Mad CoW: A Reply to Gibler and Miller.

In Divided Armies , I argue that inequality within armies ("military inequality") has shaped their battlefield performance in conventional wars since 1800. Gibler and Miller (2022) are unpersuaded. They raise a flurry of concerns about the cross-national evidence and one statistical analysis in the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:International Studies Quarterly Vol. 66; no. 3; pp. 1 - 6
Autor principal: Lyall, Jason
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Oxford University Press / USA Sep2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
Descripción
Sumario:In Divided Armies , I argue that inequality within armies ("military inequality") has shaped their battlefield performance in conventional wars since 1800. Gibler and Miller (2022) are unpersuaded. They raise a flurry of concerns about the cross-national evidence and one statistical analysis in the book's Chapter 4. In particular, they maintain that Project Mars, the book's dataset, offers nothing new compared to the Correlates of War (CoW). I find their criticisms misplaced. I use their own statistical models for reanalyzing Project Mars to demonstrate that military inequality is an important driver of battlefield performance across six different measures in all types of CoW wars over the past 200 years. We should build, not bury, a research program that further explores the relationship between inequality and political violence.