Engels’s Historical Materialist Interpretation of the “Ideological Battlefield”

The Eastern War (Crimean War) of 1853–1856 entered a critical phase, and this war sweeping the Black Sea coast drew intense attention to the two million troops that European states maintained in peacetime. At that time, the organization, tactics, and morale of the armies of various European countries differed markedly, and the previous military secrecy born of national mistrust was broken, providing objective conditions for systematic comparative research. Engels is regarded as a theorist of the “true encyclopedia” type in the history of the development of Marxist military theory. In 1855, at Marx’s request, he wrote the military work *The Armies of Europe*, which conducted a panoramic comparative study of the major European armies, expanding military struggle from mere armed confrontation into a total struggle in which material force and spiritual force support each other, and the material battlefield and the ideological battlefield interweave.

1853—1856年东方战争（克里米亚战争）进入关键阶段，这场席卷黑海沿岸的战争使欧洲平时保持着的200万军队受到高度关注。当时欧洲多国军队的编制、战术、士气差异显著，且此前因国家猜忌形成的军事保密状态被打破，为系统比较研究提供了客观条件。恩格斯被视为马克思主义军事理论发展史上“一部真正的百科全书”式的理论家，他在1855年应马克思所请撰写的军事著作《欧洲军队》，对欧洲主要国家的军队进行了全景式比较研究，将军事斗争从单纯的武力对抗，拓展为物质力量与精神力量相互支撑、物质战场与思想战场相互交织的总体斗争。

In *The Armies of Europe*, the “ideological battlefield” is not an explicit noun but an analytical thread running through the entire text. It points to the construction of ideas, disciplinary training, spiritual identification, and generation of morale within the army; it points to the comparison and competitive struggle at the spiritual level among armies of different nationalities, different systems, and different classes. From the perspective of historical materialism, Engels clarifies: the spiritual state, ideological character, discipline, and fighting will of an army are not an abstract “nature” but a form of social consciousness jointly shaped by the mode of social production, class relations, historical traditions, cultural level, and social system; the ideological struggle, spiritual shaping, and morale mobilization in the military field constitute an “ideological battlefield” that runs parallel to the armed battlefield and profoundly constrains the outcome of war.

“思想战场”在《欧洲军队》中并非一个显性名词，而是贯穿全文的分析线索，它指向军队内部的观念建构、纪律规训、精神认同、士气生成，指向不同民族、不同制度、不同阶级军队在精神层面的优劣对比与竞争博弈。恩格斯从唯物史观角度阐明：一支军队的精神状态、思想特质、纪律意识、战斗意志，不是抽象的“天性”，而是由社会生产方式、阶级关系、历史传统、文化水平与社会制度共同塑造的社会意识形式；军事领域的思想争夺、精神塑造、士气动员，构成与武力战场并行且深刻制约战争胜负的“思想战场”。

As a classic text applying historical materialism to analyze military phenomena, its core value lies not only in systematically sorting out the organizational structure, arms differences, and military practices of the armies of various European countries in the 19th century, but also, through the surface of army building, in revealing that the ideological battlefield, as an important part of the social superstructure, is determined by the economic base, driven by class interests, and shaped by historical practice. In *The Armies of Europe*, Engels consistently adheres to an unshakable principle: the spiritual characteristics and ideological conditions in military affairs are, in the final analysis, determined by social existence and are the product of specific economic relations, class structures, and national ways of life. This is the theoretical foundation of his analysis of the “ideological battlefield” and the fundamental dividing line from idealist military views. In his comparison of European armies such as those of France, Germany, Britain, and Russia, Engels focuses on the core category of national military characteristics. He clearly states: “National character, historical traditions, and especially different degrees of civilization, nevertheless create many differences, so that the armies of each country have their own special strengths and weaknesses. Frenchmen and Hungarians, Englishmen and Italians, Russians and Germans, under certain conditions can all become equally good and capable soldiers.” “We can see at once what an advantage a higher degree of civilization gives a country militarily over its less developed neighbors.” The degree of civilization of any country or any nation at different stages is not formed naturally but is the long-term result of the shaping of each country’s geographical environment, economic structure, political system, and historical process. These discussions profoundly break the idealist historical interpretation that mystifies national military characteristics.

作为运用唯物史观剖析军事现象的经典文献，其核心价值不仅在于系统梳理19世纪欧洲多国军队的组织编制、兵种差异与军事实践，更在于透过军队建设的表象，揭示出思想战场作为社会上层建筑的重要部分，受经济基础决定、因阶级利益驱动、被历史实践塑造。恩格斯在《欧洲军队》中始终坚持一条不可动摇的原则：军事上的精神特性与思想状况，归根到底由社会存在决定，是特定经济关系、阶级结构与民族生活方式的产物。这是其分析“思想战场”的理论基石，也是与唯心主义军事观的根本分野。在对法、德、英、俄等欧洲军队的比较中，恩格斯集中论述了民族军事特性这一核心范畴。他明确指出：“民族性格、历史传统，特别是不同的文明程度，却又造成了许多差异，使各个国家的军队都各有其特殊的长处和短处。法国人和匈牙利人、英国人和意大利人、俄国人和德国人，他们在一定条件下都能成为同样优秀和干练的士兵。”“我们一下子就可以看出，较高的文明程度使一个国家对它的不够发达的邻国在军事上享有何等的优势。”任何国家、任何民族不同阶段的文明程度，并非天然形成，而是各自国家的地理环境、经济结构、政治制度、历史进程长期塑造的结果。这些论述深刻打破了唯心史观对民族军事特性的神秘化解读。

The ideological battlefield is not an abstract, fragmented spiritual space but a special field rooted in material social relations. The spiritual temperament, ideological orientation, and fighting style of an army are essentially the concentrated projection of the social existence of a country and a nation in the military field. Taking the Russian army at that time as an example, influenced by the feudal serf system, soldiers would develop characteristics of strong obedience, low demands, and insufficient flexibility. Therefore, national military characteristics such as the agility and sharpness of the French army in attack, the tenacity and resilience of the British army in defense, the comprehensive adaptability of the German army to military tasks, and the passive obedience of the Russian army are not mysterious racial endowments but the embodiment of historically formed social consciousness in the military field of a specific community. The ideological battlefield is by no means a simple struggle over military ideas; it is a contest and competition among different classes, different social systems, and different interest groups over the spiritual shaping, value orientation, and political affiliation of specific armed forces. It is the concrete embodiment of historical materialism in the military field.

思想战场不是抽象、断裂的精神空间，而是植根于物质社会关系的特殊场域。军队的精神气质、思想取向、战斗风格，本质上是一个国家、一个民族的社会存在在军事领域的集中投射。以当时俄国军队为例，受封建农奴制的影响，会形成士兵服从性强、要求不高且灵活性不足的特点。因此，当时法国军队在进攻方面的敏捷和锐气、英国军队在抵抗方面的顽强坚韧、德意志军队对军事任务的全面适应、俄国军队的被动服从等民族军事特性并非神秘的种族禀赋，而是历史形成的社会意识在特定共同体军事领域当中的体现。思想战场绝非单纯的军事思想之争，而是不同阶级、不同社会制度、不同利益群体围绕特定武装力量的精神塑造、价值导向与政治归属的角逐博弈，是唯物史观在军事领域的具象化体现。

As a highly organized machine of violence, the primary ideological task of an army is to form unified will and absolute discipline. True military discipline is an ideological self-consciousness built on identification with the country, the system, and the national community. The primary function of the ideological battlefield is to condense and aggregate different individuals and scattered wills into a military force with unified will, unified thought, and the ability to act in unison. Engels analyzes the disciplinary conditions of different European armies. In armies dominated by feudal residual forces, disciplinary thought is centered on “hierarchical oppression” and “violent deterrence,” relying on corporal punishment, torture, and other means to maintain military order, which not only causes physical pain to soldiers but also leaves them with lifelong humiliation. This disciplinary thought originates from the feudal hierarchical system and is essentially the oppression and control of soldiers by the ruling class, reflecting the constraints of feudal relations of production on military thought. In contrast, after the bourgeois revolution, armies with disciplinary thought centered on “contract spirit” and “national obligation,” although still containing the essence of class oppression, broke the shackles of feudal hierarchy and emphasized the soldier’s responsibility and obligation to the state. This disciplinary thought reflects the needs of capitalist relations of production and is the embodiment of bourgeois thought in the military field.

军队作为高度组织化的暴力机器，其首要思想任务是形成统一意志与绝对纪律。而真正的军事纪律是建立在对国家、制度、民族共同体认同基础上的思想自觉。思想战场的首要功能，就是把不同的个体、分散的意志，凝结聚合为具有统一意志、统一思想、能够统一行动的军事力量。恩格斯对欧洲不同军队纪律状况作出分析，封建残余势力主导的军队，纪律思想以“等级压迫”“暴力威慑”为核心，依托体罚、酷刑等手段维系军事秩序，不仅造成士兵肉体疼痛，更给其留下终身耻辱。这种纪律思想源于封建等级制度，本质上是统治阶级对士兵的压迫与控制，反映出封建生产关系对军事思想的束缚；而资产阶级革命以后以“契约精神”“国家义务”为核心纪律思想的军队，尽管仍存在阶级压迫的本质，但打破了封建等级的桎梏，强调士兵对国家的责任与义务。这种纪律思想反映资本主义生产关系的需求，是资产阶级思想在军事领域的体现。

Engels also takes the Austrian army as an example, pointing out that the large-scale mixing of multiple nationalities in the army is a “serious problem” for the army: an army composed of soldiers of different nationalities, languages, and cultural backgrounds, “maintaining strict discipline by constantly flogging soldiers’ buttocks with hazel rods,” may maintain superficial order in peacetime, but at critical moments—when national contradictions intensify, when war aims provoke controversy, when morale is low—internal rifts will be fully exposed. “In the army of this one country, Austria, there are six nationalities and two or three religious faiths. Then the various tendencies existing in this army must inevitably come into conflict with each other at a time when all nations are eager to use their armed forces freely.” Engels points out that such an army “requires very special circumstances to bring its power into full play,” meaning that only when the war aims are consistent with the interests of all nationalities can a multi-ethnic mixed army coalesce into a whole; once the war loses this “commonality of interests,” the army easily disintegrates from within. Therefore, whether an army can control its internal ideological battlefield directly determines its organizational effectiveness and combat success or failure. Discipline lacking ideological identification can only be passive and fragile discipline, easily collapsing in actual combat; discipline built on ideological identification can be transformed into active and tenacious combat effectiveness, becoming a strong guarantee of the ideological battlefield.

恩格斯还以奥地利军队为例指出，军队多民族大混合的状况是军队的“一个严重的问题”：一支由不同民族、不同语言、不同文化背景的士兵组成的军队，“靠经常用榛树条鞭打士兵臀部而维持的严格纪律”在平时或许可以维持表面秩序，但在关键时刻——当民族矛盾激化、当战争目标引发争议、当士气低落时——内部的裂痕就会暴露无遗。“在奥地利这一个国家的军队中就有六个民族，两三种宗教信仰。那么，这支军队中存在的各种倾向性，在目前这样一个各民族渴望自由使用其武力的时刻，就必定要彼此发生冲突。”恩格斯指出，这样的军队需要“有很特殊的时机才能充分发挥出它的威力”，这意味着只有当战争目标与各个民族的利益一致时，多民族混合的军队才能凝聚成整体；一旦战争失去这种“利益共同性”，军队就容易从内部瓦解。因此，一支军队能否掌控内部思想战场，直接决定其组织效能与战斗成败。缺乏思想认同的纪律，只能是被动、脆弱的纪律，在实战中极易崩溃；而建立在思想认同基础上的纪律，才能转化为主动、坚韧的战斗力，成为思想战场的坚强保证。

Morale and will, as the practical spiritual embodiment of the ideological battlefield, are the spiritual core of an army’s combat effectiveness. Engels examines the 19th-century European armies through the lens of historical materialism, profoundly revealing that morale and will are rooted in the social system and class attributes, manifested in combat practice and disciplinary norms, and unified in the decisive role of the “human factor” in the outcome of war. Engels does not reduce morale and will to “innate bravery” but places them within the investigation of material production and social relations. After comparing the armies of various European countries, he points out that the morale of feudal mercenary armies is fragile, stemming from soldiers fighting for pay and lacking spiritual faith support; the morale of bourgeois armies is high, because soldiers possess a conscious sense of spiritual belonging. It can be seen that the essence of morale and will is the practical transformation of ideological identification, the vivid manifestation on the battlefield of the political consciousness of whom one fights for.

士气与意志作为思想战场的实战精神体现，是军队战斗力的精神内核。恩格斯以历史唯物主义审视19世纪欧洲军队，深刻揭示出，士气和意志植根于社会制度与阶级属性，彰显于作战实践与纪律规范，二者统一于“人的因素”对战争胜负的决定性作用。恩格斯不是把士气与意志归结为“天生勇武”，而是将其置于物质生产与社会关系当中考察。他对比欧洲多国军队后指出，封建雇佣军士气脆弱，源于士兵为薪饷作战、缺乏精神信仰支撑；资产阶级军队士气高昂，在于士兵拥有自觉的精神归属。可见，士气与意志的本质是思想认同的实战转化，是为谁而战的政治自觉在战场上的生动展现。

Morale and will, as the “offensive and defensive blades” of the ideological battlefield, can transform spiritual strength into the capacity for victory when equipment is inferior and the battle situation is difficult. In analyzing European armies, Engels repeatedly used terms such as “spirit of unity,” “spirit of courage,” “indomitable tenacity,” “unwavering resolve,” and “daring to charge and fight” to indicate that the ultimate limit of armed confrontation is a contest of spiritual will. The prolonged resistance of the British army at Inkerman, where it fought outnumbered, is a typical manifestation of the fruits of the ideological battlefield. Engels recorded in *The Armies of Europe*: “Even the steadfast and tenacious spirit of which the Russian army is so proud must be taken with considerable reservation, for at Inkerman 8,000 British infantry, suddenly attacked on a position that was neither fully occupied nor strongly defended, engaged in hand-to-hand combat with 15,000 attacking Russians, held out for over four hours, and repeatedly beat back the Russian assaults. This battle must certainly have taught the Russian army that in their own strongest aspect they had met a stronger opponent.” This tenacious resistance was not simply a matter of continuous weapons supply or sustained physical strength; it was a concentrated eruption of the British army’s combat will. Similarly, the Russian army’s endurance and the French army’s offensive initiative are not, in Engels’s account, abstract courage, but rather the practical embodiment of long-term tempering on the ideological battlefield. Morale and will are the concentrated eruption of ideological strength in the face of material hardship. An army without an ideological soul, without morale and will, will collapse at the critical moment even if it is well-equipped; whereas an army with firm ideology, high morale, and strong will can, even if its material conditions are temporarily inferior, rely on spiritual strength to make up the gap and seize the initiative on the battlefield. Maintaining high morale and firm combat will allows spiritual strength to be transformed into hard-core combat effectiveness, which fully demonstrates the truth of Marxist military theory that “what ultimately decides victory or defeat in war is people, not things.”

士气和意志作为思想战场的“攻防利刃”，能在装备劣势、战局艰难时，把精神力量转化为制胜能力。在分析欧洲军队时，恩格斯多次使用“团结精神”“勇敢精神”“不屈不挠的顽强精神”“坚定不移的精神”“敢打敢冲的精神”等，说明武力对抗的尽头就是精神意志的较量。英军在因克尔曼以少战多的持久抵抗，就是思想战场成果的典型体现。恩格斯在《欧洲军队》当中记载：“就是对俄军引以自豪的坚定顽强精神也必须持相当的保留态度，因为在因克尔曼，8000名英国步兵在一个并未完全占领，防守也不严密的阵地上遭到突然袭击，他们同来袭的15000名俄军进行了白刃战，抵抗达4小时以上，硬是打退了俄军一次又一次的进攻。这次战斗肯定已经使俄军认识到，在他们自己最强的一方面，却碰上了更强的对手。”这种顽强抵抗并非单纯的武器不断供给、体力持续支撑，而是英国军队战斗意志的集中爆发。同样，俄军的坚韧耐受力、法军的突击主动性，在恩格斯笔下都不是抽象的勇敢，而是思想战场长期淬炼的实战体现。士气与意志是思想力量对抗物质困境的集中爆发。一支没有思想灵魂、没有士气与意志的军队，即便装备精良，也会在关键时刻崩溃；而一支思想坚定、士气高昂、意志坚强的军队，即便物质条件一时处于劣势，也能凭借精神力量弥补差距，赢得战场主动。保持高昂士气、坚定战斗意志，能够让精神力量转化为硬核战斗力，这充分彰显了马克思主义军事理论关于“最终决定战争胜负的是人而不是物”的真理力量。

From the analysis of the armies of many nineteenth-century European countries in *The Armies of Europe* to contemporary military practice, Engels’s profound exposition of the “ideological battlefield” transcends time and still possesses powerful theoretical appeal. This inspires us: no matter how technology develops, the subject of war remains human; the initiative on the ideological battlefield is as important as—and even more fundamental than—the initiative on the armed battlefield. The struggle for popular support, the control of ideological dominance, and the cultivation of spiritual cohesion have always been core issues in military struggle.

从《欧洲军队》对19世纪欧洲多国军队的分析到当代军事实践，恩格斯关于“思想战场”的深刻论述穿越时空，依然具有强大的理论魅力。这启发我们：无论技术如何发展，战争的主体始终是人；思想战场的主动权，与武力战场的主动权同等重要，甚至更为根本。对人心向背的争夺、对意识形态主导权的掌控、对精神凝聚力的培育，始终是军事斗争的核心议题。

(The author is a professor at the School of Marxism, Chongqing University.)

（作者系重庆大学马克思主义学院教授）