VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:27:41 11/02/05 Wed
Author: Sunshine
Subject: Re: And thus the case for the importance of an Indirect Strategy.
In reply to: fresne 's message, "And thus the case for the importance of an Indirect Strategy." on 13:56:03 11/02/05 Wed

Well I think my position is already pretty obvious. I think Napoleon has had the biggest impact on the art of war (is that not a strange term, the juxtaposition of art and war?). As I have previously stated, one tends to forget just how different the practice of war was prior to Napoleon. Of course, not all the changes are positive (many are far from it) nor are they all a tribute to Napoleon’s genius but they are significant. The idea of total war with the levee en masse changed warfare from an activity practiced by relatively small groups of men (at least war as was practiced in the western world) whom were beholden to a king or prince to a true national undertaking. Napoleon put war on a sound business footing, living off the land and making the conquered territories pay for their own destruction. Napoleon’s use of maneuver, especially to threaten some sacrosanct position of the enemy, was employed to dictate where a battle was to be joined. He realized the importance of both dispersion (required since the French army foraged for most of their food and also to mask his real objective) and rapid concentration to deliver a knockout blow at the time and place of his choosing. He, I think better than previous commanders, understood that it was an enemies army, not their capitol, that had to be dealt with. These ideas now all seem commonplace and obvious but that is a measure of how profound an effect Napoleon had and even still has. A lot of these ideas are not unique to Napoleon, he just integrated them and took them to their logical conclusion. France was facing a united Europe, where the existing aristocracies were angered by what the French people had done to Louis XVI and whom considered the French idea of equality, liberty etc (even if Napoleon was hardly a proponent of any of these ideals) a dangerous threat to the status quo. The fact that he managed to survive for over 20 years is certainly indicative of some level of skill.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.