Introduction
Develop a deeper comprehension of the historical reasons for war.
The British philosopher Bertrand Russell once remarked, “War does not determine who is right – only who is left.” Many people still question why, in our modern era, countries continue to attack each other and lives are still lost in conflict. Despite being written nearly two centuries ago, Carl von Clausewitz’s book remains a valuable source of understanding about the fundamentally human pursuit of war.
The seasoned Prussian general, with extensive experience from the Napoleonic Wars, approached the subject of war with intellectual rigor. Consequently, his book resembles an ongoing dialogue, examining all perspectives and weighing opposing arguments. It’s a complex work, further complicated by the fact that it was incomplete at the time of the author’s death. Together, we’ll delve into this classic text and explore some of the most significant and pertinent conclusions the author reached.
In the following key points, you’ll discover:
– the distinction between tactics and strategy,
– the common mistakes critics make when analyzing historical battles, and
– how boldness can serve as both a benefit and a drawback in warfare.
Key idea 1
War involves overpowering your opponent through force and demands a significant level of mental acuity.
Before we delve into the complex topic of nineteenth-century warfare, let’s briefly outline the text. Carl von Clausewitz’s *On War* is divided into four sections. The first establishes a common definition of war, the second explores theory and criticism, and the third and fourth sections address strategy and tactics. Following Clausewitz’s structure, we’ll examine four key chapters that highlight the main points from each section.
The initial inquiry is: What constitutes war? According to the author, war fundamentally simplifies into a large-scale duel or, as he analogizes, akin to a wrestling match. Here, two opposing forces strive to subdue each other’s will. The overarching objective for both sides is to render the other incapable of further resistance, frequently culminating in disarming the opponent.
This objective is achieved through one means: violence. While modern times may feature culture wars and information battles, in the early nineteenth century context being discussed, war is inherently violent. It employs physical force as a means to achieve its objectives. Primarily, it involves two armies, with formations of soldiers confronting each other on a battlefield.
This raises one of the first moral dilemmas. Throughout his exploration, the author consistently delves into the ethical dimensions of warfare. Right from the outset, a challenging question arises: If we acknowledge war as unavoidably violent, how much violence is necessary? Even in that era, some believed that wars could be resolved with minimal bloodshed. However, the author disagrees. He suggests that such restraint is unlikely to succeed. If the objective is to disarm and compel the opponent, employing maximum physical force becomes the only logical strategy. From the author’s perspective, the notion of moderation in war is fundamentally flawed.
Clausewitz further elaborates on the definition of war. He emphasizes that war is not confined to a single battle or a singular event. Instead, it emerges from a sequence of events and political decisions leading up to the conflict. Therefore, war can be viewed as a series of reciprocal actions where each side reacts to the other’s moves. Each party must constantly assess and decide on the best course of action in response. Typically, this process tends to escalate until war is formally declared and one side achieves disarmament of the other.
Nevertheless, it’s crucial to recognize that the outcome of a war is never definitive. Disarming an opponent today does not guarantee they won’t rearm and retaliate tomorrow. In fact, the hostility they harbored before may pale in comparison to the resentment and fury provoked by defeat. This intense emotion and determination should not be underestimated; they can profoundly influence the morale and effectiveness of an army.
This reinforces the author’s argument that war necessitates the use of maximum force. Allowing an opponent to remain armed and capable of renewing their attack defies logic. It also highlights another critical aspect of war: uncertainty. Clausewitz is often credited with popularizing the concept of the “fog of war.” In reality, neither side typically possesses full knowledge of their opponent’s arsenal, positions, or reserve forces. Consequently, commanders frequently find themselves making decisions based on incomplete information. This reality further supports the principle of employing maximum force as a general rule in warfare.
The absence of complete information significantly influences the qualities that define exceptional military commanders. What distinguishes a military genius? Beyond intelligence and a profound understanding of human behavior, a commander must possess the resilience to confront the physical peril and hardships inherent in warfare.
Clausewitz characterizes war as a “great conquest over the unexpected,” emphasizing the role of courage as a cornerstone quality of exceptional leadership. This courage extends beyond facing physical danger to embracing moral responsibility and making difficult decisions. A great leader must exhibit firmness and resolve, remain composed under pressure, and be prepared to act decisively and boldly in response to unforeseen circumstances.
In essence, a great commander requires steadfastness of mind. Amidst the challenges of war—the peril, the hardship, the unpredictability, and the uncertainty—these factors can easily sow doubt in a leader’s mind, which is arguably the most detrimental quality for a military commander to possess.
Leaders must also contend with what the author identifies as the fundamental “friction” of war: while the objectives of war may be straightforward, accomplishing those objectives is often exceedingly challenging. This concept is highlighted toward the end of the first section, and it serves as a poignant reflection as we transition into the second chapter. In many respects, war appears simple, akin to a wrestling match. However, in numerous other aspects, it unfolds as infinitely complex.
Key idea 2
Tactics involve the scientific aspects of warfare, whereas strategy leans more towards artistry.
In Book Two, the author shifts focus to delve into the practical details of warfare. It is here that he begins to contemplate the feasibility of developing a comprehensive theory of war—a theory that prescribes how to effectively organize and lead an army to victory.
The author is doubtful that a comprehensive theory of war can be formulated, primarily due to the vast array of variables involved. As previously discussed, war is heavily influenced by chance and decisions made with incomplete information. However, this skepticism does not discount the possibility of developing theoretical frameworks for certain aspects of warfare.
In Book Two, Clausewitz delves into the critical differentiation between tactics and strategy. He defines tactics as an area where theoretical principles can be applied. Tactics encompass practical elements such as training, conducting drills, and ensuring soldiers are adequately prepared. It involves decisions regarding the placement of camps and the strategic deployment of reserves. In many respects, tactics can be approached scientifically, focusing on systematic preparation and execution.
On the contrary, strategy is viewed more as an art form and thus less conducive to a unified theory. War, Clausewitz argues, is not a singular event but a series of decisions and engagements that continually evolve. The most effective strategy adapts to unforeseen developments in real-time. While guidelines can be established for deploying cavalry or other tactics, there will inevitably be exceptions to these rules in specific situations.
Theories often arise from retrospective analysis of past battles. For example, we might examine actions taken by historical figures like Napoleon Bonaparte or Frederick the Great and attempt to generalize them into principles. However, the challenge lies in viewing these battles as isolated events. It’s easy to critique Napoleon’s advance against Archduke Charles in 1797, knowing the exact forces on both sides today. Hindsight allows us to suggest what Napoleon should have done differently or criticize perceived recklessness. Yet, such hindsight-driven criticism often lacks practical value or genuine insight.
At the time of the battle, Napoleon Bonaparte did not possess the hindsight knowledge we have today. It’s essential to consider that every general’s decisions are shaped by preceding events and circumstances. Therefore, analyzing a battle in isolation from its political and historical context can obscure understanding and lead to flawed criticism. War cannot be properly comprehended or critiqued when viewed as a self-contained event—it is intricately linked to broader political and situational dynamics.
Absolutely, while tactics and strategy are crucial components of warfare, they must be considered within the broader context of war’s multifaceted nature. They need to be adaptable to the diverse activities, objectives, and battles that collectively constitute a war.
In the upcoming chapter, we will delve deeper into strategy and explore the various approaches commanders can employ to attain the overarching goals of war. This examination will underscore the importance of strategic flexibility and comprehensive planning in the conduct of military operations.
Key idea 3
Among the multitude of strategies to consider, achieving success in war ultimately hinges on soldiers of exceptional character.
As we transition to Book Three, the focus intensifies on the subject of strategy. Besides being heralded as the true art of war, Clausewitz defines strategy as “the utilization of battle to achieve the ultimate goal of war.” The ultimate goal of war, in this context, is to attain one’s objectives or aims, often referred to as the object of war.
Once again, it becomes evident that there is no universal strategy that fits all situations. A successful strategy must be tailored specifically to achieve the primary objective of the particular war at hand. An ideal strategy is one that neither falls short nor overextends itself in accomplishing its goals. Critics may analyze Frederick the Great’s 1760 campaign and admire the individual marches and maneuvers, but the true accomplishment lies in the king’s ability to execute just enough—neither more nor less than necessary—to secure peace.
It’s crucial to note that even the most well-crafted strategy is unlikely to succeed without an army that embodies the principles of military virtue. According to the author, military virtue surpasses mere bravery or enthusiasm for warfare. It involves a profound commitment where an individual aligns themselves completely with the spirit and purpose of the army. This entails a thorough understanding of their role and the unwavering execution of that role to its utmost potential—that, the author argues, is true military virtue. The success of leaders like Bonaparte, Frederick the Great, or Alexander the Great hinged not only on their strategies but also on having an army that embodied military virtue in every soldier. According to the author, military virtue encompasses traits beyond courage and enthusiasm; it includes perseverance—the resilience to endure the relentless hardships and demands of war to outlast the adversary. This quality is cited as crucial in executing a successful strategy and serves as another example of military virtue.
Many renowned historical commanders possessed the attribute of boldness. While boldness is often associated with bravery, it is also integral to the strategic aspect of warfare. Boldness in war isn’t simply about courage; it requires an opportunity presented by the opponent—a moment when their defenses or positioning offer an opening. A commander must possess a keen presence of mind to recognize these opportunities as they arise and effectively capitalize on them. Thus, boldness becomes a calculated strategic move rather than a reckless act of bravery.
When discussing the art of war, stratagem stands out as a prime example. It represents the deceptive aspect of warfare—a method that is indirect and akin to sleight of hand. Similar to boldness, successful stratagem often relies on unwitting participation from the opponent. Understanding human nature and gaining insight into the opponent’s mindset are crucial in devising and executing such maneuvers. It involves setting bait, anticipating the opponent’s reactions, and skillfully leveraging those reactions to gain an advantage. Stratagem thus underscores the artistry involved in military tactics beyond straightforward engagement.
One of the most effective wartime stratagems is surprise—to catch your opponent off guard and appear where they least expect. Utilizing your opponent’s boldness against them can be pivotal. By presenting a false opportunity or invitation, you can lure them into attacking, thereby exposing their forces and leaving them vulnerable to being outflanked by your own strategically positioned troops. This tactic demonstrates how cunningly manipulating an opponent’s expectations and actions can yield significant tactical advantages in warfare.
Such deceptive tactics are typically employed when conventional strategies have proven ineffective. However, when executed flawlessly, a clever stratagem has the potential to reignite momentum and decisively shift the course of war in your favor. It underscores the profound impact that strategic ingenuity and tactical surprise can have on achieving strategic objectives and securing victory on the battlefield.
Key idea 4
Victory is attained not solely through inflicting physical losses on the opponent.
Since Carl von Clausewitz’s *On War* was incomplete at the time of his death, it’s understandable that the final section, Book Four, is relatively smaller than the preceding three. Here, the focus shifts to the “characteristics of modern battle.” This section zooms in on the intricacies of individual battles rather than examining warfare on a broader scale.
Previously, in the chapter, we discussed the concepts of military virtue and perseverance, highlighting the author’s recognition of the significance of troop morale. Therefore, it follows that many of the characteristics mentioned in Book Four focus on tactics and strategies aimed at undermining the opponent’s morale and gradually compelling them to surrender. These strategies are designed to erode the enemy’s resolve and fortitude over time, ultimately leading to their defeat.
Certainly, when Clausewitz refers to “modern battle,” he is discussing the context of early nineteenth-century warfare. During this period, opposing forces would typically camp about a day’s march apart and then engage on a battlefield. Warfare often commenced at dawn and concluded at nightfall, following a grueling day of combat. Both sides generally avoided wasting artillery on unseen targets or risking inadvertent encounters with enemy battalions.
The author emphasizes once again that the primary objective of both wars and battles is the destruction of the opponent’s army—to weaken them to the extent that they can no longer sustain combat. There are various ways in which an army can be brought to this point of defeat. While physical losses such as men, horses, and artillery are significant, equally important are the erosion of an army’s courage, confidence, and discipline. Effectively undermining the morale and spirit of an enemy army is crucial in pushing them towards surrender or defeat.
Therefore, according to the author, victory in battle is defined by three main factors: inflicting greater physical losses on the opponent’s forces, diminishing their morale and resolve, and ultimately compelling them to admit defeat by abandoning their objectives.
Flank and rear attacks, along with surprise assaults, offer dual advantages: they can inflict physical damage and significantly impact the enemy’s morale. Nighttime bombardments also play a crucial role in wearing down the opponent mentally. Continuous heavy artillery fire towards their camp keeps them vigilant and disrupts their ability to rest, compelling them to remain in constant motion. These tactics not only cause direct harm but also contribute to weakening the enemy’s resolve over time.
It’s indeed curious that *On War* concludes with a brief chapter on night fighting without a grand summary of its ideas. In this final section, Clausewitz raises a timeless question: Can war ever be bloodless? His answer, in essence, is no. He argues that if the sight of bloody slaughter is appalling, then it serves as a reminder to treat war with the utmost seriousness and respect. Clausewitz warns against diluting the effectiveness of military strength out of humanitarian sentiments, as this could leave a nation vulnerable to adversaries who do not share such reservations and are willing to exploit any weaknesses. Thus, his perspective underscores the enduring and complex nature of warfare as a human endeavor fraught with profound implications.
Final Overview
The key takeaway from Clausewitz’s insights is clear: war is both simple and complex. At its core, the objective is straightforward—to disarm the opponent through force and compel them to yield. However, achieving this goal is far from straightforward. While tactics and training provide a foundation, devising a successful strategy is an art requiring a commander with keen presence of mind. Success also hinges on an army composed of resilient individuals who can endure the hardships and dangers of war.
Navigating chance occurrences and unexpected developments are routine challenges in warfare. Moreover, Clausewitz emphasizes that victory often depends not only on inflicting physical harm but also on systematically undermining the morale and resolve of the enemy. In essence, war demands a comprehensive understanding of both its simple objectives and its complex realities, making it a profound and enduring human endeavor.
