Which person do you think was greatest at formulating his thoughts on warfare? It can be any person who has ever written or expressed himself about this field of expertise, from field generals to great kings to scientists and opportunists.
Roel, How about proposing a few candidates. Julius Ceasar, Clauswitz, Moltke, Liddel Hart, your favorite Chinese for examples. Myself, I like Chinese simplicity and openess to interpretation.
Well, there we go. Napoleon, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, Wu Chi, Fuller, Guderian... I agree with you, canambridge. It speaks for them that their work is still considered valuable over two milleniae after the works were written.
Napoleon is interesting. He took advantage of the new technology that France introduced (lighter gun carriges, better artillery), he developed a new set of tactics that ran rings around the tactical orthadoxy then in place. Then he made several very bad promotions, and completely failed to chage his tactics when some bright spark worked out how to counter them. It is all very well devising a wonderful new technique to best an old technique, but if you are not flexible enough to adapt it to the evolution of the enemy's tactics, you are not, IMHO, the best military theorist.
Which is why, in my opinion, the greatest are those who discuss the laws of warfare that always apply instead of those creating a very time-bound tactic to gain an empire.
My vote goes to William Tecumseh Sherman, who summed up war in one short but eloquent sentence: "War is Hell."
Hm. That will get your war won... :-? It seems that Napoleon made a few staggering blunders in his day, too. In a recently published book on his Russia campaign, a historian wonders why the heck Napoleon moved on Moscow in 1812 - the czar resided in St.Petersburg! :-?
Napoleon wasn't after the czar, but after the russian army. When he invaded Russia, he hoped the russians would accept battle quickly, so he could destroy their army during the first days of the war and then impose peace. But the russians just retreated deeper and deeper into their country. When he noticed that, Napoleon looked for the best way to impose a battle on the russians. He tought that could best be achieved by maching on the economical, historical and geographical center of Russia: Moscow.
I always thought St. Petersburg was the more important city. After all, it was Russia's primary link to the outside world.
Moscow is more important. Historical: It had been the capital of Russia for centuries, modern Russia developped out of it. St Petersburg was an artificial czar residence town, but in the eyes of the simple people, Moscow was always the real capital. Geographical: Moscow lies in the centre of european Russia, all important roads towards east and south, north and west pass trough Moscow.
Well, I think that to go chase an enemy army into their own ground, in a country so vast that travelling through it will take years with any army, is a pretty capital strategical blunder. At least with the Tsar you know where he is. His army, once in Russia itself, will never fight on your terms!
If you do go invade a foriegn country, the best way to conquer it / defeat their army is to engage it asap, and on your terms. The best way to achieve this is to threaten something important, like Moscow. This tactic has worked suprisingly well in the past. William the Bastard of Normandy managed to make Harold II of England fight a major engagement before he was ready by the simple tactic of ravaging Harold's lands. Harold had everything to gain by waiting a week before fighting William, but was forced into battle on pain of losing his 'right' to be a lord in the eyes of his peasants.
And Napoleons tactic wasn't that wrong. Indeed, the russians did everything to avoid Moscow to be captured. There was no russian plan to withdraw and attract the french deeper and deeper into the couintry. More than once the czar ordered his generals to engage battle and stop Napoleons advance. But his generals didn't have the nerve to do so.So unconciously they did the right thing:avoid battle. In late august, the czar, unhappy with his commanders gave command of the army to general Koutouzov, which he believed would fight. When Napoleon heard of this he was satisfied and said:"Thank God, finally we'll have a battle." But in the following battle of Borodino,at the gates of Moscow, Napoléon, altough he defeated the russians, didn't achieve to completely destroy their army.
This was also why Hitler should have made the city his primary objective in 1941. His failure to do so (or set any objective, for that matter) doomed Operation Barbarossa's chances of ultimate success.
Well, political opportunism is a useful game to play in war. As is (sometimes) the bold movement in a conflict full of ditherers. However, I do not think a military genius as flawed as Herr Hitler will ever get a serious nomination as an all-time great!
