Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2000-06 Classical Greek and classical Chinese warfare: a comparative analysis Allers, Michael C. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/32930 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California THESIS CLASSICAL GREEK AND CLASSICAL CHINESE WARFARE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS by Michael C. Allers June 2000 Thesis Advisor: Gordon H. McCormick Second Reader: George Lober Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 20000802 198 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of infonnation is estimated to average I hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of infonnation. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of infonnation, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Infonnation Operations and Reports, I 215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite I204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED June 2000 Master's Thesis TITLE AND SUBTITLE : Classical Greek and Classical Chinese Warfare: A 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Comparative Analysis 5. AUTHOR(S) Allers, Michael C. 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) REPORT NUMBER Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93943-5000 9. SPONSORING I MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING I MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER NIA 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. 12a. DISTRIBUTION I AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words) This study is a comparative analysis of the warfare traditions of classical China and Classical Greece. The first part of this study is designed to provide a framework for understanding how certain characteristics of a society's military tradition arise, and in particular, why certain aspects of the military traditions of classical China and classical Greece are dissimilar while other aspects are similar. Specifically, chapter two demonstrates that the particular socio-political situation of a given state sets constraints upon the way that state can mobilize, organize, and employ a military force, and shows that intensive militant competition places a market incentive on a state to innovate and to select the most efficient defensive action options from the feasible set of possibilities. The third chapter suggests that the major differences in warfare character between classical Greece and China stem from the robust differences in the socio-political situations of the two societies. The methodological approach for the second part, chapters four and five, is simple comparative analysis. Chapter four examines organizational differences of classical Greek and Chinese warfare-specifically differences related to annaments, force structures, and command and control elements. The subsequent chapter five examines the main differences relating to classical Greek and Chinese operational concepts. 13. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Classical Warfare, Military Organization, Concepts of Operations 180 16. PRICE CODE I7. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION I 8. SECURITY I 9. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF OF REPORT CLASSIFICATION OF THIS CLASSIFICATION ABSTRACT PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-I 8 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited CLASSICAL GREEK AND CLASSICAL CHINESE WARFARE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Michael C. Allers Ensign, United States Navy B.A., Cornell University, 1999 Submitted in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN DEFENSE ANALYSIS from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL June 2000 Author: Uordo1n H. McCormick, Chairman Special Operations Academic Group 111 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK lV ABSTRACT This study is a comparative analysis of the warfare traditions of classical China and Classical Greece. The first part of this study is designed to provide a framework for understanding how certain characteristics of a society's military tradition arise, and in particular, why certain aspects of the military traditions of classical China and classical Greece are dissimilar while other aspects are similar. Specifically, chapter two demonstrates that the particular socio-political situation of a given state sets constraints upon the way that state can mobilize, organize, and employ a military force, and shows that intensive militant competition places a market incentive on a state to innovate and to select the most efficient defensive action options from the feasible set of possibilities. The third chapter suggests that the major differences in warfare character between classical Greece and China stem from the robust differences in the socio-political situations of the two societies. The methodological approach for the second part, chapters four and five, is simple comparative analysis. Chapter four examines organizational differences of classical Greek and Chinese warfare-specifically differences related to armaments, force structures, and command and control elements. The subsequent chapter five examines the main differences relating to classical Greek and Chinese operational concepts. v THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK vi TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1 A. PURPOSE ................................................................................................... 1 B. SPECIFIC INTRODUCTION: CHAPTERS II AND III ...................... 3 1. Approach ........................................................................................ 3 2. Previous Efforts to Understand the Character of Warfare ....... 5 a. Warfare as an Expression of Culture ................................ 5 b. Strategic Culture ................................................................. 8 B. SPECIFIC INTRODUCTION: CHAPTERS IV AND V .................... 10 II. A MODEL OF FLUCTUATIONS IN WARFARE CHARACTER ............... 13 A. INTRODUCTION TO THE MODEL ................................................... 14 B. EXPLICATION OF TIME PERIODS AND VARIABLES ................ 16 1. Time Periods ................................................................................. 17 2. Dependent Variable: Warfare Character.................................. 18 3. Independent Variable 1: The Locus of Political Power............ 19 4. Independent Variable 2: Competition ....................................... 21 C. THE FUNCTION OF THE MODEL ..................................................... 22 1. The Function of Independent Variable 1: The Locus of Political Power .............................................................. 23 2. The Function of Independent Variable 2: Competition ........... 24 D. SPECIFIC SCENARIOS ....................................................................... 26 1. Scenario 1: Political Power in the Hands of the People: ........ 26 2. Scenario 2: Political Power in the hands of the Government .28 III. THE MODEL APPLIED TO ANCIENT GREECE AND CHINA ................ 33 A. ANCIENT GREECE (CIRCA 750-450 B.C.) ........................................ 33 1. Phase 1: The Scattering-Early Archaic Period (750- 650 B.C.) ............................................................................ 35 2. Commentary: ................................................................................ 38 3. Phase II: Expansion and Reform (650- 550 B.C.) .................. .41 4. Commentary: ................................................................................ 43 5. Phase III: Consolidation (550- 450 B.C.) ................................. 44 6. Commentary: ................................................................................ 46 7. Cultural Factors ........................................................................... 49 8. Commentary: ................................................................................ 52 B. ANCIENT CHINA (CIRCA 722- 221 B.C.) ........................................ 57 1. Phase 1: Differentiation-Spring and Autumn (Chunqui) Period (722 - 481 B.C.) ............................................. 60 2. Commentary: ................................................................................ 65 3. Phase II: Chaos-Warring States (Zhanguo) Period (481- 221 B.C.) ............................................................................ 67 4. Commentary: ................................................................................ 70 Vll 5. Cultural Factors ........................................................................... 73 6. Commentary: ...................... ;......................................................... 75 IV. ORGANIZING TO OPERATE .......................................................................... 79 A. ARMAMENT AND EQUIPMENT .....................................................