Simple Principles, Hard Execution
If the principles of war are simple, why are they so hard to keep? Clausewitz told his royal pupil that the difficulty lies not in knowing them but in holding to them once the fighting starts.
Theory, he insisted, must reckon with moral forces as well as numbers: the enemy's probable mistakes, the impression a bold stroke makes, even one's own despair, and whoever teaches otherwise is a pedant. The advice on tactics and strategy is concrete, drawn from Frederick the Great's battles, Leuthen among them, and from Napoleon's at Regensburg and Wagram. But war works like a machine with enormous friction, and a plan drawn easily on paper is carried out only with great effort. Hence the closing charge: be bold in design, firm in execution.
- military theory
- military strategy
- tactics
- planning
- uncertainty
- risk
- courage
- morale
- perseverance
- judgment
- decision-making
- command
- leadership
- military leadership
Enter a dialogue
- Frederick the Great attacked at Leuthen not from calculating victory but from being used to the thought of an honourable end. Why does that steady a commander?
- Historians often embellish their army's deeds or bend events to fit the rules. Why must a future commander study battles in detail, not the historians' conclusions?
- To stay firm once the fighting starts, which doubts must a commander learn to leave unheard?
- Some think a theory of war always advises caution. Why would it, if it advised anything, advise the boldest course?
- When despair sets in halfway through a struggle, how should a person count it: as information, or as an enemy?