This book is all about the theory and conceptual views of war. Clausewitz is a philosopher/general for the Prussian army. He talks a lot about how Napoleon Bonaparte was a great leader, even thought Clausewitz fought against Bonaparte. The language in the book was difficult at times and I found myself having to reread some of the paragraphs, because it was translated from German to English. Aside from that the book is by far my favorite philosopical war book. His ideas are clearly stated and even steps outside the actual fighting and looks at how war is to be viewed or "criticized."
I found myself constantly highlighting passages. The ideas are "simple," but "they are not easy"(Clausewitz 243). The book is long and has a lot of run on sentences, which did influence me when I was writing my Iliad essay, and is difficult to read at times.
"But the frequent application of methods will be seen to be most essential in and unavoidable in the conduct of war..." (Clausewitz 207) This whole passage is one sentence (broken up by semi-colons and comas) and a paragraph which happens to take up 90% of the page.
I would classify this book as a "how to" on just about every aspect of war. The content is extremely dense and will probably make more sense to me when I am older, but I could comprehend all of the ideas pretty well. Some were self-explanatory and others I needed to have broken down and detailed examples, which Clausewitz does. The theory of war was the most confusing at first, because the abstract ideas were over my head. So I had to ponder these ideas and then it was a renaissance for me. All of these ideas made sense and I could even talk to a Lieutenant in the Rangers about these ideas in war.
The rest of the book gets into actual events and devices in war. Strategy, method, tactics, Bonaparte, and a handful more that I cannot list. If one were to read this book, I would suggest a knowledge of the Rhine campaigns and many of the wars and people around the time of Bonaparte. (Fredrick the Great, etc.) I had to learn while reading and do research for myself to understand. This is my new favorite book, and I feel like I could read it again now that I have basically highlighted the whole book and grasp a better view on modern warfare.
This is the book that all current generals (U.S., French, Russian, British, etc.) study.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Methodicism
"However pre-eminently a great Commander does things, ther is always somthing subjective in the way he does them; and if he has a certain manner, a large share of his individuality is contained in it which does not always accord with the individuality of the person who copies his manner" (Clausewitz 209)
I chose this passage because this is supported by Machiavelli's idea that even if a prince copies another leader, that does not mean that the prince will have the same outcome. It is also true in boxing. Whenever one is trying to learn boxing, they must first learn the basics (which takes about a year to master), then they must work on developing their personal style. I myself have been boxing for 5 years and I am still trying to fully develop my own style. To achieve this, one would need to watch other professional boxers who have successful styles and use what they use (only if it works) and make adjustments to make it their own. If one is creative, then they could invent their own moves. I was told by my dad, "if it works, and you don't get in too much trouble for doing it, do it."
1). Could one follow exactly what someone else did and get the same results?
2). How would someone with no creativity (for instance) go about getting his own style?
I chose this passage because this is supported by Machiavelli's idea that even if a prince copies another leader, that does not mean that the prince will have the same outcome. It is also true in boxing. Whenever one is trying to learn boxing, they must first learn the basics (which takes about a year to master), then they must work on developing their personal style. I myself have been boxing for 5 years and I am still trying to fully develop my own style. To achieve this, one would need to watch other professional boxers who have successful styles and use what they use (only if it works) and make adjustments to make it their own. If one is creative, then they could invent their own moves. I was told by my dad, "if it works, and you don't get in too much trouble for doing it, do it."
1). Could one follow exactly what someone else did and get the same results?
2). How would someone with no creativity (for instance) go about getting his own style?
Nature of Observation
"It becomes then a guide to him who wishes to make himself acquainted with War from books; it lights up th ewhole road for him, facilitates his progress, educates his judgement, and shields him form error" (Clausewtiz 191).
This brings up and intresting point, on whether it is better to experience something with no prior knowledge of history or any other means that would give on the upper hand in a battle; or whether it is better to research history and create a foundation in which one could use to later as experience of knowledge. This is what I am doing, learning from books and creating a foundation. (Now, whether or not I go into some sort of military future is unclear). "... and shields him from error," this point is also important. If one learned through first hand experience with no knowledge of history, were to go into a battle and make a mistake, that mistake may be the end of the battle and maybe the end of that persons life. If he had learned that someone else made that same mistake and had the fatal outcome, he could see how experts analyzed the situation and how it could have been avoided. It is implied that he who learns form books would eventually recieve first hand experience on the battlefield.
1). Is this the only way in which one could learn about "War?"
This brings up and intresting point, on whether it is better to experience something with no prior knowledge of history or any other means that would give on the upper hand in a battle; or whether it is better to research history and create a foundation in which one could use to later as experience of knowledge. This is what I am doing, learning from books and creating a foundation. (Now, whether or not I go into some sort of military future is unclear). "... and shields him from error," this point is also important. If one learned through first hand experience with no knowledge of history, were to go into a battle and make a mistake, that mistake may be the end of the battle and maybe the end of that persons life. If he had learned that someone else made that same mistake and had the fatal outcome, he could see how experts analyzed the situation and how it could have been avoided. It is implied that he who learns form books would eventually recieve first hand experience on the battlefield.
1). Is this the only way in which one could learn about "War?"
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The Art or Science of War
"We say therefore War belongs not to the province of Arts and Sciences, but to the province of social life. It is a conflict of great interests which is settled by bloodshed, and only in that is it different from others" (Clausewitz 202).
"War is part of the intercourse of the human race" (Clausewitz 202). From my experience, this idea holds true. War is an act of violence, all humans are eventually going to end up violent. Ex.- In a fist fight there will be a point in that fight where the fighter's will no longer be cognizant of what they are doing. In other words they will stop all reasoning and just act in a violent way (using the nature of "the beast" which Machiavelli says that princes must have). When one just acts in a violent way, isn't that the same as saying that one was acting in their true self. Reasoning is used for the strategy and tactics or deception (one could act one way, but be, in one's true self, another). War is a part of human nature; war is not composed from reasoning (Clausewitz 203).
"The essential difference consists in this, that War is no activity of the will, which exerts itself upon inanimate matter like the mechanical Arts..." (Clausewitz 203).
I really have no questions for this passage. It was very clear and supported my 'theory' that war is human nature and not that of cognizant reasoning.
"War is part of the intercourse of the human race" (Clausewitz 202). From my experience, this idea holds true. War is an act of violence, all humans are eventually going to end up violent. Ex.- In a fist fight there will be a point in that fight where the fighter's will no longer be cognizant of what they are doing. In other words they will stop all reasoning and just act in a violent way (using the nature of "the beast" which Machiavelli says that princes must have). When one just acts in a violent way, isn't that the same as saying that one was acting in their true self. Reasoning is used for the strategy and tactics or deception (one could act one way, but be, in one's true self, another). War is a part of human nature; war is not composed from reasoning (Clausewitz 203).
"The essential difference consists in this, that War is no activity of the will, which exerts itself upon inanimate matter like the mechanical Arts..." (Clausewitz 203).
I really have no questions for this passage. It was very clear and supported my 'theory' that war is human nature and not that of cognizant reasoning.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Genius for War (Courage)
"Courage is of two kinds: first, physical courage, or courage in presence of danger to the person ; and next, moral courage, or courage before responsibility, whether it be before the judgement-seat of external authority, or of the inner power, the conscience" (Clausewitz 139).
I picked this passage because, me being interested in the fighting arts (western boxing, muay thai/thai boxing/kickboxing) courage plays an important role. The physical courage is present in the face of danger or even death. This seems to occur naturally. It has been 'programed' into man that when one is given a clear choice between life and death, one would normally pick life. Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" states clearly that if two warriors were fighting and one fighter (with actions, not words) gives the other fighter a clear choice of whether to live or die, that fighter who is given the choice is more dangerous than the warrior supposedly winning. "Never press a desperate enemy" (Sun Tzu). This is why the solution to the problem is to show your enemy a way out. Courage is dangerous when it is concentrated for a simple cause, live. Now that is why one must not show his enemy that there is no hope, but rather keep one's opponent with the choice of retreat, so they will not feel obligated to fight to the death.
Ex.- Historically, the reason that the 300 Spartans kicked the Persians ass (even though they all died, except for the legend of the unknown Spartan), was because the Persians tried to force them into a situation where they had no hope but the Greeks were more skilled; and thus the plan did not work, resulting in huge Persian death counts.
The second kind of courage, according to Clausewitz, is the courage that is pride, patriotism, or enthusiasm. I have experienced this also, this is the kind of courage that can either be really good or really bad, depending on how one uses it. One must not use this courage and turn it into arrogance, which translates into death and loss on battlefield. On the other hand, with the right mental organization, one could use their emotions to translate into a very dangerous and deadly source of courage.
Ex.2- Once again, the battle of the 300 Spartans was not to defeat the Persians, but rather to hold them off so the Athenian navy could destroy the Persian navy. The Greeks, as a whole united to fight for freedom and against the oppression of Xerxes. The Greeks used the right amount of this second kind of courage to kick Xerxes out of Greece for good.
"Mere intelligence is still not courage, for we often see the cleverest people devoid of resolution. The mind must, therefore, first awaken the feeling of courage, and then be guided and supported by it, because in momentary emergencies the man is swayed more by his feelings than his thoughts" (Clausewitz 142).
Questions:
1). Could courage win over skill, could courage win over intelligence? (In the abstract: courage has no skill and no intelligence; skill has no intelligence and no courage; and intelligence has no skill and no courage; but courage never gives up; skill is the best at the art; and intelligence knows all about the art and all the strategies).
2). Which situations (in the reality) would courage win over skill, or over intelligence?
I picked this passage because, me being interested in the fighting arts (western boxing, muay thai/thai boxing/kickboxing) courage plays an important role. The physical courage is present in the face of danger or even death. This seems to occur naturally. It has been 'programed' into man that when one is given a clear choice between life and death, one would normally pick life. Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" states clearly that if two warriors were fighting and one fighter (with actions, not words) gives the other fighter a clear choice of whether to live or die, that fighter who is given the choice is more dangerous than the warrior supposedly winning. "Never press a desperate enemy" (Sun Tzu). This is why the solution to the problem is to show your enemy a way out. Courage is dangerous when it is concentrated for a simple cause, live. Now that is why one must not show his enemy that there is no hope, but rather keep one's opponent with the choice of retreat, so they will not feel obligated to fight to the death.
Ex.- Historically, the reason that the 300 Spartans kicked the Persians ass (even though they all died, except for the legend of the unknown Spartan), was because the Persians tried to force them into a situation where they had no hope but the Greeks were more skilled; and thus the plan did not work, resulting in huge Persian death counts.
The second kind of courage, according to Clausewitz, is the courage that is pride, patriotism, or enthusiasm. I have experienced this also, this is the kind of courage that can either be really good or really bad, depending on how one uses it. One must not use this courage and turn it into arrogance, which translates into death and loss on battlefield. On the other hand, with the right mental organization, one could use their emotions to translate into a very dangerous and deadly source of courage.
Ex.2- Once again, the battle of the 300 Spartans was not to defeat the Persians, but rather to hold them off so the Athenian navy could destroy the Persian navy. The Greeks, as a whole united to fight for freedom and against the oppression of Xerxes. The Greeks used the right amount of this second kind of courage to kick Xerxes out of Greece for good.
"Mere intelligence is still not courage, for we often see the cleverest people devoid of resolution. The mind must, therefore, first awaken the feeling of courage, and then be guided and supported by it, because in momentary emergencies the man is swayed more by his feelings than his thoughts" (Clausewitz 142).
Questions:
1). Could courage win over skill, could courage win over intelligence? (In the abstract: courage has no skill and no intelligence; skill has no intelligence and no courage; and intelligence has no skill and no courage; but courage never gives up; skill is the best at the art; and intelligence knows all about the art and all the strategies).
2). Which situations (in the reality) would courage win over skill, or over intelligence?
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Nature of War- What is war?
the book is Carl von Clausewitz - "On War"
"In the former, everything must be subject to optimism, and we must imagine the one side as well as the other striving after perfection and even attaining it. Will this ever take place in reality? It will if,
(1). War becomes a completely isolated act...
(2). If it is limited to a single solution, or several simultaneous solutions.
(3). If it contains within itself the solution perfect and complete..." (Clausewitz 106).
The whole first chapter of the book is spent talking about the abstract of war (which is stated above), and the reality of war; which usually contradicts the abstract. I chose this passage because it is the key to figuring out strategies or plans to go to war. Clausewitz defines "War" for intensive purposes:
"War therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponents to fulfil our will" (Clausewitz 101).
Clausewitz clearly states that the abstract and the reality of war are contradicting. Later on in the chapter he goes on to say that "war is never and isolated act; war does not consist of one instantaneous blow; and the result in war is never absolute. With this information, one in the position to decide who goes to war ;e.i. the Secretary of Defense, should carefully examine all the reactions of going into a full blown campaign to "compel our opponents to fulfil our will." Since, in the reality, war has no absolute result, one should be sure that they are prepared to be in the conflict for quite some time and be conditioned to see it through. The same goes for the second point, if war does not consist of an instantaneous blow, one would also make sure that he/she is prepared with numerous battle plans and is conditioned in the mental sense and the physical sense.
Another important fact is the breif comparison between the paradoxical nature of war and the reality. The paradox of war is that states are fighting for peace. Clausewitz states that as long as the emotions, animosity and hatred exist, whether or not the war is "over," that war will never die. There will always be a chain of emotions that cause the hatred, and with hatred, war will never end, in the complex sense. *Politics are also involved with war.
Later on in the 1st book (out of three in the whole book), Clausewitz goes into extreme depths on the subject and breaks down the "abstract phenomenon" according to the three principles in which war should be measured: pre-planning/ calculations and the anomaly's that appear; the adaptation in the actual heat of war; and finally the probability and chance/ who gets lucky on any given day.
Questions:
1). Since it is only an abstract; which attributes are the most important to have to come as close to the absolute result?
2). Did Agamemnon and Menalaus take into account these issues before they went to war?
"In the former, everything must be subject to optimism, and we must imagine the one side as well as the other striving after perfection and even attaining it. Will this ever take place in reality? It will if,
(1). War becomes a completely isolated act...
(2). If it is limited to a single solution, or several simultaneous solutions.
(3). If it contains within itself the solution perfect and complete..." (Clausewitz 106).
The whole first chapter of the book is spent talking about the abstract of war (which is stated above), and the reality of war; which usually contradicts the abstract. I chose this passage because it is the key to figuring out strategies or plans to go to war. Clausewitz defines "War" for intensive purposes:
"War therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponents to fulfil our will" (Clausewitz 101).
Clausewitz clearly states that the abstract and the reality of war are contradicting. Later on in the chapter he goes on to say that "war is never and isolated act; war does not consist of one instantaneous blow; and the result in war is never absolute. With this information, one in the position to decide who goes to war ;e.i. the Secretary of Defense, should carefully examine all the reactions of going into a full blown campaign to "compel our opponents to fulfil our will." Since, in the reality, war has no absolute result, one should be sure that they are prepared to be in the conflict for quite some time and be conditioned to see it through. The same goes for the second point, if war does not consist of an instantaneous blow, one would also make sure that he/she is prepared with numerous battle plans and is conditioned in the mental sense and the physical sense.
Another important fact is the breif comparison between the paradoxical nature of war and the reality. The paradox of war is that states are fighting for peace. Clausewitz states that as long as the emotions, animosity and hatred exist, whether or not the war is "over," that war will never die. There will always be a chain of emotions that cause the hatred, and with hatred, war will never end, in the complex sense. *Politics are also involved with war.
Later on in the 1st book (out of three in the whole book), Clausewitz goes into extreme depths on the subject and breaks down the "abstract phenomenon" according to the three principles in which war should be measured: pre-planning/ calculations and the anomaly's that appear; the adaptation in the actual heat of war; and finally the probability and chance/ who gets lucky on any given day.
Questions:
1). Since it is only an abstract; which attributes are the most important to have to come as close to the absolute result?
2). Did Agamemnon and Menalaus take into account these issues before they went to war?
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Final: Machiavelli's The Prince
This book is in some way a "how to book" on how to be a successful leader of pretty much anything. Machiavelli has clearly stated each idea and gives examples from history to prove his points; even though the thought can drag out and I found myself skim over some things the second time reading.
"There are three kinds of intelligence: One kind can understand on its own, the second can understand through others, and the third can understand neither on its own nor through others. The first kind is exellent, the second good enough, the third useless. Hence, if Pandolfo was not in the first category, he was at least in the second, because even if a prince does not possess great intelligence, if he can judge the good or bad that a man says or does, then he can distinguished between his adviser's good and bad deeds, and praise the good and punish the bad. The adviser cannont hope to decive him, and so behaves well" (Machiavelli 108-109).
I found Peter Constantine's translation to be easy to read and has helpful footnotes to history that Machiavelli is alluding to and also to better explain ideas that maybe unclear. The chapters are also clearly stated on what Machiavelli is going to talk about. As far as the book reads, I couldn't help but imagine being in a college classroom listening to a lecture.
It is hard in this modern world to relate what Machiavelli says to our government. I have; however, realized that this book could greatly apply to the communist countries that have one leader. Other than that, one could relate this book to everyday things like, teachers "ruling their class", corprate businesses, cults, etc. This is definitly my second favorite book, after Master Sun Tzu's "The Art of War."
"There are three kinds of intelligence: One kind can understand on its own, the second can understand through others, and the third can understand neither on its own nor through others. The first kind is exellent, the second good enough, the third useless. Hence, if Pandolfo was not in the first category, he was at least in the second, because even if a prince does not possess great intelligence, if he can judge the good or bad that a man says or does, then he can distinguished between his adviser's good and bad deeds, and praise the good and punish the bad. The adviser cannont hope to decive him, and so behaves well" (Machiavelli 108-109).
I found Peter Constantine's translation to be easy to read and has helpful footnotes to history that Machiavelli is alluding to and also to better explain ideas that maybe unclear. The chapters are also clearly stated on what Machiavelli is going to talk about. As far as the book reads, I couldn't help but imagine being in a college classroom listening to a lecture.
It is hard in this modern world to relate what Machiavelli says to our government. I have; however, realized that this book could greatly apply to the communist countries that have one leader. Other than that, one could relate this book to everyday things like, teachers "ruling their class", corprate businesses, cults, etc. This is definitly my second favorite book, after Master Sun Tzu's "The Art of War."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)