Free to follow every thread. No paywall, no dead ends.
Military strategy: the story on HearLore | HearLore
Military strategy
The word strategy itself was not born in a boardroom or a modern think tank, but emerged from the Greek office of the general, known as strategos, meaning the leader or commander of an army. For centuries, this term described the narrow art of arranging troops on a battlefield, a craft that remained largely unchanged from the time of the Roman legions until the 18th century. It was not until 1777 that the German translation of Leo VI's Tactica introduced the word Strategie to the Western lexicon, transforming it from a simple description of troop placement into a complex discipline of planning and execution. Before this linguistic shift, the distinction between strategy and tactics was so blurred that a decision could be categorized differently depending on the personal opinion of the observer. During the French Revolutionary Wars, statesman Lazare Carnot believed strategy was nothing more than the concentration of troops, a view that persisted until the 19th century when the field began to be recognized as one of the three governing arts of warfare alongside tactics and logistics.
The Political Instrument
In the early 19th century, a Prussian officer named Carl von Clausewitz fundamentally altered the understanding of war by declaring that it was not merely a military contest, but a continuation of politics by other means. Clausewitz, who lived from 1780 to 1831, argued that the purpose of all strategy was to achieve the political goal that the state was seeking to accomplish, making war a real political instrument rather than an end in itself. This perspective was echoed by the British strategist B. H. Liddell Hart, who defined strategy as the art of distributing and applying military means to fulfill the ends of policy, placing political aims above military goals. The French statesman Georges Clemenceau later reinforced this concept by stating that war is too important a business to be left to soldiers, giving rise to the concept of grand strategy which encompasses the management of an entire nation's resources. Field Marshal Viscount Alanbrooke, who served as Chief of the Imperial General Staff during the Second World War, described the process as deriving a series of military objectives from a policy aim, assessing the requirements they create, and charting a coherent pattern of priorities from the available resources.
Eastern Deception
While Western thinkers focused on the arrangement of armies, the father of Eastern military strategy, Sun Tzu, who lived between 544 and 496 BC, taught that the supreme art of war was to subdue the enemy without fighting. His treatise, The Art of War, grew in popularity and saw practical use in Western society, yet it continued to influence competitive endeavors across Asia, Europe, and America by focusing more on asymmetric warfare and deception than direct confrontation. Sun Tzu defined thirteen principles of strategy, contrasting sharply with the 115 maxims listed by Napoleon, and his ideas remain a cornerstone of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese historical and modern war tactics. In India, Chanakya's Arthashastra served as an important strategic and political compendium, further distinguishing Eastern military strategy from its Western counterpart through its emphasis on cunning and psychological manipulation. These ancient texts demonstrated that ingenuity and adeptness were limited only by imagination and technology, with strategists continually exploiting ever-advancing tools to gain supremacy over their opponents.
The word strategy emerged from the Greek office of the general, known as strategos, meaning the leader or commander of an army. It originally described the narrow art of arranging troops on a battlefield before evolving into a complex discipline of planning and execution.
How did Carl von Clausewitz change the understanding of military strategy?
Carl von Clausewitz, who lived from 1780 to 1831, declared that war was a continuation of politics by other means. He argued that the purpose of all strategy was to achieve the political goal that the state was seeking to accomplish, making war a real political instrument rather than an end in itself.
What was Sun Tzu's main teaching on military strategy?
Sun Tzu, who lived between 544 and 496 BC, taught that the supreme art of war was to subdue the enemy without fighting. His treatise The Art of War focused on asymmetric warfare and deception rather than direct confrontation.
How did the Mongol armies utilize strategy during the Middle Ages?
The Mongol armies utilized a strategy of maneuver and continuous assault that stressed Chinese, Persian, Arab, and Eastern European forces until they collapsed. This approach prioritized speed and psychological pressure over static defense, allowing them to coordinate vast numbers of men across the steppes with unprecedented efficiency.
What was the impact of technology on strategy during the early 20th century?
Technological change had an enormous effect on strategy during the early 20th century, as the use of telegraph and later radio enabled the rapid movement of large numbers of men. One of Germany's key enablers in mobile warfare was the use of radios, which were put into every tank, allowing for a level of coordination that had never been achieved before.
How did Soviet strategy evolve during the Cold War?
During the Cold War, Soviet strategy was dominated by the desire to prevent, at all costs, the recurrence of an invasion of Russian soil, leading to a policy of no first use which in fact was a posture of launch on warning. The United States and the Soviet Union developed strategies of massive retaliation in the 1950s, flexible reaction in the 1960s, and realistic threat and containment in the 1970s.
During the Middle Ages, the Mongol armies utilized a strategy of maneuver and continuous assault that stressed Chinese, Persian, Arab, and Eastern European forces until they collapsed, only to be annihilated in pursuit and encirclement. This approach to warfare demonstrated the effectiveness of a strategy that prioritized speed and psychological pressure over static defense, a method that would later be studied and adapted by modern military planners. The campaigns of Alexander the Great, Hannibal, and Julius Caesar also demonstrated strategic planning and movement, but the Mongol style of warfare introduced a level of operational flexibility that had not been seen before. The word strategy itself derives from the Greek strategos, a compound of stratos meaning army and agos meaning leader, but the Mongols took this concept of leadership to a new level by coordinating vast numbers of men across the steppes with unprecedented efficiency. Their success was not merely a result of superior numbers, but of a strategic vision that allowed them to exploit the weaknesses of their enemies and strike with devastating force.
The Blitzkrieg and the Machine
In the early 20th century, technological change had an enormous effect on strategy, but little effect on leadership, as the use of telegraph and later radio enabled the rapid movement of large numbers of men. One of Germany's key enablers in mobile warfare was the use of radios, which were put into every tank, allowing for a level of coordination that had never been achieved before. However, the number of men that one officer could effectively control had, if anything, declined, leading to an increase in the number of officers required to manage the growing armies. In the interwar period, Germany's political goals included the accumulation of Lebensraum, or living space, for the Germanic race, and the elimination of communism as a political rival to Nazism. The destruction of European Jewry, while not strictly a strategic objective, was a political goal of the Nazi regime linked to the vision of a German-dominated Europe, and especially to the Generalplan Ost for a depopulated east which Germany could colonize. The strategy of Blitzkrieg, or lightning war, emerged from this context, combining speed, surprise, and overwhelming force to achieve rapid victories.
The Nuclear Paradox
During the Cold War, Soviet strategy was dominated by the desire to prevent, at all costs, the recurrence of an invasion of Russian soil, leading to a policy of no first use which in fact was a posture of launch on warning. The United States and the Soviet Union developed strategies of massive retaliation in the 1950s, flexible reaction in the 1960s, and realistic threat and containment in the 1970s, all of which were designed to deter an all-out nuclear World War III between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The Strategic Defense Initiative, also known as Star Wars, became a core part of the strategic doctrine based on defense containment, even though the United States recently acknowledged a new approach to its nuclear policy which describes the weapons' purpose as primarily or fundamentally to deter or respond to a nuclear attack. The Cold War ended without an all-out nuclear exchange, but the strategies developed during this period continue to shape the global geopolitical situation, with a number of potent powers in a multipolar array which has arguably come to be dominated by the hyperpower status of the United States.
The Netwar Network
In the post-Cold War era, strategy has been shaped by the rise of asymmetric warfare and the emergence of paramilitary organizations such as Al-Qaeda, which are involved in guerrilla military actions but which are not traditional organizations with a central authority defining their military and political strategies. These organizations may exist as a sparse network of groups lacking central coordination, making them more difficult to confront following standard strategic approaches, leading to the development of a new field of strategic thinking known as netwar. Parties to conflict which see themselves as vastly or temporarily inferior may adopt a strategy of hunkering down, as witnessed in Iraq in 1991 or Yugoslavia in 1999, to survive against superior forces. The major militaries of today are usually built to fight the last war, with huge armored and conventionally configured infantry formations backed up by air forces and navies designed to support or prepare for these forces, yet they often struggle to adapt to the fluid and decentralized nature of modern conflicts. The challenge for contemporary strategists is to develop new doctrines that can effectively counter these networked adversaries without losing the advantages of traditional military power.