Iroquois warrior scalping the defeated
Unlike the more formalized warfare of so-called advanced countries (with their intensive agriculture, stratified societies, technological advances, and infrastructure built over the generations), primitive warfare tends to be a low-intensity, constantly on-going, and an extremely violent activity. As British colonists described it, it's often a "skulking way of war". The Pilgrims and Puritans were put off by the native inclination to fight with raids and ambushes. In New England, native warriors often shot their bows or guns from behind trees, and constantly moved and dodged to avoid the return fire. When melee combat was engaged, they would charge in to take heads. However, while vicious and not dictated by any formalized codes of conduct, their form of warfare often resulted in fewer casualties than the Europeans (as well as East Asian and South Asian warfare). Rarely, but evidently, wars sometimes led to extermination. Many Pre-Colombian archaeological sites are testament to just how brutal warriors were to opposing villages when they were able to actually overrun the defenses (and when war escalated to such heights). The aboriginal people throughout the Americas, Africa, S.E. Asia, and the Pacific were notorious for their constant and brutal tribal warfare, often involving headhunting, cannibalism, torture, and human sacrifice which are considered so taboo in today's society. Ironically, white colonists have been guilty of scalping, decapitation, quartering, and torture as well while the Chinese were also no strangers to slaughter, cannibalism, and decapitation. But those are older examples of brave warriors using low-tech weaponry to attack one another... what about today?
Let us look at the atrocities in Liberia and Sierra Leone. In this case, warfare definitely turned into a very barbaric activity (notice I did not say degenerate into..). Modern war, with all its firearms, artillery, airstrikes, etc., is extremely deadly, more so than traditional wars fought with primitive ranged weaponry and melee weapons. When so-called "primitive" warfare is combined with "advanced" weapon technology, and under the guiding hand of modern military strategy and doctrines, the result is indeed frightening. The civil wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone are perfect examples. These two countries were once considered some of the more prosperous and stable nations in West Africa, and both became "hell holes" where the barbaric practices of "primitive" warfare was commonplace. Cannibalism, infant sacrifice, child soldiers, decapitations, raids, and guerrilla-style warfare co-existed with AK-47s, RPG-7s, PKMs, DShK machine guns, etc. Had the RUF been better trained and able to neutralize Freetown's air support, they would have definitely overwhelmed the demoralized Liberian forces as well as the complacent UN forces. But rather than dismiss their primitive tactics and practices are evil and barbaric, let us look at why the RUF did what it did.
RUF fighters
War is brutal as is without adding in human sacrifice, cannibalism, massacring enemy civilians, etc. It is my belief that the strategists behind the RUF purposely used these primitive tactics as a form of psychological warfare. Just as many smaller tribes in the American Northeast despaired when they heard the Iroquois were coming their way, so did the residents of Freetown when RUF forces were reported to be only an hour away. Why? If they could expect humane treatment in the take-over, then perhaps they would not have been so demoralized. But like the Iroquois in colonial America (and before), the RUF employed human sacrifice, kidnapping, cannibalism and other practices to scare their enemies shitless; both were also not known for hospitality to the defeated. Now, obviously, there is a thin line between cultural practices producing desired psychological effects, and strategically intended affects leading to widespread barbaric practices. I am not saying the Iroquois were just like the RUF. However there are strategic parallels; the high level of barbarism is useful in war. Sadly, when these tactics are used in conjunction with the more efficient killing tools of today's battlefields, the results are probably much more devastating than our ancient ancestors could have ever imagined. Instead of constantly shifting alliances and boundaries, incessant warfare, and extreme brutality ...you get all out massacres of civilians, widespread rape, looting, and famine - and in the long run: destroyed environments, infrastructures, economies, and societies.
Amputee from Sierra Leone
We all seem to have the capacity for such insane levels of brutality. The white US soldiers that attacked neutral Native American villages and cut down everyone, young and old, man and women - they were people's family members, fathers, son, husbands, etc. back home... The Japanese soldiers that so brutally slaughtered and raped the other Asian peoples they conquered in WW2 were dads, brothers, husbands, sons, etc. The RUF fighters committing heinous atrocities were normal everyday people from the cities and farm fields eking out a living prior to the war. I wonder if, especially in poorer parts of the world, we'll see more and more of these ancient (or primitive) tactics utilized in modern military strategy. Despite being able to see the role and usefulness of such acts on the enemy psychology - I really hope not.
Well, that's all for today... serious thoughts on history, war, blablabla...
Expect a product review for the next post!
*all images are taken from Google Images and are not mine.
