Archaic Martial Traditions in High Medieval Scandinavia: A Glimpse of Viking Age Warfare?

Most written evidence regarding warfare in Viking Age Scandinavia originates either from contemporaneous chronicles – recorded by those at the receiving end of Norse attacks – from skaldic poetry, or from high medieval Scandinavian texts. However, these sources often prove problematic: either in the form of chronicles from other parts of Europe, whichoften exaggerate the brutality of Viking raids, or from 13th century Icelandic writers, who embellish accounts of long deceased rulers. This article explores archaic martial features found in 12th- and 13th-century contemporaneous sagas and treatises to identify and analyse the continued influence of Viking Age military practices in high medieval Scandinavia. By comparing information found in three medieval texts to scholarly contributions on Viking Age warfare; skaldic poems; and archaeological evidence, this article aims to identify Viking Age military features that survived the military transformation, which followed the periods of internal struggles that the Scandinavian kingdoms underwent from the 1130s onwards.

COLOMBIAN MILITARY TRANSFORMATION: STRATEGIC REALITY AND OVERCOMING RESISTANCES

After the signing of peace in Colombia, attention has been directed to the difficult process of implementing the agreements. This complex scenario has downplayed the problem of Colombian military transformation. The basis of that transformation, the Damasco doctrine, the, has encountered resistance within the Colombian Military Forces. Through the application of a process tracing method, we infer that there is a non-linear process, but in progress towards the fulfillment of the objectives of the doctrine. Thus, we identify three drivers that are making this transformation progress: a renewed confrontation with Venezuela; the changing nature of the domestic conflict; and the Colombia’s NATO global partner status.

Deterrence à la Ruse: Its Uniqueness, Sources and Implications

This chapter traces the evolution of Russian thinking on deterrence and makes three arguments. First, the Russian approach to deterrence differs from the Western conceptualization of this term. Deterrence a la Ruse is much broader than the meaning that Western experts have in mind. It stands for the use of threats to maintain the status quo, to change it, to shape the strategic environment within which the interaction occurs, to prevent escalation and to de-escalate. The term is used to describe activities towards and during military conflict, and spans all phases of war. Second, the peculiar usage of the term deterrence in the Russian expert community reflects the imprint of Russian strategic culture, and of the Russian military transformation that has been ongoing since the Soviet collapse. Finally, the unique Russian conceptualization of deterrence has implications for both practitioners and theoreticians of international security policy.