Explaining outcomes of asymmetric conflicts revisited: The Arauco War

Abstract

This article evaluates two theories that seek to explain the outcomes of asymmetric conflicts. It uses evidence from a case study of the Arauco War (1536-1883). The war resulted, unlike most other instances of European colonization, in the victory of the weaker side. The first theory argues that in asymmetrical warfare, opponents choose between direct (conventional) and indirect (guerrilla) approaches; the stronger side is more likely to win same-approach interactions, while the weaker side is more likely to prevail in different-approach interactions. The second theory advances the claim that when armies become mechanized, they gather less intelligence from the ground, and are therefore less likely to solve the information problem -telling combatants apart from noncombatants. The analysis of the Arauco War shows the limitations of the first theory: the stronger side can easily win some different-approach (indirectdirect) interactions, while the weaker can win same-approach (indirect-indirect) ones. The study lends support to the second theory, especially once it is generalized to include cultural differences as factors that exacerbate the identification problem.

HLA allele and haplotype frequencies of registered stem cell donors in Chile

“…Mainly Spanish males migrated and mated with females from indigenous population groups ( 16 , 17 ). Various indigenous tribes joined forces and succeeded to resist the conquerors in a long-running conflict and to defend parts of their territory in today’s Southern Chile until its occupation by the end of the 19th century ( 18 ). During the 19 th and 20 th century, immigration of different European populations took place after the declaration of independence in 1818; the Chilean government initiated selective entry of Europeans through colonization agencies.…”