No Honor In War

“Kill the Villagers”

That’s advice I hear often when I play Age of Empires, a game that is based on medieval warfare (Microsoft). Yet the idea of not only killing villagers/civilians/non-combatants, but specifically targeting them to win wars, is a relatively new idea; an idea that did not exist much during the original medieval era. Now, however, Total War pervades all wars and all attitudes, considered as acceptable as war itself.

It is often argued that the concept of Total War originated first from the ability to wage total war and from the fact that civilians were increasingly important to the war effort. Before the advent of modern weaponry armies generally foraged for food and supplies. But modern weaponry requires ammunition and other supplies that cannot easily be found in nature. Therefore the civilian population is required to produce the weapons of war, which is used as justification toward killing them (Barash & Webel 24).

This attitude is seen in many modern wars. In WWII the bombing of London resulted in severe civilian casualties. In Vietnam the primary enemy were the Vietkong, who could be a 'civilian' by day and an enemy by night. The 9/11 attacks on the twin towers directly targeted America's civilian populace. One part of this is because modern weapons actually do cause more damage to the surroundings than older weapons did. The second part is that man in general does not seem to have a problem with involving noncombatants in war. Both of these are required to create Total War, both the ability and the willingness, and man has achieved both.

Can the attitude of Total War be reversed? I find it unlikely. The reason is simple: sides that utilize Total War are more likely to win. Nations utilizing Total War can inflict injuries to civilian populace—to a nation’s production and economy—that couldn’t otherwise be inflicted. This was true even in the medieval ages, but attacks on the civilian populace were significantly harder without guns or planes or bombs. And just as no nation would surrender its nuclear power, no nation will refuse to engage in Total War, especially if no other option seems available. And the worst part is that every nation or rebel group has the capacity to engage in Total War.

Like nukes, the concept of Total War will not die easily. First it must be seen as an unacceptable method of fighting, irregardless the situation. And this must be done all around the world, since no nation would agree to fight a limited war, while its adversary was capable of attacking anything and everything. Total War is an attitude that cannot fade, but must die all at once.

As of now, it is not dying. It is only growing stronger, because while Total War is morally abhorrent, it is tactically advantageous. And that is why I don’t hesitate to kill the villagers in Age of Empires.

And while it is true that killing virtual villagers and killing real citizens is completely different from a moral standpoint, it doesn’t seem to faze humanity.

Barash and Webel. Peace and Conflict Studies. (Sage Publications, 2002)

Microsoft. Age of Empires. 1997