Jomini Vs. Clausewitz American Military Essay

PAGES
2
WORDS
659
Cite
Related Topics:

He felt that it was the responsibility of the military generals to execute the war in accordance with the policies set by the political leaders. "War is nothing but the continuation of policy with other means," said Clausewitz . Jomini, however, took a contrary view. Jomini had little concern with political implications. Jomini's suggestion was that a government should choose its ablest commander and then leave him alone to wage the war according to scientific principles.

Clausewitz and Jomini developed their theories of war in a world that was much different than today's world. Their world was dominated by monarchial style governments that participated in warfare for reasons different from the reasons that modern democratic governments choose to pursue military options. Policies in the dynastic period were formulated by monarchs and had more to do with familial relationships and the acquisition of territory than for pure political considerations. In modern times, politics are the basis of wars and the policies are determined by national...

...

One of the major criticisms of both Clausewitz and Jomini is that their theories were formulated in a time when the nuances of democracy and nationalism were still in their infancy and that neither man contemplated the world as it exists today
. The American military, however, continues to teach the strategies and theories of both men with Clausewitz's theories actually being incorporated in the U.S. Army's Field Manual. As odd as it may seem, both men remain as relevant today as they were nearly two hundred years ago.

compare and contrast Jomini and Clausewitz

Roger Parkinson, Clausewitz: A Biography. (Lanham, MD: Cooper Square Press 2002).

Hew Strachan, European Armies and the Conduct of War. (Boston: George Allen and Unwin 1983), 94.

Carl von Clausewitz, On War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 479.

Azar Gat, The Origins of Military Thought: From the Enlightenment to Clausewitz (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989).

Sources Used in Documents:

Hew Strachan, European Armies and the Conduct of War. (Boston: George Allen and Unwin 1983), 94.

Carl von Clausewitz, On War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 479.

Azar Gat, The Origins of Military Thought: From the Enlightenment to Clausewitz (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989).


Cite this Document:

"Jomini Vs Clausewitz American Military" (2011, December 11) Retrieved April 19, 2024, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/jomini-vs-clausewitz-american-military-48408

"Jomini Vs Clausewitz American Military" 11 December 2011. Web.19 April. 2024. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/jomini-vs-clausewitz-american-military-48408>

"Jomini Vs Clausewitz American Military", 11 December 2011, Accessed.19 April. 2024,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/jomini-vs-clausewitz-american-military-48408

Related Documents

As it has been said by David Chandler, "the airy Kantian generalization of Clausewitz has held on for quite some time now." Another reason can be the fact that in a world that seems to have freed itself from the fundamental ideological conflicts and in a period in which there are some who seriously think and hope that the history has come to an end, the strife-driven world view

Military History
PAGES 7 WORDS 2223

The Past Present and Future of Warfare Impact of Technology and Strategy Introduction Military tactics and strategies are essential in warfare. Without the right tactics and strategy, it is impossible to win wars. By definition, military strategy is the planning, coordination, and implementation of military operations to meet some set objectives. Tactics can be defined as short-term military strategies in the field of operations in terms of the equipment to use, how

Such developments were the product of new types of social organization brought about by the late industrial age. High commands developed new types of organization as individual commanders became less of a factor and teams of staff became more important working together. While still informal, good staff work became more and more important in and of itself. As Hagerman points out, it was not really von Clausewitz, but Henri Jomini

On War, Statecraft and Sustainability As Clark (2008) points out, sustainability has been defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development as the capability of meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 3). Sustainability is related to the need recognized by nations to conserve finite resources so that they are not depleted for the next generation. Intertwined with

Clausewitz and World War I The role of various theories and concepts in the First World War has been an issue of considerable concern that has attracted various studies in attempts to understand their influence in the various battles related to the war. In addition to the various concepts behind the war, Clausewitz theories of war have come under increased scrutiny with regards to their influence on World War I.

theorists from the H100 block of ILE have provided valuable insights on warfare. They range from Clausewitz to Machiavelli to Moltke. Although 200 years have passed since the times of Antoine-Henri Jomini, his theories, principles, and insights are still being used in a twenty-first century warfare. Jomini's principles of war provide linkages to today's doctrine making them still useful today. In order for a theorist of the past to offer