Jomini NOT Sun Tzu for Civil War Tactics

[philknox]

If you want to understand Civil War tactics it is best to study Baron Jomini’s The Art of War, as study that many Civil War officers were familiar.  Sun Tzu was unknown to the West during this time period and its Oriental mysticism would have been unpopular.

 

This may surprise many but Sun Tzu is NOT given much credence in higher professional military circles.  Sun Tzu is considered too much of military fantasy and a work that ignores human nature to be of much use.   See Michael I. Handel’s Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought for more commentary on this subject.  Clausewitz is given much greater authority today.  Both Sun Tzu are too formulaic and didactic while Clausewitz is dialectic.

 

If you want to understand Civil War tactics I recommend the following works

Brent Nosworthy’s The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the Civil War  

 

Paddy Griffith’s Battle Tactics of the Civil War

 

Earl Hess’s Civil War Infantry Tactics: Training, Combat, and Small-Unit Effectiveness  and

Civil War Logistics: A Study of Military Transportation

 

The latter is a pre-order, but it will be an excellent work.  I have seen the manuscript.

 

For the record, I am a retired US Army Lt. Col., and graduate and lecturer at the US Army War College, at Carlisle.

[philknox]

With Jomini you will start to see the concepts of interior lines, concentration in time and space and other geometrical approaches to military tactics.

[Norfolk nChance]

 

I've just started to look at the civil war. Brit so forgive. Great book  

"The Civil War - with maps" M. David Detweiler  

Clean clear easy to read the time line  

for strategy.. Sun Tzu, Art of War. John Liddall Hart, Indirect approach 

[Bigjku]

Agree that it would be good reading for this and it's actually applicable to this game.

The specifics he got into didn't always age well but the idea of concentration of force and action and the importance of timing stand up well enough.

For the purposes of this game I think you are on target.  I think what people probably struggle the most with is using economy of force to allow them to concentrate sufficient mass for a killing blow.  There is a strong temptation to chase off after on objective or mass of enemies even if it is not the place of decision on the battlefield.

From watching and listening I think many players struggle with he concept of having depth as well.

its probably my favorite thing about this game that you will be punished if you don't have depth in your positions and plans.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Bigjku

[Col_Kelly]

It seems that Sun Tzu has gone a bit out of fashion in the last decades but I still appreciate his advices, many of which have helped me with this game. The main advantage of Sun Tzu is also it's weakness : it doesn't bother with details. Still if you really apply a few of its ideas you will manage to beat the campaign rather easily :

- An army avoids strength and strikes at weak points. In other words fall back whenever you don't benefit from a clear terrain/number advantage. Even when you only have the upper hand by a slight margin you shouldn't be fighting at all.

- Do not ever split your army unless you have a huge number advantage, do not try to surround an opponent if the local advantage isn't 10/1 in your favor.

- If you're on the offensive hide until it's too late for the enemy to understand your dispositions.

- Feint an attack to reveal the enemy's disposition.

- Do not repeat a winning tactic, adapt to the present context everytime.

- Do not place your army in an organised fashion (one straight line fx) and go for a 'messy' battle line so that your opponent cannot get a clear idea of your intentions. Works very well with the AI.

I know most of these sound obvious but most players don't stick to those tips. If you do there is little room for failure.

On a more 'philosophical' scale I'm not a fan of Clausewitz (just my opinion) because he focuses to much on strength and it's application. Eastern philosophies are more appealing to me as they focus much more on deception, territory occupation and political goals. The Vietnam War is a perfect example of why a massive use of strength is ultimately pointless. 

 

PS : I'm really thankful for the OP's reading suggestions however, I'll definitly check those.

 

[Norfolk nChance]

 

If you want to sink deep into strategy... Strategic Studies 2nd edition Mahnken and Mailol 

Sun Tzu I agree out of fashion because of marketing. Sun Tzu to washing ... Its a very good mirror... you must have a clear view of your clan size and abilities. Ego taken out. 

[On War] is very hard to study and unlike Sun Tzu believes in total destruction of the enemy 

Lidill-Hart is my favourite. Basically invented Blitzgred before the Nazi. 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

4 hours ago, Norfolk nChance said:

 

I've just started to look at the civil war. Brit so forgive. Great book  

"The Civil War - with maps" M. David Detweiler  

Clean clear easy to read the time line  

for strategy.. Sun Tzu, Art of War. John Liddall Hart, Indirect approach 

Forgive the correction; but, with all due respect, that is maybe my favorite military tome of all time.

Basil Henry Liddell Hart's book you reference is titled 'Strategy'.  The Indirect Approach is the takeaway lesson; but Goebbel's propaganda machine's name for Fast Heinz's variation of the British military philosophers ideas rings much more clearly in the modern consciousness. 

And, apropos to this forum, my favorite part of the book is his description of Sherman's March to the Sea as, perhaps, the first Blitzkrieg given the fact Sherman allowed the Confederates to pick and choose his line of advance - Sherman moved against whichever target the Confederates failed to cover, the heart and soul of the Indirect Approach. 

[Norfolk nChance]

Quite correct Andre, 

I should give ultimate General a go. I'm from the Naval Action side. 

On the topic of the civil war. It classed as the first modern war of our time. What one thing do you thing was the over riding factor in the North's win. I've always assumed communication with the telegraph?  Is this correct? 

[Fred Sanford]

23 minutes ago, Norfolk nChance said:

What one thing do you thing was the over riding factor in the North's win. I've always assumed communication with the telegraph?  Is this correct? 

If I had to pick "one thing", I'd go with overall industrial/manpower resources for the North.  The South was an agrarian economy and something like only 1/9th the population.  

[Bigjku]

Industrial resources are number one.  A more unified government structure at the top is probably two.  Three would be that they eventually had the best overall commanders in charge of things by the end in Grant and Sherman who had a clear idea of what needed to be done and how to do it.  The South rarely had much of a plan.

The North winning wasn't the inevitable thing it's often see as.  The South had probably a better relative chance or at least comparable chance to win as did the 13 colonies when they revolted.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

2 hours ago, Norfolk nChance said:

Quite correct Andre, 

I should give ultimate General a go. I'm from the Naval Action side. 

On the topic of the civil war. It classed as the first modern war of our time. What one thing do you thing was the over riding factor in the North's win. I've always assumed communication with the telegraph?  Is this correct? 

Railroads. And the industrialization they begat by allowing the forces of production to be quickly shifted hither and yon.  

This is the first war fought with the railroads moving men and material and allowing them to arrive quickly in relatively fresh condition. Germany and France paid particularly close attention to this aspect. And the orientation of the rail lines in both the North and the South have been the subject of study since the war showing all advantages lay in the North. 

But, the entire war was fought for the railroads. Lincoln was a railroad man. It is not a coincidence his primary objective during the first part of his administration was green-lighting the Trans-Contintental railroad. And, of course, that beautiful instrument of war built by the North was turned West and killed everything that walked and crawled between the Mississippi and the Pacific in the name of the Railroads. 

[Col_Kelly]

@philknox

Since you seem quite specialized in military history I'll have to ask you a question that has bugged me for while : Who's the equivalent of Clausewitz for modern warfare ? Is there a consensual author out there to which contemporary generals (with field experience) look up to ?

[Andre Bolkonsky]

6 minutes ago, Col_Kelly said:

@philknox

Since you seem quite specialized in military history I'll have to ask you a question that has bugged me for while : Who's the equivalent of Clausewitz for modern warfare ? Is there a consensual author out there to which contemporary generals (with field experience) look up to ?

Kim Jong-un

To quote Schwartzkopf's comments about Saddam Hussein: He is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational art, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he a soldier. Other than that, he's a great military man.

[philknox]

There are no real modern counterparts to Clausewitz.  Most strategists today are specialists in certain fields that relate to geo-politics/military science.  However, I would suggest Colin S. Gray and Antulio Echevarria, Alan Millett, Christopher Bassford and the late Russell Weigley and Trevor DuPuy would be good places to start.

 

For the Napoleonic Period I would start with Gunther Rothenberg.

 

Civil War a much bigger list based on the topic- Donald Stoker, Herman Hattaway, Archer Jones, Richard Beringer, Steven Woodworth, Ethan Rafuse, Richard McMurry, Mark Grimsley, Joseph Harsh, Brooks Simpson and Albert Castel.  This is not all inclusive there are more, but these are good places to go to.

 

I would also pay attention to Jennifer Murray at UVA Wise she is an up and coming military historian.

 

For World Two- Dennis Showalter, David Glantz, Jonathon House, Chris Lawrence, Niklas Zetterling, David Stahel, Karl Heinz Freiser and Rolf Dieter-Muller come to mind of late.

 

[Mr. Mercanto]

Can I add Donald Stroker's The Grand Design, to this list? 


Awesome list, by the way!

[philknox]

I would add him.

[philknox]

For the record, Liddell Hart has been knocked down several notches of late.  His "indirect approach" was really nothing new.  If you are really interested in "blitzkrieg" and German Military history particularly relating to armor. I would read this article  "Abuses of German Military History" by Daniel Hughes.

 

 

250.pdf

[philknox]

The German Army, unlike Fuller and Liddell Hart, always favored the destruction of the enemy in encirclement battles.  Command paralysis was never a primary goal.  German practice was firmly rooted in Clausewitz.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Each generation of historians puts skins on the wall by attacking those who came before, and they will be attacked in turn. Same as it always was, same as it always was. 

And, if I may, the biggest 'abuse of German Military History' came from Adolph Hitler himself, who threw entire campaigns rather than let the Prussians get the credit for the kill. 

[Norfolk nChance]

What a brilliant thread guys, well done all.

 

Sort of off the OP, I was given my first copy of Sun Tzu when 13 years old. Am 47 now and have basically read the little book all my life. My interest originally was from a martial arts background but grew much wider in depth the older I became.

The problem as stated above of the text falling out of fashion is very true. More with the over marketing of the text to solve problems in any number of areas turning it into somewhat of a joke. The text itself always can be interrupted with the opposite view in any situation. This is what the text does for me…

Put the “Problem” in context. Is it macro micro or in-between. Me myself extracting the ego, what are the strengthen and weakness. And understanding the battlefield….

The three points above in Naval Action work very well in relation to warfare and trying them out. What confuses most players and people in general is understanding the battlefield. In this instance, it’s not just the port battles or ocean. The General Chat window and forum here also become tools that are frequently mis-understood by players.    

Understand the battlefield, is the hardest element to grasp in my opinion. Now we have the Internet and Space as new theaters which Sun Tzu would find astonishing but are just battlefields all the same.

 

[philknox]

Thank you for the pdf, the wife may not be so happy.

 

Modern day strategists….

Tough one… look up Thomas C Schelling

 

 

Norfolk nChance  

 

Edited June 2, 2017 by Norfolk nChance

[JonnyH13]

I have noticed that many treatises on war, politics, philosophy, etc do not take into account the new possibilities and ideas provided by technological advancement.  Theoretically speaking, given the ever increasing processing power of computers (and eventually the human mind if technology advances far enough), that eventually a didactic method would be more efficient in both short term and long term than a dialectic method?  Given the increasing processing power, a sufficiently powerful intelligence can test all possible variables and learn the truth (that is knowledge) more efficiently than 2 equal intelligence in dialectic intercourse.  True 2 equal intelligence can do much more than 1 but you must keep in mind that that only works when both intelligence trust each other implicitly and are always truthful to each other and at that level of technology, trust is much less efficient than less moral methods.  Dialectic is useless when at least one party is deceives and in a highly competitive environment,  deception is extremely beneficial when done correctly both for short term and long term gain.  I can go farther and clarify more on why I have this opinion but I want to see what others have to say first.  

I am not encouraging people to lie, cheat and practice deception, I am just pointing out an family-unfriendly aesop.  I have a rather dim view on the logical part of the world.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

36 minutes ago, JonnyH13 said:

I have noticed that many treatises on war, politics, philosophy, etc do not take into account the new possibilities and ideas provided by technological advancement.  Theoretically speaking, given the ever increasing processing power of computers (and eventually the human mind if technology advances far enough), that eventually a didactic method would be more efficient in both short term and long term than a dialectic method?  Given the increasing processing power, a sufficiently powerful intelligence can test all possible variables and learn the truth (that is knowledge) more efficiently than 2 equal intelligence in dialectic intercourse.  True 2 equal intelligence can do much more than 1 but you must keep in mind that that only works when both intelligence trust each other implicitly and are always truthful to each other and at that level of technology, trust is much less efficient than less moral methods.  Dialectic is useless when at least one party is deceives and in a highly competitive environment,  deception is extremely beneficial when done correctly both for short term and long term gain.  I can go farther and clarify more on why I have this opinion but I want to see what others have to say first.  

I am not encouraging people to lie, cheat and practice deception, I am just pointing out an family-unfriendly aesop.  I have a rather dim view on the logical part of the world.

Hear, hear! 

We are back to the discussion of Liddel Hart; his ideas were firmly rooted in long established practices. It is the application of technology that turns the screw. 

Always good to remember that WWII was won by deception, not brute force. Intrepid, the Whiffenpoofs, Lucy. Purple and Magic.  How many army groups are those names worth? 

My takeaway from history is the side that fires first usually wins a battle, or a campaign; but they usually lose the war. 

[Mr. Mercanto]

3 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

Each generation of historians puts skins on the wall by attacking those who came before, and they will be attacked in turn. Same as it always was, same as it always was.

This is one of the many reasons I decided not to pursue history as a profession.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

1 hour ago, Mr. Mercanto said:

This is one of the many reasons I decided not to pursue history as a profession.

I tried taking corespondence courses from a university in Vermont using their USB graduate degree program, but it didn't work out. 

[Mr. Mercanto]

On 2017-6-2 at 1:37 AM, Andre Bolkonsky said: