Re: PW: Responding to Scott & Mike.

Stephanie Wilson (swilson@BIGCAT.MISSOURI.EDU)
Wed, 26 Oct 1994 15:40:08 -0500

On Tue, 25 Oct 1994, Warren Sproule wrote:

> 2). I also note that under the head of 'WAR'
> in the _Encyclopedia of Human Behaviour Vol. 4_, Gabriel & Metz assert the
> following:
> "The world's oldest armies appeared in Sumer (modern Iraq) and Egypt.
> Between 3000 and 2000 BC, Sumer developed a professional army which fought
> in phalanx formation and was the first to be equipped with body armour and
> helmets. Sumerian military technology brought into being the first military
> application of the wheel, the chariot, and the invention of the socket axe,
> the penetrating axe and the composite bow. The Sumerian states were at war
> with one another almost constantly over a thousand year period culminating,
> around 2400 BC, in the appearance of the world's first military
> dictatorship under Sargon the Great" (1994: 530).

>From what i've seen of this thread, so far, you're main goal seems to be
coming up with a definition that specifically excludes any concept of
primitive warfare? First, of all, I would like to know why? If a
collection of people from a "primitive" village work out a strategy to
raid another village for land/money/women/cattle/revenge, why is this not
considered war, but merely violence?

Second, if you really want to define war as something that requires some
amount of "civilization", why not take the above paragraph as a starting
point and look for cultures that have specifically designed tools for the
killing of human beings (vs. animal hunting tools)? These would be more
likely to survive through time than examples of a culture's writing,
n'est pas?

Stephanie Wilson