Jomini's Influence on US Military Doctrine

Article Review

Thesis: Jomini’s influence in the art of war and military doctrine is quite significant but often unnoticed by those who specialize in other fields.

Main Arguments by Author:

· Jomini rose to the heights of greatness with respect to military doctrine in the 19th century as a result of his closeness to both Napoleon and to the Tsar. Thus, his doctrine inevitably reached the US and was taught by the Jominians at West Point and beyond-- Dennis Hart Mahan, Henry W. Halleck, William J. Hardee, Silas Casey, George B. McClellan.[footnoteRef:1] [1: James W. Pohl, “The Influence of Antoine Henri de Jomini on Winfield Scott's Campaign in the Mexican War,” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly , Jul., 1973, Vol. 77, No. 1 (Jul., 1973), 86.]

· Consensus opinion, however, is that Grant won the US Civil War because he was decidedly not Jominian (and had never read him) but rather was intuitively Clauswitzian.[footnoteRef:2] This opinion, though, does not do justice to the military correctness of Jominian doctrine and instead rests merely on the political expediency with which Grant’s methods of warfare aligned with the aims of Lincoln. The Jominian generals were not incorrect in their approaches—they simply did not fit the mold that Lincoln wanted. [2: James W. Pohl, “The Influence of Antoine Henri de Jomini on Winfield Scott's Campaign in the Mexican War,” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly , Jul., 1973, Vol. 77, No. 1 (Jul., 1973), 86.]

· Yet, the influence of Jomini is evident in the approach of Winfried Scott, who never lost a battle in his career. The campaign from Tampico to Vera Cruz into the Valley of Mexico and the capital is Pohl’s case in point.

Who is the author? Academic/work background? Other writings?

James W. Pohl was an associate professor of history at Southwest Texas State University. He wrote numerous articles, such as “The Military History of the Texas Revolution”[footnoteRef:3] and other works, such as The Battle of San Jacinto.[footnoteRef:4] [3: James W. Pohl and Stephen L. Hardin. "The Military History of the Texas Revolution: An Overview." The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 89, no. 3 (1986): 269-308.] [4: James W. Pohl, The Battle of San Jacinto. Vol. 3. Texas A&M University Press, 2013.]

General reflection about the article. How does it relate to your understanding of the role of the U.S. Military? Did the author make a clear argument and provide adequate evidence. Would you recommend this article? Why or why not?

The article explores the influence of Antoine Henri de Jomini, a Swiss military theorist, on the military strategy of Winfield Scott, a general who commanded American forces during the Mexican War. Pohl argues that Jomini's ideas, particularly his emphasis on the importance of strategic mobility and the use of interior lines, influenced Scott's successful campaign in Mexico. This point is made as a kind of rebuttal to the notion that the reason the majority of American generals failed prior to Grant in the US Civil War was because they followed Jomini. Pohl argues that this is not a valid argument since Scott also followed Jomini and had great success with the approach.

The article sheds light on the role of military strategy and theory in shaping the conduct of war and highlights the importance of studying historical examples of successful military campaigns. It also contributes to the understanding of the U.S. military's approach to warfare and the influence of foreign military theorists on American military thought. However, it does not give sufficient credit to the Clausewitzian approach of Grant, the element of surprise and force combined, which enjoyed some success later in the Blitzkrieg version in WW2.

Overall, Pohl does make a clear argument that the Jominian approach deserves more recognition for its brilliance in terms of military strategy and the Jominians of the US Civil War should not be so excoriated when compared to Grant; Grant aligned with Lincoln’s political aims with respect to how the war should be fought and thus the other generals played second fiddle to Grant’s rising star. That does not, however, serve as good reason for dismissing the sound doctrine of Jomini. Through his description of the Mexican Campaign of Scott, Pohl provides adequate evidence to support his claims. He cites primary sources, including Scott's own writings and Jomini's works, to demonstrate the influence of Jomini's ideas on Scott's campaign. Additionally, Pohl provides historical context and analysis to support his argument.