Some Things Never Change

[Viscount de Turenne]

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.

[Ron Humphrey]

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.

Just out of curiosity might you be able to name one Officer or military leader
who has actually pro-posed that the pre-twentieth century lessons are no longer useful. Haven't really met any of those myself.

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.

Might be that some of those we may think may no longer be possible may just be(Time and place--- Einsteins WW4 sticks and stones and all that)

[Brandon Friedman]

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 have to agree with Ron. Can you provide some evidence of this? I found the fighting more often akin to a school yard brawl than to some technologically advanced conflict. Fighting is fighting. It hasn't changed. Dudes mixing it up is dudes mixing it up.

[Schmedlap]

I think principles to guide our actions and factors to weigh in choosing courses of action remain fairly timeless. Whether some officers disagree with that... I guess some might, but they are a tiny minority. Technology just changes what it looks like when the decisions are made. Whether you're using slings and stones or computers and bullets, the true professional will just see shifts in security, threat, and uncertainty and leverage the assets available to align those things more favorably.

[jmm99]

Why did you pick Turenne ?

Serious question from someone who has a passing interest in French military history.[*]

I think you will find many people who frequent this board who are very familiar with pre-20th century military history, strategy, operations and tactics. Wilf looks at warfare as a 4000-year continuum (my perception of your writings, Wilf - feel free to correct me).

And, Ken White led the charge in the first Neolithic battle even recorded in cave paint. He also can tell you a lot about generals, ancient and modern.

Just two examples of many.

I don't know what handle I would have selected at your age - probably my then-current nickname which I shall leave undisclosed.

------------------------------
[*] One of mine, Charles de Bragelongne (see mariage acte below), served under Turenne as commissaire général de la cavalerie - his father of the same name held that office before Turenne rose to fame. The pecking order in the French cavalry was (also reflected in the names of the regiments that they personally commanded, with links to English webpages that give the basics):

Colonel Général Cavalerie - CO of the cavalry corps.

Mestre de camp Général Cavalerie - XO and staff functions for plans and operations

Commissaire général Cavalerie - except for plans and operations, oversaw all of our present staff functions and combat service and support functions - plus, some non-cavalry functions (e.g., design, construction & inspection of fortresses - see snip below).

There is a 4 vol. manual for the military commissaires, François de Chennevières, Détails militaires, dont la connoissance est nécessaire à tous les officiers, & principalement ... (1750; 4 tomes), which can be downloaded from Google Books.

- Extrait des registres paroissiaux de Saint-Nicolas-des-Champs à Paris

18 III 1660. Mariage de Charles de Bragelongne, chevalier, commissaire de la cavalerie de France, fils de Charles de Bragelongne, seigneur de Villevenard, aussi commissaire général de la cavalerie et de Madeleine Asselin, et de Madeleine de Vigny, fille d’étienne de Vigny, maître des eaux et forêts d’Orléans et de Madeleine de La Fond. Témoin : Barthélémy de Vigny, seigneur de Villiers et d’Isy, frère de la mariée.

- Extrait du Discours généalogique: Origine et généalogie de la maison de Bragelongne, Paris, 1689.

p. 115. « Charles de Bragelongne a succédé à son père en la charge de commissaire ordinaire des guerres, à la conduite générale de la cavalerie, où il s’est acquis la réputation d’un très habile ingénieur : pourquoi il a esté commis par Sa Majesté pour faire réparer les fortifications des frontières de Picardie et de Champagne, dont il s’est très bien acquitté, notamment à S. Quentin, où il a fait construire un des plus beaux bastions du royaume. J’ay vu plusieurs volumes qui ont esté entièrement dessignez de sa main des principales forteresses de l’Europe, avec ses remarques : on peut dire que c’est une pièce des plus curieuses que nous ayons en ce genre.»

- Extrait du Bernard Germain É. de La Ville sur Illon, Histoire génèrale, physique et civile de l'Europe (1826), p.129:

"Vingt-quatrième Époque 1643-1689

.... un conseil composé de Condé, du Turenne, de Villeroi, de Colbert [JMM: ca. 1664-1675] ...
....
Colbert fait voyager en Hollande ... ; ..... l'ingénieur de Bragelogne, et Arnoul, intendant des fortifications et des galères des ports de la Méditerranée ; il les charge d'étudier avec soin tout ce qui est relatif à la marine, aux travaux des ports et au commerce; ....
....
Louvois fait observer les mèmes règles dans le département de la guerre ...."

JMM: Henri Jules de Bourbon, prince de Condé (1643-1709), Grand Maître de France - 1660-1685. Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne, vicomte de Turenne (1611-75), Colonel Général de la cavalerie, 1657; Maréchal de France en 1660. Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Contrôleur général en 1664, surintendant des Bâtiments, Arts et Manufactures (1664); mort en 1683. Letellier, marquis de Louvois, Département de la guerre en 1662-1691.

[jcustis]

Hmm, I'm reading extracts about Napoleon and Jomini right now, for a professional military education course that all field grade officers have to take, unless they go to the resident PME.

Is it taken with a grain of salt? Sure, but we don't dismiss it out of hand as you allege.

[Steve Blair]

What I see is a handy, sweeping statement intended to possibly spark discussion. The influence of technology on strategy is nothing new, and has been with us ever since Tom showed Ken that a pointy stick really WILL travel farther than a club if you throw it at someone....

If anything, I've noticed a trend in some corners to obsess on warfare in the 20th century to the virtual exclusion of most of what came before. Again, this is something that comes and goes, and tends to be more focused with folks who have agendas or are trying to make a name for themselves.

[William F. Owen]

I think you will find many people who frequent this board who are very familiar with pre-20th century military history, strategy, operations and tactics. Wilf looks at warfare as a 4000-year continuum (my perception of your writings, Wilf - feel free to correct me).

Well 4000 years or back to when Ken got his first command. Which ever came first! Eyh.. I kill me!

More seriously, military history is and can be our only guide. War does not change, and warfare evolves in mostly logical and predictable ways, excepting the odd unique circumstance - and that is very, very rare (EG: use of the atomic bomb)

[Schmedlap]

And, Ken White led the charge in the first Neolithic battle even recorded in cave paint.

JMM - I would expect you to know the rest of the story. In one battle, Ken's adroit use of a club resulted in a caveman named Cirroc being bonked unconscious and his body was frozen in the ice. Scientists later thawed him and he became... Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer!

Seriously, though, the most valuable lessons that I think we can learn from the past are not how smart Generals employed their militaries on the battlefield, but in what preparations they made prior to arriving to the battlefield - particularly in the arena of forming alliances, generating public support, putting the adversary off guard, deceptions, et cetera. The General and statesman were not always two separate individuals. In many ways, the job of the General is easier because he can now focus on a narrower set of issues and leave the political bickering to the civilians. He is also in a better position to provide advice to those civilian masters because his nose isn't against the grindstone regarding political matters. He has the luxury of stepping back and looking at everything in perspective. That was my impression as an XO. While I trusted the judgment of my CO and found him highly capable, I also noticed on several occasions that by me not being knee deep in all of his command-related issues, I could more easily critique his decisions and step in every now and then to say, "woah, sir, wait a minute - what about this...?"

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

Sun Tzu and Saint Carl...say it ain't so!

In light of this newly revealed paradigm should I trash my copies of Machiavelli, du Picq, Freddy The Great, Musashi, Herodotus, Maurice of Nassau, Tacticus, Vauban, Thucydides, Vegetius, Xenophon...

Seriously, by tossing out all those pre 20th Century dude's books I could free up two shelves in one of my bookcases.

I draw the line at getting rid of my 1st Edition copy of Chandler's The Campaigns of Napoleon. Toted that beast around too many places to part with it. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent.

[George L. Singleton]

Agree that pincer movement is timeless and still of great value in places like Afghanistand and Pakistan.

[George L. Singleton]

I think our freshman year (probably now a rising sophomore) in high school merely wants to stimulate discussion to learn from the old heads. Youth are prone (speaking as one with three early 20s daughters) to sometimes push a statement up the flag pole not to spite or upset but to cause informative responses which help the questioner to learn...from all of us.

I would ask the young high school student what his take is on the Mannehiem Line circa 1940 and how that strategy and tactic might apply in FATA today. Just an off the wall question.