Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers under construction on an assembly line (public domain image – Wikipedia “Industrial Warfare”)

(12) INDUSTRIAL WARFARE & TOTAL WAR

“Say hello to Ford, and General F…g Motors…You have horses! What were you thinking?”

War in mass – mass conscription, mass mobilization, mass production. Home front and total war.

Economic warfare segues nicely into industrial warfare, the type of warfare that can only be fought by industrialized economies “capable of creating and equipping large armies, navies, and air forces”.

Industrial warfare includes the technology of rapid transport and communication, mechanization and motorization, small arms and machine guns capable of rapid rates of fire, high velocity artillery, mechanized naval warfare, armored warfare, and aerial warfare.

Industrial warfare is virtually synonymous with the concepts of total war and the home front – “where a society’s entire economy, population, and infrastructure are considered part of the war effort…blurring the line between military and civilian”.

Apparently, “the term was coined during World War I by Erich Ludendorff” and it became coupled with “waging warfare with absolute ruthlessness”, including “the reintroduction of civilians and civilian infrastructure as targets in destroying the enemy’s ability to engage in war”. Not coincidentally, it also became coupled with unrestricted warfare – “”unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded”.

Trenches of the 11th Cheshire Regiment at Ovillers-la-Boisselle, on the Somme, July 1916. One sentry keeps watch while the others sleep. Photo by Ernest Brooks (public domain image in Wikipedia “Trench warfare”

(10) TRENCH & TUNNEL WARFARE

I quipped about trench warfare as a subterranean form of land warfare but that’s taking its subterranean elements too far – it is more akin to a form of fortification and the siege warfare from which it originated.

While it has those predecessors in pre-modern warfare, it particularly arose from the firepower in modern warfare, with the increased rate of fire in small arms, firstly breech-loading firearms and secondly machine guns, and the increased power of artillery.

“Trench warfare is a combat strategy where opposing armies fight from fortified, dug-in networks of trenches to seek cover from heavy firepower and artillery. It typically emerges when defensive weaponry—such as machine guns and automated artillery—outpaces mobility, often resulting in a prolonged, grinding stalemate or war of attrition.”

The archetype of trench warfare is of course famously the Western Front in the First World War, although increasing modern firepower saw it occur from the Crimean War and American Civil War onwards.

Ironically, the First World War saw both its famous archetype and its decline.

“The development of armored warfare and combined arms tactics permitted static lines to be bypassed and defeated, leading to the decline of trench warfare after the war. Following World War I, trench warfare became a byword for stalemate, attrition, sieges and futility in conflict.”

However, trench warfare has recurred in subsequent conflicts “where technological parity or drone threats restrict rapid troop movement, as seen in the Russia-Ukraine War”.

Tunnel warfare on the other hand is subterranean warfare, albeit overlapping with the semi-subterranean warfare of trench warfare, and it goes, well, deep into history, back to the Bronze Age “with recorded uses by the Assyrians”.

“Historically, besieging forces employed sappers to dig tunnels beneath a fortress wall, collapsing the tunnel to bring the wall down. Defenders would counter by digging their own tunnels to intercept the invaders in brutal hand-to-hand combat beneath the surface”.

A fascinating example of ancient subterranean or tunnel warfare is in the Roman-Persian Wars, with “well-preserved evidence of mining and counter-mining operations…unearthed at the fortress of Dura-Europos, which fell to the Sassanians in 256/7 AD”. From what I’ve seen or read of it, it looks literally hellish – not only hand-to-hand combat in cramped and suffocating conditions underground, but also at risk of accidental or deliberate collapse as well as burning sulphur and pitch to create poisonous gas.

If anything, it has been more commonly used in modern warfare – “a military strategy involving combat conducted underground, typically utilizing dug networks, natural caves, or existing urban infrastructure”, used to “bypass surface gridlocks, escape aerial bombardment, and neutralize the technological advantages of more powerful armies”. The focus of the latter two involves force protection but it’s also used for infiltration (as at Dura-Europos in the Roman-Persian Wars), logistics hubs, and tactical deflection. Perhaps the most famous use of tunnel warfare in modern warfare was in the Vietnam War.

“It includes the construction of underground facilities in order to attack or defend, and the use of existing natural caves and artificial underground facilities for military purposes. Tunnels can be used to undermine fortifications and slip into enemy territory for a surprise attack, while it can strengthen a defense by creating the possibility of ambush, counterattack and the ability to transfer troops from one portion of the battleground to another unseen and protected. Tunnels can serve as shelter from enemy attack…Tunnels are narrow and restrict fields of fire; thus, troops in a tunnel usually have only a few areas exposed to fire or sight at any one time.”

RATING: A-TIER (TOP TIER)

A pair of AMX-30 main battle tanks and a truck of the French 6th Light Armored Division pause outside Al-Salman during Operation Desert Storm.

(9) GROUND WARFARE

Yes, all warfare except naval and air warfare is ground or land warfare – and even those two overlap with ground warfare in things such as amphibious or airborne warfare.

This special mention is for ground or land warfare by terrain and weather conditions, which both are, and are not, surprisingly diverse.

Not surprisingly diverse – as observed by John Keegan in an interlude chapter on the limitations of war-making in his history of warfare, war on land tends to have the same default terrain and weather conditions, avoiding difficulties of both.

Surprisingly diverse – because you can’t always pick your battles or where you fight them, such that there are some distinctive or specialized types of warfare within ground of land warfare in general.

Perhaps not quite enough for a top ten of ground warfare, but at least enough for six distinctive types of warfare (although I think arguments can be made for airborne and amphibious warfare as types of groundwarfare, at least in part, with island warfare within the latter, as well as wet-weather wrfare as its own distinct type of ground warfare):

• (1) Urban warfare as featured in my top ten entry of siege and urban warfare
• (2) Desert warfare – which I suspect might be the next most common after siege and urban warfare (at least on a large scale), because of the Middle East (going all the way back to the ancient Near East)
• (3) Jungle warfare
• (4) Mountain warfare, often overlapping with…
• (5) Cold-weather, winter or arctic warfare, including ski warfare.
• (6) Subterranean warfare – or in other words, my next special mention entry…

RATING: A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Print of painting “Battle of Gettysburg” showing Pickett’s Charge, by Thure de Thulstrup, restored by Adam Cuerden, Library of Congress (public domain image)

(7) MANEUVER & ATTRITION

Maneuver warfare is how we’d like wars to be, attrition warfare is how they are.

I’m joking and serious. Most works of military strategy, certainly that in classic texts such as the Art of War, boil down to aspirations to maneuver warfare, avoiding the pain and above all costs of attrition. The rule of cool in military history is on the side of maneuver, while attrition is distinctly unglamorous.

And yet maneuver warfare is the exception to the rule of attrition warfare. Yes, some military commanders and forces achieve it, but mostly it’s just an aspiration above attrition – an aspiration that is only occasionally or temporarily achieved, albeit more common in pre-modern history in which wars could be won by a key battle or battles.

Many of the circumstances of war or battles constrain the possibility of maneuver for the reality of attrition – terrain or fortification being prime examples, but the primary example is modern industrialization. As H.P. Willmott observed in his history of the Second World War, an industrial opponent is necessarily defeated only by attrition in depth – ironically, as at the same time industrialization provided the means for mechanized warfare as even more capability for maneuver.

Speaking of the Second World War, the world wars demonstrate both maneuver as the rule of cool in military history and attrition as its reality. Often, the demarcation between the two world wars in military history is that the Second World War is seen as the cool war of maneuver, while the First World War is the boring war of attrition. In reality, the Second World War was as much a war of attrition as the First or even more so, only somewhat more mobile (on occasion). For all their initial flashy success through maneuver, the Germans (and Japanese) ultimately (and inevitably) fought and lost by attrition.

It’s only apt that maneuver and attrition follow strategy and tactics, even if warfare is more clearly demarcated as maneuver or attrition warfare than it is for my proposed dichotomy between strategic and tactical warfare

“Maneuver warfare is a military philosophy that prioritizes rapid movement, psychological dislocation, and adaptability over brute force. Rather than systematically destroying every enemy unit, it seeks to exploit systemic weaknesses and shatter an adversary’s cohesion and will to fight.”

Obviously, that’s opposed to attrition warfare – “where traditional attrition warfare aims to physically grind down the enemy through sheer firepower, maneuver warfare aims to bypass strongholds and paralyze the enemy’s command structure.”

In other words – speed, surprise, and shock.

Speed and tempo are the key elements, not just for the mobility of your forces but also to degrade the ability of the opposing commanders or forces to react – “commanders strive to operate inside the enemy’s decision cycle”, aiding the psychological impact of “shock, confusion and panic”.

Focus on vulnerability is another key element – seeking to bypass enemy strength for “critical vulnerabilities such as supply lines, communication hubs, and leadership”.

Surprise and deception are still more key elements – ” using unpredictable movements, feints, and camouflage to keep the enemy disoriented.”

“Military forces typically execute maneuver warfare through five foundational tactical operations” – envelopment, turning movements, infiltration, penetration, and frontal attack while the other operations are executed.

“Historically, maneuver warfare was stressed by small militaries, more cohesive, better trained, or more technologically advanced than attrition warfare counterparts.”

Attrition warfare on the other hand is all about the grind. It’s in the name after all.

“Attrition warfare is a military strategy in which a belligerent attempts to wear down an enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel and material. Victory is achieved not through swift, decisive maneuvers or capturing territory, but by out-producing and out-lasting the adversary’s ability to wage war.”

The enemy’s collapse can either be physical (through loss of forces or capacity) or psychological through breakdown of will or morale).

“These wars are defined by state industrial output, the geographical depth to absorb defeats, and the logistical capacity to constantly replace heavy equipment losses over time.”

Ironically, attrition warfare is fought as much or even more by the weak as it is by the strong – “a combatant facing a significant disadvantage may deliberately adopt an attritional approach to offset the enemy’s superior firepower, mobility, or resources.”  Guerilla warfare is the archetype of attritional warfare fought by the weak against the strong.

RATING: S-TIER (GOD TIER)

Map of force movements and major engagements of the Waterloo campaign June 15-18, 1815 – by Ipankonin for Wikipedia “Military Strategy” and licensed for use https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

(6) STRATEGY & TACTICS

In a nutshell, tactics win battles while strategy wins wars.

Yes, that omits the operational level of war which falls between them – “that connects the details of factics with the goals of strategy” – as I prefer the sharper duality of tactics and strategy without the more nebulous operational level between them.

And yes – strategy and tactics are fundamental elements or levels of war rather than types of war as such, although I’d argue some wars are more strategic in nature while others are more tactical, barely transcending the tactical level if at all.

Hence, strategy and tactics earn their special mention entry for my types of war – indeed each of strategy and tactics could well be the subject of top tens lists of their own, or several top ten lists divided between defensive or offensive strategy and tactics. It’s apt that strategy and tactics – essentially out-thinking your enemy – follow after psychological warfare, but some may query they follow after espionage and intelligence, even as fundamental as the latter are for strategy and tactics. However, I’m going to go out on a limb with a hot take here and speculate that stategy and tactics evolved out of espionage and intelligence rather than the other way round. Prior to drilled infantry fighting in formation, my speculation is that prehistoric or the earliest historical warfare was not particularly strategic or tactical (outside of surprise through ambush or raid) but rather a matter of which combatant had the fiercest or strongest warriors – or probably most of all, the most warriors.

Strategy is not so much concerned with individual battles – indeed Sun Tzu famously propounded strategy or the art of war as winning without fighting – but understanding the nature of war, and above all, your purpose in waging it.

“Military tactics encompasses the art of organizing and employing fighting forces on or near the battlefield…the application of four battlefield functions which are closely related – kinetic or firepower, mobility, protection or security, and shock action.”

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

U-2 aerial recomnaissance image of Soviet missile bases under construction in Cuba shown to President Kennedy on 16 October 1962 shortly before the Cuban Missile Crisis – John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (public domain image)

(5) ESPIONAGE & INTELLIGENCE

Knowledge is power – and war.

Espionage and counterespionage, intelligence and counterintelligence, agents and assets, spies and spycraft, black ops and covert ops, codebreaking and cryptanalysis, deception and disinformation, reconnaissance and surveillance, sabotage and subversion, stealth and subterfuge, honeypot and wetwork.

HUMINT or human intelligence as the thing we usually think about as espionage or intelligence, SIGINT or signals intelligence as the thing that usually is espionage or intelligence, and also all the abbreviated forms of intelligence – COMINT, GEOINT, FININT, IMINT, MASINT, OSINT.

Psychological warfare and terror lead naturally to the overlapping subject of espionage and intelligence, in turn incredibly prolific subjects worthy of their own top ten, or indeed several top tens.

Spies have been dubbed the second oldest profession, after pr0stitution as the oldest profession -with considerable overlap between them. Both desciptions as oldest or second oldest professions are more anecdotes than serious analysis, but certainly espionage or spies can be traced back to the Bronze Age ancient history in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

And that’s just because that’s when written records began, as one could almost certainly trace espionage or at least intelligence back to Stone Age prehistory, with the scouting or tracking that can reasonably conjectured to have accompanied prehistoric warfare.

Espionage or spies are mentioned in the two definitive ancient works of Western literature – the Bible and Homer – and very much as a fundamental part of war, as it was in that definitive work of strategy, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War.

In the Bible, the Israelites didn’t just launch into their conquest of Canaan cold. Not surprisingly given the short distance involved between Egypt and Canaan, part of that famous forty years in the wilderness was spent sending spies into Canaan – once again with that overlap with the oldest profession, as two such spies were aided by Rahab, widely read to be a harl0t.

Espionage or spies are also mentioned in the Iliad, not surprisingly given it is Western literature’s most famous siege – and of course the Trojan War was famously won by an act of deception or subterfuge, orchestrated by one of Western literature’s great deceptive characters, Odysseus (who is essentially characterized by deception and subterfuge throughout the Odyssey as well).

The Art of War identified spies as a fundamental part of war or military strategy – “The Art of War identifies five types of spies that are essential for gathering intelligence and achieving victory: local spies (citizen informants within the enemy’s territory), inward spies (recruited double agents within the enemy ranks), converted spies (recruited defectors converted to serve your side), doomed spies (expendable fabricators used to spread disinformation; acts as decoy for counter-intelligence), and surviving spies (spies that provide accurate intelligence after gathering information from the enemy).”

Espionage and intelligence have been and continued to be as fundamental to war as military force, indeed inextricably intertwined with the disposition and use of military force. Deploying force without adequate espionage or intelligence of enemy forces is effectively going in blind, such that going in naked would be preferable and perhaps less tempting fate for ambush or defeat. It would be interesting to identify how many military failures are ultimately intelligence failures – my own belief is that it would be a substantial proportion or part.

Even so, some might argue that espionage and intelligence are not of themselves types of war or substitutes for military force in war. To which I would respond firstly that these are special mentions but secondly and more fundamentally, that espionage and intelligence have assumed a role of such importance in warfare that they can be regarded as a type of warfare – espionage or spy warfare, intelligence warfare, deception warfare and so on.

A large part of the world wars – arguably a predominant part for signals intelligence, codebreaking, and cryptanalysis – could be called intelligence warfare, with the Cold War even more so, as a war in which espionage or intelligence indeed substituted for or pre-empted military force to large extent.

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

La Terroriste, a 1910 poster depicting a female member of the Combat Organization of the Polish Socialist Party throwing a bomb at a Russian official’s car – public domain image provided to Wikimedia Commons by the Polish Central Archives of Historical Records and used in Wikipedia “Terrorism” – that headless body goes a bit hardcore

(4) TERR0R

Psychological and religious warfare lead naturally to terr0r or terr0rism as a type or at least a means of warfare.

Terr0r or terr0rism is obviously a subset of psychological warfare as a means of targeting an adversary’s morale or collective psyche, particularly of their civilian population or political state through violence against them or other non-combatants.

And modern terr0rism is most often associated with religious warfare – one religion in particular although more than one religion has resorted to it. In fairness, religious extremism has been identified by at least one source to have overtaken nationalist separatism to “become the main driver of terr0rist attacks around the world”, although that remains the subject of debate.

While modern terr0rism is usually traced to “19th revolutionary politics”, an “ancient lineage” of pre-modern religious terr0rism has been proposed – with three particular examples of religiously motivated groups, the Thugs or Thuggees in India (made famous by the second Indiana Jones film), the Order of Assassins in medieval Islam (who sadly lack the same movie treatment), and the Jewish Sicarii Zealots in Roman Judaea.

Terr0r in its broadest sense has always been one of the means, probably the most straightforward means if you have the stomach for it as most pre-modern societies did, to deploy psychological force in a war against an opponent in the form of intimidation or manipulation by fear and shock – whether combatants or non-combatants (or both). And by always, I mean from the prehistoric origins of war itself, if the evidence of prehistoric brutality is to be believed or the inference from historical or contemporary observations from tribal warfare is correctly inferred.

One of the best examples of the use of terr0r in war is not surprisingly by the Mongols, who routinely threatened besieged cities with annihilation if they resisted rather than surrendered – and acted on those threats.

On the other hand, terr0rism is a narrower form of the more general terr0r deployed against opponents in war from prehistory onwards – usually defined as terr0r through violence against non-combatants or civilians and typically identified as a development of modern history.

Terr0rism is “the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims…primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants”.

However, “there are various definitions of terr0rism, with no universal agreement about it. Different definitions of terr0rism emphasized its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims”.

Apparently, the terms “terr0rist” and “terr0rism” originated during the French Revolution – perhaps not surprisingly given the political terr0r or notorious reign of terr0r in that revolution. Indeed, modern terr0rism originated in the political ideologies that arose from and after that Revolution, combined with the weapons produced by industrial technology that lent themselves to the assassinations or attacks that characterized 19th century terr0rism – notably the pistol and dynamite.

However, both the terms of terr0rist and terr0rism as well as archetypal form of modern terr0rism “became widely used internationally and gained worldwide attention” from the 1970s onwards.

“Various organizations and countries have used terr0rism to achieve their objectives. These include left-wing and right-wing political organizations, nationalist groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments”. That last is represented by ” state terr0rism, with its institutionalized instrumentation of terr0r tactics through massacres, genocides, forced disappearances, carpet bombings, and torture” and is “is a deadlier form of terr0rism than non-state terr0rism”.

Baldwin of Boulogne entering Edessa in 1098 – painting by Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury, 1840 (public domain image)

(3) RELIGIOUS WARFARE

Holy war, jihad and crusade.

Similarly to psychological warfare, all warfare is religious warfare.

Well, not really, although I do see religious warfare as being wider than the term is usually applied – essentially as a subset of the psychological warfare that is ubiquitous throughout warfare. Granted, that subset is more about motivating or mobilizing your own fighting power by increasing cohesion, discipline, morale, resilience or resistance – essentially religion as a force multiplier, although it can extend to eliminating or reducing your enemy’s religion for the same effect in reverse.

As such, it arguably has similar origins in prehistory as psychological warfare in general – perhaps not in wars of religion as we understand them but in beliefs of supernatural assistance or protection in combat.

Religious warfare is usually applied to the sectarian wars fought between or within the world’s largest – and distinctively monotheistic – religions, Christianity and Islam, even if those wars overlap with secular causes.

Note that distinctive monotheism – while religious warfare has been identified or at least argued for other religious traditions, both contemporary and historical, it is commonly seen to have particular force for monotheism, notably in Christianity and Islam but also traced back to the traditions of ancient warfare seen in the Bible.

However, religious warfare is an incredibly complex and contentious subject, worthy of its own top ten (or several) – “The degree to which a war may be considered religious depends on many underlying questions, such as the definition of religion, the definition of ‘war’, and the applicability of religion to war as opposed to other possible factors.”

That extends to the observation I’ve frequently seen that all modern wars are wars of religion – to the extent that they are based on political ideologies that resemble religions – although I think it has an element of truth, particularly when applied to the ideological war of WW2.

The more usual observation by historians or those from similar academic disciplines is that only a small minority of wars are religious wars, although I think that is viewing religious warfare in a narrower sense than I do as a subset of psychological warfare.

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER – WHAT ELSE?)

Photographic portrait of Sigmund Freud by Max Halberstadt in 1921 and signed by Freud – probably the most iconic image of Freud (public domain image)

(2) PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE

Psywar, psyops, military information support operations, political warfare, hearts and minds, shock and awe, show of force, propaganda, disinformation

All warfare is psychological warfare.

No, seriously.

Yes, I know the term psychological warfare is usually to connote means of targeting an adversary’s morale or collective psyche – whether of their military, civilian population, or political state (or any part or combination of those) – apart from (or adjacent to) the use of military force.

However, war has always used psychological ‘force’  (and ‘space’ or ‘time’) – such as bluff, deception and intimidation for fear and shock – as much as physical force in combat from its very origin in prehistoric or primal warfare (to the extent we can infer it from observations of more contemporary tribal warfare) or even animal intra-species conflict.

After all, it’s best to reduce your enemy’s fighting power by reducing their cohesion, discipline, morale, resilience or resistance (or alternatively increase your own) – and better yet to avoid as much fighting (or as many casualties) as possible by causing them to break altogether into desertion, flight, retreat, rout or surrender (or alternatively mobilize your own forces against such things). In short, defeating the will of your enemy.

There’s Hannibal or the Mongols using deception or subtertuge to give the impression of forces as present or to inflate the apparent size of their forces. There’s the Mongols – quite the practitioners of psychological warfare – using the carrot of leniency and the stick of annihilation to encourage surrender. There’s the use of sirens on German Stuka aircraft in WW2 for their psychological effect (as well as other uses).

Of course, it’s not always about ‘negative’ impact, reducing or breaking your enemy. It can also be about ‘positive impact’, such as enlisting them to you – although that tends to involve the more usual usage of psychological warfare against their civilian populations or political states apart from or adjacent to the use of military force.

“Psychological warfare involves the planned use of propaganda, fear, and manipulation to influence the emotions, attitudes, and behavior of an opposition group, without relying on physical force. Its primary goal is to break an enemy’s will to fight, undermine morale, and cause confusion.”

Tactics of psychological warfare – particularly in the usual sense of not involving military force – include propaganda, disinformation or deception, demoralization and intimidation.

“The term is used to denote any action which is practiced mainly by psychological methods with the aim of evoking a planned psychological reaction in other people” – “various techniques aimed at influencing a target audience’s value system, belief system, emotions, motives, reasoning, or behavior.”

RATING:

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

Cave painting of a battle between archers, Morella la Vella, Spain – public domain image used in Wikipedia “Prehistoric Warfare”

(1) PREHISTORIC & PRIMAL WARFARE

Hobbes vs Rousseau – the Hobbesian state of nature or “the war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes) as against Rousseau’s more noble savage state of nature.

Sadly this special mention is not for some Great Prehistoric War fought between mammoth cavalry and evil Atlantean overlords in the style of the film 10,000 BC – or a tyrannosaur-riding Neanderthal fighting off everything in the style of the Primal animated TV series, although that series seems closer to Hobbes’ state of nature.

It’s for the sheer timescale of prehistoric war compared to historic war, corresponding to the scale of prehistory in general compared to history – 98% or so of the entire span of humanity on this planet so far, all but the last 5,000 years or so out of 300,000 years. And prehistory only gets longer if you throw in our hominin ancestor species as humanity, which potentially lengthens that span to 3,000,000 years.

There’s also that prehistory didn’t just disappear with the advent of recorded history – or rather didn’t consistently disappear across time and place, instead enduring in places more remote from recorded history until the modern period. And prehistoric war hasn’t even ended now, hence the better description would be primal war – as a type of war, exemplified by ambush and raid, to which humanity regularly returns, atavistically time and time again.

Most fundamentally, there’s Hobbes vs Rousseau – the philosophical significance of prehistoric war in understanding the origins of war itself.

Of course, the origins of war in prehistory is the subject of theory or outright speculation, as by its nature prehistory involves those human societies without recorded history – typically Neolithic or Paleolithic, but potentially also more recent societies without written historical records.

It’s where prehistory meets philosophy, hence the opening dialectic of Hobbes versus Rousseau – the ongoing debate over human nature and violence or war. “The existence — and even the definition — of war in humanity’s hypothetical state of nature has been a controversial topic in the history of ideas”.

Philosopher Thomas Hobbes famously proposed that the original “state of nature” of humanity (or human nature) was inherently violent – the war of all against all in which “the life of man” is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. Against that, philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau also famously proposed a more idealistic and idyllic state of nature as more free and peaceful – subsequently styled as that of the “noble savage” – made unequal and violent by “civilized” society.

That debate over human nature continues, not least in speculation or theories of prehistoric war, “spanning contemporary anthropology, archaeology, ethnography, history, political science, psychology, primatology, and philosophy in such divergent books as Azar Gat’s War in Human Civilization and Raymond C. Kelly’s Warless Societies and the Origin of War.”

Essentially, it boils down to those who argue for prehistoric war and violence, potentially at even higher rates than those in recorded history, and those who argue for more peaceful prehistory.

To put it that simply, however, removes all context or nuance from a debate that is much more balanced or varied, reflecting a more complex situation – that prehistory was both more violent than asserted by proponents of prehistoric pacifism and also more pacific than asserted by prehistoric warmongers.

Most concede that violence or war in human prehistory was highly variable between different societies at different times in different places or circumstances. Some societies were notoriously warlike, such as the Maori of New Zealand, the Yanomami (dubbed “the Fierce People”) of the Amazon or the inter-tribal warfare in Papua New Guinea.

On the one hand, archaeological studies of human remains from prehistory have suggested a higher rate for violent injury and death substantially above those in recorded history. One interesting feature is that a recurring motive for inter-tribal warfare is raiding for nubile women – as with the Yanomami, suggesting that the legendary motive for the Trojan War may not be so far removed from the historic or prehistoric truth.

On the other hand, depictions of human violence or war is comparatively rare until relatively recently in prehistoric art. Proponents of prehistoric pacificism persuasively suggest that low population density among prehistoric tribal hunter-gatherers – and the potential costly nature of violence between them – both allowed for and pushed towards avoiding conflict, typically by migration.

Another issue is that even if or where Paleolithic societies were violent, the scale of that violence was necessarily limited or disorganized – in the nature of feuds and raids or ambushes and skirmishes. Some argue for what is termed endemic warfare – in which “war is often ritualized with a number of taboos and practices that limit the number of casualties and the duration of the conflict”. Of course, endemic warfare could readily escalate into actual warfare without such limits.

Others have also asserted various historic or prehistoric event horizons that saw the escalation of war. One such is the development of missile weapons such as bows or slings allowing for less risk than melee combat. Another more commonly argued one is the horizon between the Paleolithic and Neolithic – with the increased sedentism from agriculture in the Neolithic seeing a corresponding increase in the intensity of scale in war.

One obvious model for theories of prehistoric war is more recent or contemporary tribal warfare. And one could argue that tribal war remains the predominant model for war in general – that most wars in history are tribal wars at heart.