Some Things Never Change
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.
Viscount de Turenne
Interesting first post
Just out of curiosity might you be able to name one Officer or military leaderOriginally Posted by Viscount de Turenne
who has actually pro-posed that the pre-twentieth century lessons are no longer useful. Haven't really met any of those myself.
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)
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours
Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
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.
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.
Interesting Handle ....
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.
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.
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.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Well 4000 years or back to when Ken got his first command. Which ever came first!
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)
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Anyone who really knows Ken knows that you can't show him anything without a club...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.
Agree regarding Pincer Movement
Agree that pincer movement is timeless and still of great value in places like Afghanistand and Pakistan.
Q&a
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.
That's a two by four which Hacksaw was / is astute enough
to realize...Anyone who really knows Ken knows that you can't show him anything without a club...
I dunno about this Tureen guy, okay general at best. Had it not been for Gus the Second and his reforms and Maurice teaching the young Henri his trade, we might never have heard of him. Pity he wasn't as sharp as that other Maurice who also later became Maréchal Général des Camps et Armées du Roi -- and did so without benefit of having French royal blood...
The two Morries were among my better pupils (Tom, OTOH, had a bad tendency to launch himself with the Lance...
Gus, OTOH, taught me a lot.
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...?"
What! They finally stopped teaching...
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.
"What is best in life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women."
A frank and honest discussion is requisite ...
to dispel the inaccuracies - nay, perhaps even culumnies - recited of that noted serjeant atte arms Ken de Alba, which are circulating with reckless abandon within the hallowed halls of our Inns of the Court, particularly amongst the middle benches of the fledgling barristers. Indeed, the tale is an old one - are not all truths and falsehoods old ? - of de Alba's use of a club in battle to dispatch Cirroc (a fate, which if true, was far too good for that wretched creature, allowing him admittance to Valhalla).
Nay, as revealed by our oldest pipe rolls, the facts are quite different. For Cirroc, amongst his clan and others, plied the trade of a divorce lawyer. It was in the course of de Alba's little-known first divorce that, what could have been a mutual and acceptable settlement between the man and the woman (represented by Cirroc), became a shambles because of Cirroc's abusive verbal tactics in resolving the question of custody of the Family Club. Driven beyond all reason by that divorce lawyer's antics, de Alba did indeed smote Cirroc with that honorific club - a clear case of irresistible impulse.
So, while de Alba did smote Cirroc with the club, it was not an act of war, but one of excusible assault. Perhaps, it was that story that impelled some in literary circles to claim that de Alba, by then known as White, caused the Bard to write the famous phrase "kill all the lawyers". Again, we know that also is inaccurate because the military rolls are explicit that White was then advising Lord Essex in his campaign against the Irish insurgents.
Another inaccuracy concerning de Alba (perhaps an enlargement of the Family Club tale) is that he used a club in battle. We know in fact that de Alba kept abreast of advances in military technology and wisely selected those weapon systems and associated tactics that would yield him the best advantage. Why do we know this ? Not because of the vagaries of hearsay, but because of demontrative evidence - the graphic of the blood feud battle between de Alba's clan and Cirroc's clan.
We see that de Alba employed a wedge formation - he leading the wedge; and all combatants used bows and arrows. His sense of tactics led to his now famous doctrine: "One up, two back; effective suppressive and supporting aimed fires - and hit them in the flank."
Cirroc's clan was, of course, outnumbered in this contest; for it lacked Cirroc. Not that that wretched creature would have added much as a warrior; but it was truly said that he had the voice of 10 or even 100 men - the first PsyOps officer.
PS: Wilf, the attachment is especially for you.
PS: Wilf, the attachment is especially for you.
That drawing was Ken's first Strategic plan
Gussy Dullfish and the Blowfinns
Gussy, my mom's leading figure in pre-20th century Finnish history - not because of his strategies, operations and tactics (of which, she knew naught); but because he recognized the importance of Finland.
As such, he promoted Finns[*] who did know those things military: Gustaf Horn (Realm Marshal; his farm name was Kankas); Ake Tott (Field Marshal); Torsten Stålhandske (General of Cavalry); and the little-known figure in the supply services, Erik Trana (Commissioner General of War). And, he introduced to continental Europe Stålhandske's Hakkapeliittat, whose concept of normalcy was that of "total war".
So, the prayer in RC German churches during the 30-Years' War:
Study of these combined rulers-generals leads one to question of how useful even Gussy Dullfish was to his nation. Were the often transitory gains worth the long-term costs from lost opportunities?"A horribile Haccapaelitorum agmine libera nos, Domine".
("O Lord, deliver us from the terrible army of the Haccapelites")
In the case of Charles XII of Poltava, we know the answer to be negative.
Is a nation better to have a policy formed by such as their ancestor Gussy Vasoline, who was a very reluctant warrior - either because he was too cheap, because he was sick of the slaughters that placed him on the throne, or both ?
Schmedlap, thanks for the reminder of one important use of history.
--------------------
[*] The English Wiki articles call these generals "Swedish" - checking the birth places, where they lived and their genealogies prove they were Finns (e.g., Gustaf Kankas, aka Horn). They spoke Swedish (probably as well or better than Finnish), which was simply the norm for anyone connected with the Swedish Crown at that time.
No, JMM...
You shouldn't try to tell that when you've been partying...
Clobbered Cirroc with Wife Nr 1; head harder than club.
Not advising Essex but the O'Neill -- only thing I told Essax was to stay away from Walsingham as he would lead to trouble...
Tell Slap that plan also worked and note, not five rings but three dangles, ala Maize...
Last edited by Ken White; 09-27-2009 at 08:30 PM.
Indeed ...
a plausible suggestion - or, his after action report. Much less likely (since I don't think Ken believes in magic in things military) is a graphic invocation of magic before the battle.from Slap
That drawing was Ken's first Strategic plan
We will have to get the answer from the bunny's mouth.
And, there we have it folks, ...
the true scoop - and proof that even the ancient pipe rolls were sometimes inaccurate. Essex's military rolls were known to be very inaccurate (serious fact, not funning).
And, Ken, I'm so happy that you were on the right side - thought mention of Essex would get your Ulster going.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks