewitz did not think about such modern weapons, they can all be included in the changing character of war since current mainstream research still emphasizes his definition of the nature of war. ![]() These tools range from the legionnaires of the Roman Empire, to the armed chivalry of the Medieval period, to contemporary mass armies that consist of infantry, aircraft, warships, and even nuclear weapons. The latter consists of features that can change over time, as they are predominantly the tools that are applied during armed conflict and therefore vary from period to period. The former is something immanent in war that differentiates war from other social phenomena and does not change over time. 1 One of the most cited philosophers of war, Clausewitz distinguished between the nature of war and the character of war. ![]() No other author has influenced the theory and perception of war like Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz in his main work Vom Kriege ( On War). The Current Perception of War: Clausewitz’s Trinity Keywords: Carl von Clausewitz, Mesopotamia, Sargon of Akkade, theory of war Although many of Sargon’s groundbreaking military innovations-such as establishing a standing professional army, securing lines of communication and supplies, and fortifying strategic positions-can be analyzed in a purely descriptive way, the focus of this article will be on his constructed relation to the Akkadian pantheon, which had a direct influence on the way warmongering was perceived. The main method of inquiry herein will be a textual analysis of Akkadian scriptures that relate to the campaigns of Sargon, the first ruler of the Akkadian Empire, and his reign in constituting the first empire of humankind, as well as sources that explain the role of religion in this historical epoch. The author argues that Clausewitz’s analysis of war, which relies on the main trinity of the people, the government, and the armed forces, is not applicable to the beginning of human history in Mesopotamia due to the specific circumstances that societies then faced. Given the special place that the divine realm took in the Akkadian worldview, manifesting even in everyday interaction, the author reworks the well-renowned trinity from the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz. 2234–2154 BCE) through fragments and clay tablets that have remained from that period in history more than 4,000 years ago. Abstract: In this article, the author investigates the concept of “war” during the Akkadian period (ca. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |