PDA

View Full Version : Τake me back to Constantinople



G3SG1
06-17-2010, 06:14 PM
a very interesting article from the known US analyst, EDWARD LUTTWAK



I've spent the past two decades poring over these texts to compile a study of Byzantine grand strategy. The United States would do well to heed the following seven lessons if it wishes to remain a great power:


I. Avoid war by every possible means, in all possible circumstances, but always act as if war might start at any time. Train intensively and be ready for battle at all times -- but do not be eager to fight. The highest purpose of combat readiness is to reduce the probability of having to fight.
II. Gather intelligence on the enemy and his mentality, and monitor his actions continuously. Efforts to do so by all possible means might not be very productive, but they are seldom wasted.
III. Campaign vigorously, both offensively and defensively, but avoid battles, especially large-scale battles, except in very favorable circumstances. Don't think like the Romans, who viewed persuasion as just an adjunct to force. Instead, employ force in the smallest possible doses to help persuade the persuadable and harm those not yet amenable to persuasion.
IV. Replace the battle of attrition and occupation of countries with maneuver warfare -- lightning strikes and offensive raids to disrupt enemies, followed by rapid withdrawals. The object is not to destroy your enemies, because they can become tomorrow's allies. A multiplicity of enemies can be less of a threat than just one, so long as they can be persuaded to attack one another.
V. Strive to end wars successfully by recruiting allies to change the balance of power. Diplomacy is even more important during war than peace. Reject, as the Byzantines did, the foolish aphorism that when the guns speak, diplomats fall silent. The most useful allies are those nearest to the enemy, for they know how best to fight his forces.
VI. Subversion is the cheapest path to victory. So cheap, in fact, as compared with the costs and risks of battle, that it must always be attempted, even with the most seemingly irreconcilable enemies. Remember: Even religious fanatics can be bribed, as the Byzantines were some of the first to discover, because zealots can be quite creative in inventing religious justifications for betraying their own cause ("since the ultimate victory of Islam is inevitable anyway …").
VII. When diplomacy and subversion are not enough and fighting is unavoidable, use methods and tactics that exploit enemy weaknesses, avoid consuming combat forces, and patiently whittle down the enemy's strength. This might require much time. But there is no urgency because as soon as one enemy is no more, another will surely take his place. All is constantly changing as rulers and nations rise and fall. Only the empire is eternal -- if, that is, it does not exhaust itself.
full here:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/19/take_me_back_to_constantinople

Ordie
06-17-2010, 08:24 PM
I credit the Byzantines for holding back the Muslim expansion into Europe as much as possible.

Marshall_Nord
06-17-2010, 09:32 PM
May we deal with our prisoners like Basil II did?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kleidion

Ordie
06-18-2010, 12:05 AM
Belisarius is considered the Eastern Roman Empires greatest general.

Hawaii_Light
06-18-2010, 02:11 AM
wow, I am really interested in Byzantine state craft, unfortunately it will take time to reconfigure our foreign policy to best ensure American domination of the west and continue to spread influence over the east. whether or not our challengers have kept up on their own studying will be left for us to see, but it is left to the future to see what new empires will be around to make the cold war look juvenile.

Anomander
06-18-2010, 03:17 AM
VIII Don't invest huge sums you don't have in grand building projects, and don't mix your gold with silver in an attempt to create more money through inflation. Your soldiers will eventually refuse taking your worthless coins and go for arabian dinars or normandian silver instead ;-)

Ordie
06-18-2010, 09:55 AM
The Eastern Romans had several flaws.

1) It engaged in a war of attrition with the Persians that eventually lead to the rise of Islam from Arabia.
2) The Eastern and Western Churches were always at odds and mistrustful of each other. To the point it got in the way of normal relations with the rest of Europe.
3) Succession.....fratricide, coups and plots.

JCR
06-18-2010, 11:14 AM
Byzantium isn't really a good example.
They ruined every success they had by backstabbing each other and by insane religious infighting (iconiclasm row, for example).
East-West relations weren't really important. Trade was done anyway and there was royal intermarriage, especially if western rulers wanted to piss off the pope.
Until the crusades, western europe didn't have a problem with Constantinople being orthodox.
The real problem was the rows within the Orthodox church which were self-destructive.
Their foreign policy wasn't like that because it was a winning strategy, but because it was the only chance they had.

AROUETLJ
06-24-2010, 12:46 PM
Hats off to the Byzantine Empire (or Eastern Roman Empire, as they would wish to be remembered). But Luttwak is a pillock. You cannot apply that strategy in a world where "invasion" simply means taking the next flight somewhere.