Today, the average officer and leader in the military has come to devalue the study of pre-twentieth century warfare. From Alexander the Great to Napoleon and even MacArthur, these generals have all used the same basic principles of how wars and battles should be conducted. But the present-day defenders of modernity and relevance, the most radical of whom claim that nothing that occurred prior to 1945 has any value for the modern officer, continue to say that technology has advanced so far in the last 100 years that all of those military "rules", if you will, are not applicable anymore. I agree, in part, with this statement. Technology has advanced, and many of the traditional strategies used before the twentieth century can no longer be of any use. But there are exceptions, many strategies, tactics, and factors that are immune to technological advances and are still as relevant today as they were 2,000 years ago. One of these would be the timeless pincer maneuver. This tactic was used by Hannibal at Cannae and by the Germans in their Blitzkrieg attacks. These are just my personal thoughts on this issue. If anyone has anything to add or any comments to impart please share.