Culture, Combat, and Colonialism in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century India

Abstract

military historians made a great effort during the 1990s to differentiate revolutions in military affairs from military revolutions.1 However, the events of 11 September 2001 and the invasion of Iraq hastened a collective change in focus. The shift was triggered in part by the recognition that cultural awareness had to be factored into assessments of global military security. But the emergent discourse on the culture of combat may not be underpinned by a sustainable methodology; it may merely be an exercise in military profiling driven by existing cultural assumptions. Scholars of Indian military history must deal with a similar problem: the cultural legacy of imperialist historiography. Victor Davis Hanson and John A. Lynn set the boundaries for the current dialogue.2 Hanson's central argument, building on his work on ancient Greece, assumes the supremacy of Western warfare typified by frontal infantry assault and civic militarism.3 Hanson's basic thesis also features in a work apparently intended to reassure faint-hearted Americans that decisive military force is essential for victory over foreign terrorist enemies.4 Lynn, who rejects much of Hanson's theory as Eurocentric, moves cautiously towards an examination of the nameless, faceless 'others' found in status quo military histories. On balance, Lynn fares better than Hanson when the work of both men is compared to Linda Colley's study of British captivity and empire.5 Colley is emphatic in her belief that 'othering' is a distinct cultural process with potentially dire military consequences. Although both Hanson and Lynn rely on battle narratives as vehicles for their analysis, their military scenarios often lack a common cultural