and implications, Carl von Clausewitz assumes a place among the most prominent figures. With his book On War, he demonstrated his capability to provide thorough historical analysis and conclusions of the conflicts in which he was engaged, and as a philosopher he reflected about all encompassing aspects of war. Today, Western armies conduct modern warfare in a dynamic environment composed of flexible and multiple threats in which civilians form a substantial part. Studying Clausewitz provides current
Clausewitz Assignment Carl Von Clausewitz was a Prussian general and military theorist, whose work Vom Kriege (1832 On War) became one of the most respected classics on military strategy. In this classic, he had 28 sections that all discussed what there is to a war. He had an ideology of what a war was, and gave a thorough meaning to it, without perplexing the definition like publicists did. In his own words, “War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our war”. He compared
military theorists emerge in the period after the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic War: the Prussian Carl von Clausewitz and the Swiss Antoine-Henri Jomini. In modern military philosophy, the theoretical traditions established by each of these military theorist has significantly impacted our military thinking and their teaching has become essential in the education of modern military leaders. Clausewitz and Jomini have become required reading for today's military professional officer. Frequently, these
in a structured, scientific manner. Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) took a more fluid, open-ended approach to his philosophy of war. The fact that they lived during the same time period in Europe is also fascinating in that they likely knew of each others’ writings as well as potentially influenced and were influenced by the philosophy of the other. Jomini’s scientific approach is more applicable to the tactical and operational levels of war while Clausewitz approaches war as more of an art or
American Civil War changed the face of warfare. The theories of both Antione-Henri Jomini and Carl von Clausewitz, the two most prominent military theorists of the 19th Century, can be seen in many aspects of the conflict. While Jomini’s tactics played a large role on the battlefield, the strategic concepts of Carl Von Clausewitz best characterize the nature of the Civil War. The writings of Clausewitz proved prophetic in three distinct areas: the strength of the defense over the offense, the concept
notorious scorched-earth policy. On June 23, 1812 Napoleon's Grande Armee, over 500,000 men strong, poured over the Russian border. An equal amount of Russian forces awaited them. The result of the campaign was a surprise. Two authors, General carl von Clausewitz and Brett James, show similarities in reasons why Napoleon had lost this campaign to Russia. Napoleon believed that after a few quick victorious battles, he could convince Alexander to return to the Continental System. He also decided that
No one can doubt the prominent and pioneer place that Carl Von Clausewitz occupies within the contemporary military thinkers. Even after almost 200 years since the publication of On War, his theories about war and strategies are still the anchor of discussions among many military historians and analysts. In one of his theories, the Paradoxical Trinity, Clausewitz describes the fundamental nature of war as an interplay between three tendencies: the irrational passion represented by hatred and enmity
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Whether they are mistakes, achievements, or anything in between, events from the past teach individuals and groups of people invaluable lessons. The problem is that people cannot experience themselves all these events; neither can they learn about them all. So they rely on analysis, conceptualizations, etcetera, which beyond historical collection of facts, constitute what are called theories. The wisdom that George Santayana captured
The ancient military treatises of Sun Tzu, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Carl von Clausewitz are all too often looked upon by readers as texts that are not applicable to modern-day warfare. The fact that these treatises were published centuries ago—Sun Tzu’s The Art of War in roughly 500 B.C., Machiavelli’s The Art of War in 1521, and Clausewitz’s Principles of War in the early nineteenth century—only furthers the belief that these treatises were designed for ancient warfare and thus have no current day
(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 15 July 1997), Chapter II, II-1 through II-15. excerpt reprinted in US Army Command and General Staff College, C500 Book of Readings, 345. Fort Leavenworth, KS: USACGSC, June 2009. Paret, Peter. “Clausewitz,” in Makers of Modern Strategy: from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age. Edited by Peter Paret, 86. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986. Rogers, Clifford J. “As if a new sun had arisen”: England’s fourteenth-century RMA,” in The Dynamics
Operational Design (OD) enables commanders, and their staffs, to solve problems of varying scope and severity at the conceptual level. The elements of OD help provide the framework to guide the operational planning process from understanding the problems sets concerning the operational environment, to shaping coherent and executable courses of actions (COA) for the joint force. In particular, the OD elements of military end state, objectives, and center of gravity (COG), work together to help develop
Limited warfare is defined as “armed conflict short of general war, exclusive of incidents, involving the overt engagement of the military forces of two or more nations.” But why would one nation want to enter into a limited engagement and not totally eliminate the nation they perceive as a threat to their national interests. The most important factors leading to a limited war is the state or nations economic restrictions, manpower restrictions, and political objectives. How much can a
There have been sustained attempts to understand the nature of war. Carl von Clausewitz in his posthumously published book ‘’On War’’ (1832) concludes with the sentence- “War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will”. In basic terms reciprocity and use of force, according to him, are the central elements of any war. However, I strongly feel that every war is deep rooted into many layers of complexities rather than any two identifiable central elements. Whether one wages a war for
How do military historians explain war? To answer a question like this, one must look to the scholarship. However, works alone cannot explain the total scope of war, which means that historians take from the scholarship, and input what they deem necessary to the explanation of war. The Western experiences of war shaped the outcome of further study into warfare. Authors like Victor Davis Hanson, John Lynn, John Keegan, Martin van Creveld, and Niall Ferguson explain in detail to what extent the
War is strongly ingrained into our world today whether we like it or not and while it may seem more prevalent and worse lately considering the advances in technology and the increase in hysteria over security, war is not a recent adjunct to society. That poses the question, where does war come from? As human beings, are we hard-wired biologically to fight each other or is it a behaviour influenced by peers and morals? What is war? According to the thefreedictionary.com online dictionary, war
An Historiography Review of Napoleon failed invasion of Russia using Clausewitz and Theodore Evault Dodge books THESIS: Napoleon Bonaparte, an unparalleled military commander who conquered most of Europe around the early 1800’s, invaded Russia in 1812, who was under the rule of Tsar Alexander at the time, lost three quarters of his Grande Armee which was composed of soldiers from all over Europe totaling 600,000 soldiers. This part of history is the most talked about and studied military campaign
The rise of Napoleon Bonaparte is a magnificent illustration of skillful character meeting with overwhelming opportunities to form a supreme leader. His ambition was led primarily by impulse, not a set of ideals or connection to any structure. The vacillating government of France throughout the Revolution provided opportunities which had not previously been available. The opportunities available during the Revolution were mainly in the military. This favored Napoleon because he was mentally able
Napoleon Bonaparte was so Freaking Cool, Gosh Darn It Napoleon Bonaparte is seen by many today as a careless dictator that oppressed his people and cared only for his personal power. Although this was a large part of his personality, Napoleon was more than that. Napoleon Bonaparte was a strategic military genius that conquered most of the European continent and also made advances in French civil liberties. Napoleon Buonparte’s first cry was heard in the town of Ajaccio, an island of Corsica, France
nature and conditions of warfare. In his book Clausewitz not only traced an interaction of intension and planning with the realities of combat, but by exploring the relationship of war to policy, politics and society gave a new philosophical justification to the art of war. (Heuser, 2002) One of the most important claims made by Clausewitz in his book is that “war is a continuation of politics by other means”. (Clausewitz, 2007, p. 28) Indeed, Clausewitz argues that despite its violent character war
restraint. “The Sturm und Drang movement 's emphasis on feeling, and on mystery, and the supernatural, influenced profoundly, a number of young, early 19th century German composers, of whom the most important, from the standpoint of opera, was Carl Maria von Weber”. Drawing its inspiration from “John Jacques Rousseau 's belief that human feelings serve us better and more reliably than reason; Sturm und Drang authors advocated free expression and language, dress, behavior, and love” (L39). Der