My new @PrincetonUPress book, "Divided Armies," examines how inequality within armies has decided their battlefield fate over the past 200 years.
I wrote a short piece for @ambassadorbrief that outlines the argument & the new data that underpins it
THREAD /1
I wrote a short piece for @ambassadorbrief that outlines the argument & the new data that underpins it
THREAD /1
Conventional wisdom has long held that victory has gone to armies with the most soldiers, the best technology, or the most productive economies.
I challenge these accounts in several ways:
/2
I challenge these accounts in several ways:
/2
1) I argue that armies reflect their societies. The prewar degree of inequality within armies will determine how they fare on the battlefield well before the shooting actually begins.
/3
/3
What do I mean by "inequality?"
I start from the premise that nearly every army since 1800 has been multiethnic in nature. In fact, the average army had 5 different ethnic groups. (Think, for example, of Napoleon's march on Moscow, where non-French outnumbered the French).
/4
I start from the premise that nearly every army since 1800 has been multiethnic in nature. In fact, the average army had 5 different ethnic groups. (Think, for example, of Napoleon's march on Moscow, where non-French outnumbered the French).
/4
We can peer inside each army to calculate its inequality score using 2 pieces of information:
(1) each ethnic group's share of the overall army; and
(2) the state's prewar treatment of each ethnic group.
/5
(1) each ethnic group's share of the overall army; and
(2) the state's prewar treatment of each ethnic group.
/5
The worse the prewar treatment by the state (including discrimination and violence), & the larger the targeted ethnic group, the worse the inequality in an army.
/6
/6
Why is inequality so problematic? Three reasons:
(1) It undercuts the morale of targeted groups
(2) It lowers trust across ethnic groups
(3) It builds networks among coethnics that they can use to subvert or escape military authorities
/7
(1) It undercuts the morale of targeted groups
(2) It lowers trust across ethnic groups
(3) It builds networks among coethnics that they can use to subvert or escape military authorities
/7
2) Inequality demands that militaries enact strict policies designed to manage their “divided armies”. The greater the inequality, the stricter these policies, and the worse the battlefield performance—as commanders sacrifice combat power to maintain cohesion within the ranks.
3) In 250 wars from 1800-2011, a clear empirical pattern emerges: the higher the inequality, the worse an army's battlefield performance.
Divided armies suffer greater losses, experience higher rates of desertion & defection, & have greater odds of shooting their own troops
/9
Divided armies suffer greater losses, experience higher rates of desertion & defection, & have greater odds of shooting their own troops
/9
4) The costs of fielding a divided army will only increase as drones, AI, & new surveillance technologies arrive on the battlefield.
As such, militaries must redouble their commitment to building diverse & inclusive forces to maximize their performance in future wars.
/10
As such, militaries must redouble their commitment to building diverse & inclusive forces to maximize their performance in future wars.
/10
For a more detailed account, please see my piece for @ambassadorbrief here:
ambassadorsbrief.com/posts/CHHyC3uS…
/11
ambassadorsbrief.com/posts/CHHyC3uS…
/11
You can also buy a copy of "Divided Armies" at 30% off with the code P234 from @PrincetonUPress (and free shipping worldwide with code FREEF)
press.princeton.edu/books/paperbac…
/12
press.princeton.edu/books/paperbac…
/12
