Abattle is an occurrence ofcombat inwarfare between opposingmilitary units of any number or size. Awar usually consists of multiple battles. In general, a battle is a series ofmilitary engagements that is well defined in duration, area, and force commitment.[1][2] An engagement with only limited commitment between the forces and without decisive results is sometimes called askirmish.
The word "battle" can also be used infrequently to refer to an entire operational campaign, although this usage greatly diverges from its conventional or customary meaning. Generally, the word "battle" is used for such campaigns if referring to a protracted combat encounter in which either one or both of the combatants had the same methods, resources, and strategic objectives throughout the encounter. Some prominent examples of this would be theBattle of the Atlantic,Battle of Britain, and theBattle of France, all in World War II.
Battle is aloanword from theOld Frenchbataille, first attested in 1297, fromLate Latinbattualia, meaning "exercise of soldiers and gladiators in fighting and fencing", fromLate Latin (taken from Germanic)battuere "beat", from which the English word battery is also derived viaMiddle Englishbatri.[5][6]
The defining characteristic of the fight as a concept inmilitary science has changed with the variations in the organisation, employment and technology of military forces. The Englishmilitary historianJohn Keegan suggested an ideal definition of battle as "something which happens between twoarmies leading to the moral then physical disintegration of one or the other of them" but the origins and outcomes of battles can rarely be summarized so neatly.[7] Battle in the 20th and 21st centuries is defined as the combat between large components of the forces in amilitary campaign, used to achievemilitary objectives.[8] Where the duration of the battle is longer than a week, it is often for reasons ofplanning called an operation. Battles can be planned,encountered or forced by one side when the other is unable towithdraw from combat.
A battle always has as its purpose the reaching of amission goal by use of military force.[9] A victory in the battle is achieved when one of the opposing sides forces the other to abandon its mission andsurrender its forces,routs the other (i.e., forces it to retreat or renders it militarily ineffective for furthercombat operations) orannihilates the latter, resulting in their deaths or capture. A battle may end in aPyrrhic victory, which ultimately favors the defeated party. If no resolution is reached in a battle, it can result in astalemate. A conflict in which one side is unwilling to reach a decision by a direct battle usingconventional warfare often becomes aninsurgency.
Until the 19th century the majority of battles were of short duration, many lasting a part of a day. (TheBattle of Preston (1648), theBattle of Nations (1813) and theBattle of Gettysburg (1863) were exceptional in lasting three days.) This was mainly due to the difficulty of supplyingarmies in the field or conductingnight operations. The means of prolonging a battle was typically withsiege warfare. Improvements intransport and the sudden evolving oftrench warfare, with its siege-like nature during theFirst World War in the 20th century, lengthened the duration of battles to days and weeks.[9] This created the requirement forunit rotation to preventcombat fatigue, with troops preferably not remaining in a combat area of operations for more than a month.
The use of the term "battle" in military history has led to its misuse when referring to almost any scale of combat, notably by strategic forces involving hundreds of thousands of troops that may be engaged in either one battle at a time (Battle of Leipzig) or operations (Battle of Wuhan). The space a battle occupies depends on the range of theweapons of the combatants. A "battle" in this broader sense may be of long duration and take place over a large area, as in the case of theBattle of Britain or theBattle of the Atlantic. Until the advent ofartillery andaircraft, battles were fought with the two sides within sight, if not reach, of each other. The depth of thebattlefield has also increased inmodern warfare with inclusion of the supporting units in the rear areas; supply, artillery, medical personnel etc. often outnumber the front-line combat troops.
Battles are made up of a multitude of individual combats,skirmishes and smallengagements and the combatants will usually only experience a small part of the battle. To theinfantryman, there may be little to distinguish between combat as part of a minor raid or a big offensive, nor is it likely that he anticipates the future course of the battle; few of the British infantry who went over the top on thefirst day on the Somme, 1 July 1916, would have anticipated that the battle would last five months. Some of the Allied infantry who had just dealt a crushing defeat to the French at theBattle of Waterloo fully expected to have to fight again the next day (at theBattle of Wavre).
Battles are decided by various factors, the number and quality of combatants and equipment, the skill ofcommanders and terrain are among the most prominent. Weapons and armour can be decisive; on many occasions armies have achieved victory through more advanced weapons than those of their opponents. An extreme example was in theBattle of Omdurman, in which a large army of SudaneseMahdists armed in a traditional manner were destroyed by an Anglo-Egyptian force equipped withMaxim machine guns and artillery.
On some occasions, simple weapons employed in an unorthodox fashion have proven advantageous;Swiss pikemen gained many victories through their ability to transform a traditionally defensive weapon into an offensive one.Zulus in the early 19th century were victorious in battles against their rivals in part because they adopted a new kind of spear, theiklwa. Forces with inferior weapons have still emerged victorious at times, for example in theWars of Scottish Independence. Disciplined troops are often of greater importance; at theBattle of Alesia, the Romans were greatly outnumbered but won because of superior training.
Battles can also be determined by terrain. Capturing high ground has been the main tactic in innumerable battles. An army that holds the high ground forces the enemy to climb and thus wear themselves down. Areas of jungle and forest, with dense vegetation act as force-multipliers, of benefit to inferior armies. Terrain may have lost importance in modern warfare, due to the advent of aircraft, though the terrain is still vital for camouflage, especially forguerrilla warfare.
Generals and commanders also play an important role,Hannibal,Julius Caesar,Khalid ibn Walid,Subutai andNapoleon Bonaparte were all skilled generals and their armies were extremely successful at times. An army that can trust the commands of their leaders with conviction in its success invariably has a higher morale than an army that doubts its every move. The British in the navalBattle of Trafalgar owed its success to the reputation of AdmiralLord Nelson.
Battles can be fought on land, at sea, and in the air.Naval battles have occurred since before the 5th century BC. Air battles have been far less common, due to their late conception, the most prominent being theBattle of Britain in 1940. Since the Second World War, land or sea battles have come to rely on air support. During theBattle of Midway, fiveaircraft carriers were sunk without either fleet coming into direct contact.
Battle Scene-Detail from Deccan miniature painting, c. 19th century
Apitched battle is an encounter where opposing sides agree on the time and place of combat.
Abattle of encounter (orencounter battle) is ameeting engagement where the opposing sides collide in the field without either having prepared their attack or defence.
Abattle of attrition aims to inflict losses on an enemy that are less sustainable compared to one's own losses. These need not be greater numerical losses – if one side is much more numerous than the other then pursuing a strategy based on attrition can work even if casualties on both sides are about equal. Many battles of theWestern Front in the First World War were intentionally (Verdun) or unintentionally (Somme) attrition battles.
Abattle ofbreakthrough aims to pierce the enemy's defences, thereby exposing the vulnerable flanks which can be turned.
There is an obvious difference in the way battles have been fought. Early battles were probably fought between rival hunting bands as unorganized crowds. During theBattle of Megiddo, the first reliably documented battle in the fifteenth century BC, both armies were organised and disciplined; during the many wars of theRoman Empire,barbarians continued to usemob tactics.
As theAge of Enlightenment dawned, armies began to fight in highly disciplined lines. Each would follow the orders from their officers and fight as a unit instead of individuals. Armies were divided intoregiments,battalions,companies andplatoons. These armies would march, line up and fire in divisions.
Native Americans, on the other hand, did not fight in lines, using guerrilla tactics. American colonists and European forces continued using disciplined lines into theAmerican Civil War.
A new style arose from the 1850s to the First World War, known astrench warfare, which also led to tacticalradio.Chemical warfare also began in 1915.
By the Second World War, the use of the smaller divisions, platoons and companies became much more important as precise operations became vital. Instead of the trench stalemate of 1915–1917, in the Second World War, battles developed where small groups encountered other platoons. As a result, elite squads became much more recognized and distinguishable.Maneuver warfare also returned with an astonishing pace with the advent of thetank, replacing the cannon of the Enlightenment Age. Artillery has since gradually replaced the use of frontal troops. Modern battles resemble those of the Second World War, along with indirect combat through the use of aircraft and missiles which has come to constitute a large portion of wars in place of battles, where battles are now mostly reserved for capturing cities.[citation needed]
One significant difference of modern naval battles, as opposed to earlier forms of combat is the use ofmarines, which introduced amphibious warfare. Today, a marine is actually an infantry regiment that sometimes fights solely on land and is no longer tied to the navy. A good example of an ancient naval battle is theBattle of Salamis. Most ancient naval battles were fought by fast ships using thebattering ram to sink opposing fleets or steer close enough for boarding in hand-to-hand combat. Troops were often used to storm enemy ships as used byRomans andpirates. This tactic was usually used by civilizations that could not beat the enemy with ranged weaponry. Another invention in the lateMiddle Ages was the use ofGreek fire by the Byzantines, which was used to set enemy fleets on fire. Empty demolition ships utilized the tactic to crash into opposing ships and set it afire with an explosion. After the invention of cannons, naval warfare became useful as support units for land warfare. During the 19th century, the development of mines led to a new type of naval warfare. Theironclad, first used in theAmerican Civil War, resistant to cannons, soon made the wooden ship obsolete. The invention of militarysubmarines, duringWorld War I, brought naval warfare to both above and below the surface. With the development of military aircraft duringWorld War II, battles were fought in the sky as well as below the ocean.Aircraft carriers have since become the central unit in naval warfare, acting as a mobile base for lethal aircraft.
Although the use of aircraft has for the most part always been used as a supplement to land or naval engagements, since their first major military use in World War I aircraft have increasingly taken on larger roles in warfare. During World War I, the primary use was for reconnaissance, and small-scale bombardment. Aircraft began becoming much more prominent in theSpanish Civil War and especially World War II. Aircraft design began specializing, primarily into two types: bombers, which carried explosive payloads to bomb land targets or ships; and fighter-interceptors, which were used to either intercept incoming aircraft or to escort and protect bombers (engagements between fighter aircraft were known asdog fights). Some of the more notable aerial battles in this period include theBattle of Britain and theBattle of Midway. Another important use of aircraft came with the development of thehelicopter, which first became heavily used during the Vietnam War, and still continues to be widely used today to transport and augment ground forces. Today, direct engagements between aircraft are rare – the most modern fighter-interceptors carry much more extensive bombing payloads, and are used to bomb precision land targets, rather than to fight other aircraft. Anti-aircraft batteries are used much more extensively to defend against incoming aircraft than interceptors. Despite this, aircraft today are much more extensively used as the primary tools for both army and navy, as evidenced by the prominent use of helicopters to transport and support troops, the use of aerial bombardment as the "first strike" in many engagements, and the replacement of the battleship with the aircraft carrier as the center of most modern navies.
Battles are usually named after some feature of the battlefieldgeography, such as a town, forest or river, commonly prefixed "Battle of...". Occasionally battles are named after the date on which they took place, such asThe Glorious First of June. In theMiddle Ages it was considered important to settle on a suitable name for a battle which could be used by thechroniclers. AfterHenry V of England defeated a French army on October 25, 1415, he met with the senior Frenchherald and they agreed to name the battle after the nearbycastle and so it was called theBattle of Agincourt. In other cases, the sides adopted different names for the same battle, such as theBattle of Gallipoli which is known in Turkey as theBattle of Çanakkale. During the American Civil War, the Union tended to name the battles after the nearest watercourse, such as the Battle of Wilsons Creek and the Battle of Stones River, whereas the Confederates favoured the nearby towns, as in the Battles of Chancellorsville and Murfreesboro. Occasionally both names for the same battle entered the popular culture, such as theFirst Battle of Bull Run and theSecond Battle of Bull Run, which are also referred to as the First and Second Battles of Manassas.
Some battles are named for the convenience ofmilitary historians so that periods of combat can be neatly distinguished from one another. Following the First World War, the British Battles Nomenclature Committee was formed to decide on standard names for all battles and subsidiary actions. To the soldiers who did the fighting, the distinction was usually academic; a soldier fighting atBeaumont Hamel on November 13, 1916, was probably unaware he was taking part in what the committee named theBattle of the Ancre. Many combats are too small to be battles; terms such as "action", "affair", "skirmish", "firefight", "raid", or "offensive patrol" are used to describe small military encounters. These combats often take place within the time and space of a battle and while they may have an objective, they are not necessarily "decisive". Sometimes the soldiers are unable to immediately gauge the significance of the combat; in the aftermath of theBattle of Waterloo, some British officers were in doubt as to whether the day's events merited the title of "battle" or would be called an "action".[citation needed]
Battles affect the individuals who take part, as well as the political actors. Personal effects of battle range from mild psychological issues to permanent and crippling injuries. Some battle-survivors have nightmares about the conditions they encountered or abnormal reactions to certain sights or sounds and some experienceflashbacks. Physical effects of battle can include scars, amputations, lesions, loss of bodily functions, blindness, paralysis and death. Battles affectpolitics; a decisive battle can cause the losing side to surrender, while aPyrrhic victory such as theBattle of Asculum can cause the winning side to reconsider its goals. Battles incivil wars have often decided the fate of monarchs or political factions. Famous examples include theWars of the Roses, as well as theJacobite risings. Battles affect the commitment of one side or the other to the continuance of a war, for example theBattle of Inchon and theBattle of Huế during theTet Offensive.
^Kulju, Mika (2007).Raatteen tie : Talvisodan pohjoinen sankaritarina (in Finnish). Helsinki: Ajatus kirjat.ISBN978-951-20-7218-7.
^Karttimo, Leo; Salminen, K. E. (1992).Rannikolta Raatteen tielle : sotaveteraanien haastatteluihin, sotapäiväkirjoihin sekä moniin muihin lähteisiin perustuva teos (in Finnish). Karttimo-Salminen yhteistyöryhmä.ISBN952-90-3809-7.
Sources
von Clausewitz, Carl (1979). Hahlweg, Werner (ed.).Bemerkungen über die reine und angewandte Strategie des Herrn von Bülow oder Kritik der darin enthaltenen Ansichten [Remarks on the Pure and Applied Strategy of Mr von Bülow or Criticism of the Views contained Therein] (in German) (repr. Biblio Verlag ed.). Osnabrück: Verstreutekleine Schriften. no isbn
Official Names of the Battles and Other Engagements Fought by the Military Forces of the British Empire During the Great War, 1914–1919, and the Third Afghan War, 1919 (Cmd 1138) (The Naval & Military Press, Uckfield ed.). London: HMSO. 1993 [1922].ISBN1-897632-06-1.
Richardson, F. M.; Hunt, Sir Peter (Foreword) (1978).Fighting Spirit: A Study of Psychological Factors in War. London: Leo Cooper.ISBN0-85052-236-6.
Tucker, T. G. (1976).Etymological Dictionary of Latin. Chicago: Ares.ISBN0-89005-172-0.
.jpg)
