Proof/examples of hierarchical armies outperforming decentralized militia?

[Anarchist420]

I'm not going to say that decentralized militia perform better, but I don't think that they perform worse.

I'm of the opinion that the nationalists in the First Continental Congress lengthened the Revolutionary War and almost lost it because they favored hierarchy and uniformity over the decentralized militia... it's debatable as to how many battle victories can be attributed to Washington.

I do think that if you have a commander in chief like Lincoln, then it may be better to do it from the top down (the CSA States did a lot compared to the Union States), but not many people are as smart as Lincoln.

Do you agree that decentralized militia can be just as efficient as a military?

 

[momeNt]

It depends on how you want to look at the question.

I believe a decentralized militia is much more difficult to defeat. Hierarchical armies have surrenders that are strictly obeyed, once the commanding general decides that the war is lost, they surrender and the war is over. Decentralized militias, will continue to fight as long as what they believe in what they are fighting for, look at Afghanistan as an example. America can chase the Afghanis into the mountains, but never defeat them, and as soon as America leaves, the extremists will just come back down from the mountains and take over.

From a resources point of view, depending on the power of taxation that a militia has, it either is somewhat balanced or extremely in favor of a national army that can levy taxes for their war resources.

If you are looking to invade, I say go with a hierarchical army, if you are looking for defense, you might be better served with a militia depending on the geography and resources available to the militia.

 

[smackababy]

Decentralized militia can never be as effective as a military. They lack the resources and manpower to actually properly defend a wide spread area (such as the USA) and adapt to global threats. They also cannot keep up with technology developed by governments that have near unlimited funds to research, develop, and deploy said technology.

Examples of decentralized militias failing can be seen throughout history. Any time a single person has united tribes / militias / peoples / regions, they have conquered far more than any single entity has.

 

[momeNt]

Decentralized militia can never be as effective as a military. They lack the resources and manpower to actually properly defend a wide spread area (such as the USA) and adapt to global threats. They also cannot keep up with technology developed by governments that have near unlimited funds to research, develop, and deploy said technology.

Examples of decentralized militias failing can be seen throughout history. Any time a single person has united tribes / militias / peoples / regions, they have conquered far more than any single entity has.

If fighters in Afghanistan had a military structure like any country that fell during WW2 or similarly "conventional" war, there would have been a surrender, and the existing government structure would have been used to enforce the new structure put upon the people as well as the military. Afghanistan lacks that structure and here we are till fighting 12 years later.

Your last post about conquest I agree with though.

 

[mr Sean]

De-lurk

Do you agree that decentralized militia can be just as efficient as a military?

Buenaventura Durruti might have agreed with this...before Madrid.

/De-lurk

 

[fskimospy]

I think this topic has a lot of problems with how it is presented in that it isn't really comparing two equal things. It's sort of the nature of asymmetric warfare.

People think back to disorganized militias that defeated larger hierarchical armies but they don't think of the different situations both armies were in. Insurgents and militias are fighting (generally) to destabilize the ruling order and to interfere with the orderly function of the ruling power while the traditional army is trying to make society under the ruling order function. It is far easier to disrupt society than it is to keep it together and so the goals of the militia are much easier to achieve.

It's also the case that decentralized armies are sort of structures of necessity. You can only really use them within your own borders, and the reason why you're fighting with them to begin with is that you couldn't win with a regular army.

So really, hierarchical armies always outperform militias in terms of battle readiness; put them on an equal footing and it is a slaughter. The two almost never fight in such on equal footing however, therefore you're comparing apples and oranges.

 

[momeNt]

I think this topic has a lot of problems with how it is presented in that it isn't really comparing two equal things. It's sort of the nature of asymmetric warfare.

People think back to disorganized militias that defeated larger hierarchical armies but they don't think of the different situations both armies were in. Insurgents and militias are fighting (generally) to destabilize the ruling order and to interfere with the orderly function of the ruling power while the traditional army is trying to make society under the ruling order function. It is far easier to disrupt society than it is to keep it together and so the goals of the militia are much easier to achieve.

It's also the case that decentralized armies are sort of structures of necessity. You can only really use them within your own borders, and the reason why you're fighting with them to begin with is that you couldn't win with a regular army.

So really, hierarchical armies always outperform militias in terms of battle readiness; put them on an equal footing and it is a slaughter. The two almost never fight in such on equal footing however, therefore you're comparing apples and oranges.

Best answer yet.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Well said, eskimospy.

I'd add that the effectiveness of the militia depends more on the cooperation of non-combatants, who aid, shelter and choose not to pass on information about them.

That is, the militia loses effectiveness if the invader is willing to create enough fear and/or civilian casualties to turn the general population against them.

Or in the other direction, if the invaders convince the population that they will do a better job of protecting the citizens than the militia. In Iraq, insurgent attacks against US forces were reduced when the locals stopped looking the other way.

 

[Mxylplyx]

The error in this thinking is believing that the resistance we are facing is a unified entity. Nobody has won if we are forced to withdraw, as they will then commence fighting amongst themselves for their own interests, and the cycle will continue.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

To build on what eskimospy said, the answer to this question also depends a great deal on one's definition of "performance". Meaning: what is the goal of the movement and/or battle?

As an obvious example, you could say that the Taliban has been effective, from the standpoint that we haven't been able to wipe them out, and they continue to be able to cause mayhem and murder on a regular basis. But they are not in charge of their country as a whole; they are hiding in caves in the mountains. So are they really "performing" well? Only from a limited perspective.

Looking back to the 18th century to answer this question is also of limited value. The advantages of centralized armies back then were organization, discipline, resources, and certain weapons such as cannons and ships. That doesn't compare to modern warfare, where the advantages of centralized armies include ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers and the aircraft to go on them.

While I support the RKBA, I have no illusions that if the US government ever did fulfill the worst paranoid fantasies of certain individuals, that the militias could achieve much more than what the Taliban is doing right now.

 

[Murloc]

decentralized armies are only for self-defense and don't provide durable and timely defeat of the attacker. You can't have a decentralized aircraft carrier.
It doesn't provide good bang for buck for the people. What's the point of hiding on the mountains when the enemy controls all of your cities? What are you accomplishing for your citizens?
So I think the idea of a national army organized that way is stupid.

Of course the taliban and political guerrilla groups have other objectives so it's not really the same, to them controlling an area is better than nothing.

 

[Anarchist420]

You can't have a decentralized aircraft carrier.

But an individual could blow it out of the sky.

 

[smackababy]

But an individual could blow it out of the sky.

Aircraft carriers are large boats, and I highly doubt a single individual could sink it. They would have to have some sort of delivery system of a large explosive. A torpedo might work, if they didn't have any real defenses and it would have to be quite large to do enough damage to sink the ship itself.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

But an individual could blow it out of the sky.

When they develop flying aircraft carriers, the militias will really be in trouble.

 

[Dendra]

When they develop flying aircraft carriers, the militias will really be in trouble.

They already have small ones called drones.

 

[fskimospy]

But an individual could blow it out of the sky.

Despite what The Avengers movie might tell us about military tactics, flying aircraft carriers don't exist.

Even if they did it would probably take more than one magically possessed crappy superhero with a bow and arrow to take it down.

 

[smackababy]

They already have small ones called drones.

I am not sure you are familiar with an aircraft carrier. Unless drones carry mini drones and can be used as an aquatic launch point for said mini drones, I don't see it.

 

[Murloc]

well you could debate that drones are in fact aircraft carriers that launch remote controlled kamikaze planes.

Also even if we hypotize that an individual can sink a carrier, he will still have no possibility to attack anyone because he has no carriers nor military bases abroad (which can't exist outside the country with such an army).

 

[Dendra]

I am not sure you are familiar with an aircraft carrier. Unless drones carry mini drones and can be used as an aquatic launch point for said mini drones, I don't see it.

Here's a drone on an aircraft carrier. They both look pretty flat to me.

(My original response was not meant to be taken literally.)

 

[cwjerome]

This is another one of those (extreme libertopian) times where the total evidence is so absolute that it boggles the rational mind. ALL of human history has seen the consolidation and centralization of human groups to gain military advantage over those who are less consolidated and less centralized. The history of "state-building" from the days of the first humans until now has been an exercise in gaining power and security though union, not through dis-union.

 

[Munashiimaru]

Aircraft carriers are large boats, and I highly doubt a single individual could sink it. They would have to have some sort of delivery system of a large explosive. A torpedo might work, if they didn't have any real defenses and it would have to be quite large to do enough damage to sink the ship itself.

A nuclear torpedo might. Even WW2 carriers could shrug off multiple conventional torpedos.

Sections of a militia surviving is not winning or being more effective either. It needs to be able to achieve goals better than the alternative to be considered "outperforming." Is a force that needs to let it's populace be at the mercy of it's invaders and/or use them as shields an effective army? Or is a force that could stop an invasion outright be considered outperforming?

Divide an conquer is generally considered a key tenant of warfare for a reason as well; going ahead and doing it for your opposition isn't a great idea.

 

[fskimospy]

A nuclear torpedo might. Even WW2 carriers could shrug off multiple conventional torpedos.

Sections of a militia surviving is not winning or being more effective either. It needs to be able to achieve goals better than the alternative to be considered "outperforming." Is a force that needs to let it's populace be at the mercy of it's invaders and/or use them as shields an effective army? Or is a force that could stop an invasion outright be considered outperforming?

Divide an conquer is generally considered a key tenant of warfare for a reason as well; going ahead and doing it for your opposition isn't a great idea.

Modern torpedoes work significantly differently than WW2 torpedoes, it is quite possible a single torpedo could sink a carrier. Back in WW2 the torpedo would hit the side of the ship, which was generally well armored. In contrast, today's torpedoes explode underneath the keel, which can cause irreparable structural damage with a single explosion.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Modern torpedoes work significantly differently than WW2 torpedoes, it is quite possible a single torpedo could sink a carrier. Back in WW2 the torpedo would hit the side of the ship, which was generally well armored. In contrast, today's torpedoes explode underneath the keel, which can cause irreparable structural damage with a single explosion.

US torpedos were supposed to explode under the keel, and towards the end of the war they did : p

 

[Jaskalas]

This is another one of those (extreme libertopian) times where the total evidence is so absolute that it boggles the rational mind. ALL of human history has seen the consolidation and centralization of human groups to gain military advantage over those who are less consolidated and less centralized. The history of "state-building" from the days of the first humans until now has been an exercise in gaining power and security though union, not through dis-union.

The Taliban would like a word with you as the prime example of the most powerful military in the world being brought to its knees and defeated.

For humanitarian reasons we have chosen not to win that fight, and power is nothing unless you wield it. So what we _could_ do to them is meaningless. What we _have_ done is get ourselves killed to effect NO change.

Terrorism is the natural evolution of warfare against the "hierarchical army". Thus far it has proven itself superior.

 

[cwjerome]

The Taliban would like a word with you as the prime example of the most powerful military in the world being brought to its knees and defeated.

No. We are fighting a counterinsurgency, not a war. In a war you're trying to defeat an enemy, in COIN you're trying to legitimize and bolster the host nation. In a war, killing lots of people is a good thing, in COIN killing lots of people will have no effect to very bad effects. It's apples and oranges... obviously we can obliterate Afghanistan and everyone in it on a molecular level.

For humanitarian reasons we have chosen not to win that fight, and power is nothing unless you wield it. So what we _could_ do to them is meaningless. What we _have_ done is get ourselves killed to effect NO change.

Terrorism is the natural evolution of warfare against the "hierarchical army". Thus far it has proven itself superior.

The fact that there's 75,000 US/ISAF forces operating in Afghanistan tells otherwise. The insurgent elements in Afghanistan cannot deter anyone from invading, they cannot project power outside their immediate AO, and they cannot really do anything except fight a desperate asymetrical insurgency by suicide operations, lethal intimidation and killing innocents. That is superior? Gee whiz, maybe the US would be better off scrapping our military and using those methods because they are so superior.

If you look at history going back about 5000 years, and have a good understanding of political and military development, there is one constant truism: Consolidation and centralization brings power, and those areas that failed to do so were generally destroyed or consumed by those that did.