Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Carl von Clausewitz in his essay Principles of War
Clausewitz on the nature of war
Military strategies used in civil war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Carl von Clausewitz in his essay Principles of War
Throughout history there have been few military theorists who have influenced military thinking. The military revolution that occurred during the American Civil War changed the face of warfare. The theories of both Antione-Henri Jomini and Carl von Clausewitz, the two most prominent military theorists of the 19th Century, can be seen in many aspects of the conflict. While Jomini’s tactics played a large role on the battlefield, the strategic concepts of Carl Von Clausewitz best characterize the nature of the Civil War. The writings of Clausewitz proved prophetic in three distinct areas: the strength of the defense over the offense, the concept of “Total War” used by General Grant, and the theory of war as an extension of policy.
The first area where Clausewitz better characterized the nature of the Civil War was in how he viewed the strength of offense in relation to defense. There is little doubt that the Civil War proved Clausewitz’s assertion that the defense is the stronger form of war.
Jomini advocated that the “offensive was almost always advantageous.” I believe this is due to his experience with, and admiration of, Napoleonic-era tactics and weapons. Clausewitz viewed the opposite and stated in his writings that the terrain gave the defender a decided advantage.
There were many advances in weaponry, such as rifled muskets, during the Civil War. The increased accuracy and range made repeatedly attacking an enemy using Napoleonic tactics very difficult. Combatants slugged it out at an average of 116 yards; only slightly longer than the 80-100 yards usually seen with smoothbore muskets and half the range these rifles were capable of. Casualties were especially heavy at the 1863 Battles of Shiloh and Antietam. ...
... middle of paper ...
...
MINIE BALL. http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/minie-ball (accessed May 2, 2014).
Murray, Wiliamson. "The Industrialization of War." In The Cambridge History of Warfare, edited by Geoffrey Parker, 227. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Rean, Daniel. Shifting Strategies: Military Theory in the American Civil War. March 16, 2008. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/civilwar/articles/militarytheory.aspx (accessed March 30, 2014).
Shy, John. "Jomini." In Makers of Modern Strategy: from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, edited by Peter Paret. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986.
Thompson, Robert. Battle of Cold Harbor: The Folley and Horror. October 26, 2006. http://www.historynet.com/cold-harbor (accessed May 1, 2014).
Trench Warfare at Petersburg. http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/map19.html (accessed April 30, 2014).
Rather he focuses on the logistics of warfare through the innovations in gunfire, cannon manufacturing and operation, and defensive warfare. Moreover, Parker does not attempt to use his position and research to criticise other scholars position on the military revolution. He simply agrees with Michael Roberts definition and attempts to contribute his principles of innovation as a means to strengthen Roberts
The Art of War. Translated by Samuel B. Griffith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963. Von Clausewitz, Carl. A. Translated and edited by Sir Michael Howard and Peter Paret.
Kelly, M. (n.d.). Overview of the American Civil War . American History From About. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/civiloverview.htm
- - -, ed. "The Anti-War Movement in the United States." English.Illnois.edu. Ed. Oxford Companion to American Military History. 1st ed. Vers. 1. Rev. 1. Oxford Companion to American Military History, 1999. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. .
Thompson, Robert. "Battle of Cold Harbor: The Folly and Horror." Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/coldharbor/cold-harbor-history-articles/ (accessed March 21, 2014).
A popular weapon used by both sides was the rifle. Rifles were invented before the Civil War and were greatly used in the War of 1812. However, more types were built and a larger amount was used during the Civil War. Rifles added a spin to bullets for a greater accuracy at longer ranges. Using this weapon, soldiers could fire 400 yards away, as opposed to the average 80 yards (Robertson 50). Rifles were the fastest and hardest weapon of the time. Rifles allowed their bullets to be shot harder and faster towards its target. New inventions, used by the Union more than the Confederate, included Parrott rifles. They were composed of iron. Robert Parker Parrott, an American soldier and inventor, created these weapons, hence the name Parrott rifles. Despite its name, the Parrott rifle was actually a cannon. Its size ranged from 10 to 300 pounders. It was not favored by most because it was considered unsafe (“Civil War Artillery”). Because of its bulkiness and heaviness, it seldom led soldiers to inaccuratel...
Based on the principles of jus ad bellum, the south was not qualified to go to war in the first place. In order to go to war the state has to be minimally just and the south was not minimally just in doing so. Throughout this paper I will explain the six principles of the jus ad bellum and whether or not the south met any of those principles. I will also explain the south perspective within each of these principles, on why they believed it was right for them to go to war.
O'Neill, William L. World War II: A Student Companion. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. Print.
Success in war may seem inevitable for the side with the most military might, the higher amount of resources, and the larger industry to support war efforts; however, this is not necessarily true. Victory is most often awarded to those who are best able to organize and utilize war resources and to those who have the “willpower which provides the direction and the moral strength to continue.” In the case of the Civil War, while the North had a clear advantage in resources and manpower, triumph was not imminent. It was through their employment of those resources and manpower, and their ability to change strategies, that the Union was victorious.
Gallagher confronts many historians and their theories with evidence as to why he disagrees. He opens a discussion about the Confederate strategy as well as their will to win the war. There are many primary documents used throughout the book to back his claims as well as photographic evidence. Gallagher suggests that future historians focus on the relationship between the home front and the battlefield to better understand the state of mind during wartime. Overall, this is a straightforward, enjoyable, easy to read book that gives a well-balanced argument to
Heidler, David Stephen, and Jeanne T. Heidler, eds. Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: a
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
“In July 1945, the first atomic bomb was tested in New Mexico and the next month the second and third weapons off the production line were dropped on Japan. Since then no nuclear weapons have been used in anger, although tens of thousands have been accumulated by the major powers and their destructiveness and sophistication increased immensely.” The nature of warfare is constant and evolved from multiple factors and military revolutions over time. The purpose of this paper is to identify the most important military revolution in history and highlight its effects that permeate modern day society. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is the most significant military revolution that led to the greatest changes in warfare, which include the immergence of new threats such as non-state actors, the shift from total war to low intensity conflict, and the importance of technology and innovation. This military revolution completely shattered existing paradigms of warfare due to the real threat of nuclear weapons’ total destruction of humanity.
Much confusion has arisen from misinterpretation of Clausewitz’s discussions on Schwerpunkt or “center of gravity”. Many students of military theory interpret Clausewitz’s ideas through their own historical perspectives. For example, military officers tend to confuse military objectives for centers of gravity, assuming physical objects such as ships or cities are the source of a countries power. While these objects may provide tactical advantages, true power arises from the critical strengths possessed by a country, be they political, diplomatic, military, or informational. The Argentinean military junta made similar mistakes during their invasion of the Falklands. Without fully understanding the source of British power in the region, the Argentineans attacked military objectives, while missing British centers of gravity. Because they failed to analyze the critical factors and capabilities of both the enemy and themselves, they were doomed to failure from the outset of the mission.
Samuel B. Griffith’s translation of “Sun Tzu: The Art of War” is an inside look at military practices of today. I did not find one technique that is not or would not be utilized in modern military maneuver, leadership, or training. The most astounding fact is that the Art of War was written well over two thousand years ago, even at the most conservative date. Although most of the techniques in this text are already in practice today, the value of “The Art of War” is a never-ending treasure chest of knowledge, and it deserves a place as a required reading for anyone seeking knowledge about war fighting or the history of war.