Quote from Clausewitz

[Cyclone]

It's been awhile since I've posted here, but rest assured I am a member so please be informed of that before you chew my butt for not introducing myself again in the new members section.

Let me get right to the point. I've heard a quote that reads something along the lines, "Never engage the same enemy for too long or he will adapt to your tactics." This has been credited to Carl von Clausewitz. My question is, in what writings of his can you find this? I've read both On War and Principles of War, but I can't recall this line being in either of them. If it is, and if someone knows where, would you please be so generous as to enlighten me? Thanks.

[JohnP]

It's been awhile since I've posted here, but rest assured I am a member so please be informed of that before you chew my butt for not introducing myself again in the new members section.

Let me get right to the point. I've heard a quote that reads something along the lines, "Never engage the same enemy for too long or he will adapt to your tactics." This has been credited to Carl von Clausewitz. My question is, in what writings of his can you find this? I've read both On War and Principles of War, but I can't recall this line being in either of them. If it is, and if someone knows where, would you please be so generous as to enlighten me? Thanks.

May I offer this site?

http://www.military-quotes.com/quotes.htm


Welcome back, you need to drop in more often. :navy2:

If HE has you listed as a friend that you can’t be all bad.

[Dirtynappy]

Von Clauswitz was a loser who simply penned what other generals were talking about in regards to Napoleon. It was Wellington himself that spoke about Napoleonic Warfare and how he knew what Napoleon was going to do because his tactics were tried and true.

Kind of like Desert Storm.

[JohnP]

Von Clauswitz was a loser who simply penned what other generals were talking about in regards to Napoleon. It was Wellington himself that spoke about Napoleonic Warfare and how he knew what Napoleon was going to do because his tactics were tried and true.

Kind of like Desert Storm.

And you base this information on????

When you make a statement of this magnitude, please post you sources.

[Dirtynappy]

And you base this information on????

When you make a statement of this magnitude, please post you sources.

You gonna give me a grade, Professor?

[HairyEyeball]

You gonna give me a grade, Professor?

Based on your performance so far, about 60 degrees - all downhill, with no brakes.

[Dirtynappy]

Criminal Justice degree with minor in History and have written 4 papers on Napoleon ranging from History of the French Revolution, Napoleonic Warfare (included Von Clauswitz, Wellington, Csar Nicholas, and Blucher) to Napoleon versus The Romantics for British Literature.

Yet you guys have PhD's:sleepy:

[OBOOT]

Criminal Justice degree with minor in History and have written 4 papers on Napoleon ranging from History of the French Revolution, Napoleonic Warfare (included Von Clauswitz, Wellington, Csar Nicholas, and Blucher) to Napoleon versus The Romantics for British Literature.

Yet you guys have PhD's:sleepy:

Unless you're a one pump chump with no combat experience, and a staunch Conservative and a neat-o forum you have no idea what real American and Military history is.

OH BTW My "dumb illiterate 3rd grade ass" actually holds a Bachelor's in U.S. History with a Masters in Information Technology Management along with over 37 active information technology degrees including a CCIE, MCITP, MCSA, MCSE +I +M, CEHA, A+ Net+ etc....

Did your infinite e-Wisdom detect all that? Man you guys are gullible choad loving pogues here.

[JohnP]

Criminal Justice degree with minor in History and have written 4 papers on Napoleon ranging from History of the French Revolution, Napoleonic Warfare (included Von Clauswitz, Wellington, Csar Nicholas, and Blucher) to Napoleon versus The Romantics for British Literature.

Yet you guys have PhD's:sleepy:

That mean’s you have insight. I’m not a professor, never claimed to be one.

My request was a site or area to go so that we may gather the same information. From your list of qualifications, you provided, could you please expound on your theories. This is not an attempt to be flippant or to ridicule, it is an honest request and I really want to know. (I have a buddy here that is a professor of history at the local college. I love to put him in his place. The latest example was of why the VP of the Confederacy was allowed to hold federal office after the War of Northern Aggression when the President of the Confederacy wasn’t.)

[JohnP]

Unless you're a one pump chump with no combat experience, and a staunch Conservative and a neat-o forum you have no idea what real American and Military history is.

OH BTW My "dumb illiterate 3rd grade ass" actually holds a Bachelor's in U.S. History with a Masters in Information Technology Management along with over 37 active information technology degrees including a CCIE, MCITP, MCSA, MCSE +I +M, CEHA, A+ Net+ etc....

Did your infinite e-Wisdom detect all that? Man you guys are gullible choad loving pogues here.

Unfortunately, history was a requirement for my degree. I was able to CLEP most of it.

I appreciate typing in a manner that is succinct and legible. I apologize for assuming the 3rd grade education, but when you come in “acting the fool,” what did you expect? There is a time and place for everything, if you walked into a new unit acting like you did, would not your Top, PS, SL and TL correct the situation in one, big, freakin’ hurry? If we came to your house and played rough, would you not correct us?

I’m calming down in my old age. I used to call out anyone who challenged my position. I now ask for meaningful dialog. If you wish to ask for my qualifications, please PM me and we can discuss.

[wukong]

Unless you're a one pump chump with no combat experience, and a staunch Conservative and a neat-o forum you have no idea what real American and Military history is.

OH BTW My "dumb illiterate 3rd grade ass" actually holds a Bachelor's in U.S. History with a Masters in Information Technology Management along with over 37 active information technology degrees including a CCIE, MCITP, MCSA, MCSE +I +M, CEHA, A+ Net+ etc....

Did your infinite e-Wisdom detect all that? Man you guys are gullible choad loving pogues here.

Impressive. I did graduate from High School and can not match such credentials. Can you communicate with the Millennium Falcon?

BTW: What is a choad or a pogue? Does one have sex with a choad, eat it, or maybe both? Before I got my driver's license we had Commander Cody Super Secret Decoder Rings to decrypt such communications. Do you need CCIE, MCITP, MCSA, MCSE +I +M, CEHA, A+ Net+ to make this understandable to peace time chair polishers?

You are very lucky; some of us make history, some just make claims.

If the senile geriatric group that populates this forum are gullible choad loving pogues and if this term somehow has negative connotations: why are you wasting your time with such riff raff or what our (you and me fellow retirees) generation would term "Whiskey Delta's."

[Ivan_The_Mute]

OH BTW My "dumb illiterate 3rd grade ass" actually holds a Bachelor's in U.S. History with a Masters in Information Technology Management along with over 37 active information technology degrees including a CCIE, MCITP, MCSA, MCSE +I +M, CEHA, A+ Net+ etc....


A bit of a nitpick, I count two degrees and a ton of certs. One does not equate to the other, although one is usually earned in tandem with the other.

(Ivan, BA in European History, minor in IT, CCNA, MCSA, A+, Net+. Yea, that's it.)

BTW: What is a choad or a pogue?
Choad: Bastardization of "Chode," which is the old English spelling of "Chide." Choad, in more modern terms, generically indicates the penis and appropriate uses of said penis.

[wukong]

Choad: Bastardization of "Chode," which is the old English spelling of "Chide." Choad, in more modern terms, generically indicates the penis and appropriate uses of said penis.

Our little adolescent sojourners have reached their age of discovery and some new lingo. I spent 6 years working with Marines and never once was called a "choad." A prick often, but never a "choad."

These boys remind me of early life when males discover that if they scrub their "choad" with soapy water it grows! They giggle and listen to some airhead like that radio fellow from NY in the 90's. Some times I wish I was a teeny bopper again with a "choad" that could be used without Viagra.

I hope the Dragon Lady does not learn this term. I can hear her now, "Wukong, get your little choad in here." I can see some "girly boys" giggling over the term, but it would never go over at Camp Pendleton at a short arm inspection.

I bet they are going blind.;)

[Dirtynappy]

Impressive. I did graduate from High School and can not match such credentials. Can you communicate with the Millennium Falcon?

BTW: What is a choad or a pogue? Does one have sex with a choad, eat it, or maybe both? Before I got my driver's license we had Commander Cody Super Secret Decoder Rings to decrypt such communications. Do you need CCIE, MCITP, MCSA, MCSE +I +M, CEHA, A+ Net+ to make this understandable to peace time chair polishers?

You are very lucky; some of us make history, some just make claims.

If the senile geriatric group that populates this forum are gullible choad loving pogues and if this term somehow has negative connotations: why are you wasting your time with such riff raff or what our (you and me fellow retirees) generation would term "Whiskey Delta's."

Now that's funny!

Borderlin lame with rolling eyes about making history but funny.

John you can simply do the Wikipedia thing about Von Clauswitz. While he was indeed a field commander with the Prussian Army and later offered his services to the Russians he was always on the losing end. His book is good and used but he did in fact pen ideas and theories from his superiors. Wellington knew what Napoleon was going to throw at him not because of what Von Clauswitz told Wellington but because Napoleon had become predictable.

Von Clauswitz was no Napoleon and his name and book is good for theory and observations but Napoleon was in his own class. Open your hand and on those 5 fingers conjure up the greatest conquerors. Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, etc. You may find yourself putting in Napoleone Buonaparte.

Don't know much about the US Civil War. Never knew the CSA VP was allowed office. In fact, I was watching some lame John Wayne cavalry movie and one of the troopers died and turns out he was a Confederate general. Looked up some kind of info and found out Confederate officers were allowed to be US Army enlisted men. Guess I should learn more about the US Civil War and its aftermath

[Frag Sleeve]

Choad: Bastardization of "Chode," which is the old English spelling of "Chide." Choad, in more modern terms, generically indicates the penis and appropriate uses of said penis.


....the wikipedia is strong in this one......

[JohnP]

Now that's funny!

Borderlin lame with rolling eyes about making history but funny.

John you can simply do the Wikipedia thing about Von Clauswitz. While he was indeed a field commander with the Prussian Army and later offered his services to the Russians he was always on the losing end. His book is good and used but he did in fact pen ideas and theories from his superiors. Wellington knew what Napoleon was going to throw at him not because of what Von Clauswitz told Wellington but because Napoleon had become predictable.

Von Clauswitz was no Napoleon and his name and book is good for theory and observations but Napoleon was in his own class. Open your hand and on those 5 fingers conjure up the greatest conquerors. Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, etc. You may find yourself putting in Napoleone Buonaparte.

Don't know much about the US Civil War. Never knew the CSA VP was allowed office. In fact, I was watching some lame John Wayne cavalry movie and one of the troopers died and turns out he was a Confederate general. Looked up some kind of info and found out Confederate officers were allowed to be US Army enlisted men. Guess I should learn more about the US Civil War and its aftermath

Thank you. Your explanations were clear and understandable and will cause me to complete more research on the subject. Personally, I’m not a Von Clausewitz fan, for that matter, I’m a not a fan of anyone who practices war without flexibility. Sun Tzu and Mao are more to my likening.

If you read recent posts about Wiki, you'll find we frown on using it as our primary source but it is a good place to start.

For your approval:

Alexander Hamilton Stephens (February 11, 1812 – March 4, 1883) was an American politician from Georgia. He was Vice President of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War. He also served as a U.S. Representative from Georgia (both before the Civil War and after Reconstruction) and as Governor of Georgia from 1882 until his death in 1883.

I came upon this information when I was researching information about the 14th Amendment. I should open a thread for debate, discussion or conspiracy theories on this matter.

[Dirtynappy]

Was Stephens well connected politically and financially to Northerners like cousins or in-laws?

Got to be something behind his rise. Or was he just some lame duck VP and all the blame fell on Jeff Davis because of his position as President of CSA?

[JohnP]

Was Stephens well connected politically and financially to Northerners like cousins or in-laws?

Got to be something behind his rise. Or was he just some lame duck VP and all the blame fell on Jeff Davis because of his position as President of CSA?

That, my brother, is the $64,000 dollar question. In between my job, my fraternal organization, my herd and my ranch, I haven’t had time to find anything that gives a straight answer. I can make a conjecture, but it would be purely unsubstantiated.

He was born sickly and raised in the South (fully grown he weighed only 90 lbs). He was from a poor family, but found financial supporters to sponsor him through schools and college. He was a capable lawyer and defender, (he once successfully defended a black woman, pro bono, for a murder of a white man in GA.) and though his voice was shrill, he was very intelligent and eloquent.

He was critical of Southern Extremist and voted against secession. However, in 1861, gave his famous Cornerstone Speech in Savannah, Georgia. In it he declared that slavery was the natural condition of blacks and the foundation of the confederacy.

On February 3, 1865, he was one of three Confederate commissioners who met with President Lincoln on the steamer River Queen at the Hampton Roads Conference, a forlorn effort to discuss measures to bring an end to the fighting.

He was arrested and imprisoned in May, 1865 and spent 5 months in Fort Warren, Boston Harbor (Oct 1865). Elected in 1866 to the US Senate, 1873 to November 1882 to the Congress. In 1882 he resigned to be Governor of GA.

He also made a trip to DC during the war and had correspondence with loyalists to the North. If I was a suspicious person, I would say he was passing information and was “forgiven” quickly after the war as recompense.

[Ivan_The_Mute]

....the wikipedia is strong in this one......

Actually, Dictionary.com, but it's all the same in the end.

[03_SHOOTER]

That, my brother, is the $64,000 dollar question. In between my job, my fraternal organization, my herd and my ranch, I haven’t had time to find anything that gives a straight answer. I can make a conjecture, but it would be purely unsubstantiated.

He was born sickly and raised in the South (fully grown he weighed only 90 lbs). He was from a poor family, but found financial supporters to sponsor him through schools and college. He was a capable lawyer and defender, (he once successfully defended a black woman, pro bono, for a murder of a white man in GA.) and though his voice was shrill, he was very intelligent and eloquent.

He was critical of Southern Extremist and voted against secession. However, in 1861, gave his famous Cornerstone Speech in Savannah, Georgia. In it he declared that slavery was the natural condition of blacks and the foundation of the confederacy.

On February 3, 1865, he was one of three Confederate commissioners who met with President Lincoln on the steamer River Queen at the Hampton Roads Conference, a forlorn effort to discuss measures to bring an end to the fighting.

He was arrested and imprisoned in May, 1865 and spent 5 months in Fort Warren, Boston Harbor (Oct 1865). Elected in 1866 to the US Senate, 1873 to November 1882 to the Congress. In 1882 he resigned to be Governor of GA.

He also made a trip to DC during the war and had correspondence with loyalists to the North. If I was a suspicious person, I would say he was passing information and was “forgiven” quickly after the war as recompense.

Going back through my books, I found out how Alexander Hamilton managed to get back into Congress. Subsequent to Lincolns offers of Amnesty issued in 1863, and again in 1864, on May 29, 1965 President Andrew Johnson issued a general pardon to 14 specific classes of former Confederates (for a total of about 15,000 persons), exempting them from prosecution, and releaving them of exception under the 14th Amendment. Former CSA Vice President Stephens was among those pardoned.

Apparently not satisfied with his efforts to anger the radical reconstructionists in his administration after their impeachment of him, and some historians believe as pure vindictive retaliation against them, during the 1868 Christmas recess of Congress, President Johnson issued a blanket pardon to ALL former Confederates, including military (regardless of rank) and politicians, excepting those at the highest levels. The General Amnesty Act of 1872 completed the amnesty for the former Confederates therby answering the mystery of former Confederates serving in Congress.

For those interested in reading the text of the various pardongs, I have found THIS (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=72392) link to the 1865 general pardon, THIS (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=72360) link to the 1868 "Christmas Pardon", and THIS (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1888879) link to the General Amnesty Act of 1872.

[wukong]

Now that's funny!

Borderlin lame with rolling eyes about making history but funny.

John you can simply do the Wikipedia thing about Von Clausewitz. While he was indeed a field commander with the Prussian Army and later offered his services to the Russians he was always on the losing end. His book is good and used but he did in fact pen ideas and theories from his superiors. Wellington knew what Napoleon was going to throw at him not because of what Von Clausewitz told Wellington but because Napoleon had become predictable.

Von Clausewitz was no Napoleon and his name and book is good for theory and observations but Napoleon was in his own class. Open your hand and on those 5 fingers conjure up the greatest conquerors. Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, etc. You may find yourself putting in Napoleone Buonaparte.

Don't know much about the US Civil War. Never knew the CSA VP was allowed office. In fact, I was watching some lame John Wayne cavalry movie and one of the troopers died and turns out he was a Confederate general. Looked up some kind of info and found out Confederate officers were allowed to be US Army enlisted men. Guess I should learn more about the US Civil War and its aftermath

Criminal Justice degree with minor in History and have written 4 papers on Napoleon ranging from History of the French Revolution, Napoleonic Warfare (included Von Clausewitz, Wellington, Csar Nicholas, and Blucher) to Napoleon versus The Romantics for British Literature.

Yet you guys have PhD's:sleepy:


I'm curious and wonder if you are really retired or are you still serving time in the Fleet Reserve?

I don't like to get into a contest of my choad is bigger than your choad (It used to be Big Johnson in surfer lingo (you figure this one out)); but for conversational purposes, allow me to claim a Bachelors in Chemistry and a Masters in Management. (Yeah that's the ticket) You aver that you, "...have written 4 papers on Napoleon ranging from History of the French Revolution, Napoleonic Warfare (included Von Clausewitz, Wellington, Csar Nicholas, and Blucher) to Napoleon versus The Romantics for British Literature." I would very much like to read your work and as I am not a college professor, I would not attempt to criticize your work on an academic level. I would very much like to see the bibliography of your learned tomes.

From my limited experience as a pogue, I've never seen Napoleon on the reading list of any of the four services. You are correct in stating that Clausewitz was no Napoleon and it is equally true that Napoleon was no Clausewitz. I've never seen anyone in modern times quote Napoleon. When some naive person quotes Napoleon they simply regurgitate something that someone else attributed to Napoleon. If Wellington was Napoleon's master, why should one put Nappy on one of his five fingers?

I am not a historian from an academic perspective, I have written from a contemporary perspective. Since you are no doubt a retired Marine and most probably a member of the MCA, why don't you search "airlift" in the archives of the Gazette. I did not get a grade from the editor, Col. Greenwood. But he was kind enough to send me checks for my work. As the sages have written, "If you can prove it, you ain't braggin'.

I'm sure you have heard the phrase, "If a tree falls in the forest ..." All you know about Napoleon or Khan is from those that write first hand from experience. Just as Herodotus is known as the "Maker of History," those who do or claim are but figments of those who write (and publish).:salute:

[Dirtynappy]

I'm curious and wonder if you are really retired or are you still serving time in the Fleet Reserve?

I don't like to get into a contest of my choad is bigger than your choad (It used to be Big Johnson in surfer lingo (you figure this one out)); but for conversational purposes, allow me to claim a Bachelors in Chemistry and a Masters in Management. (Yeah that's the ticket) You aver that you, "...have written 4 papers on Napoleon ranging from History of the French Revolution, Napoleonic Warfare (included Von Clausewitz, Wellington, Csar Nicholas, and Blucher) to Napoleon versus The Romantics for British Literature." I would very much like to read your work and as I am not a college professor, I would not attempt to criticize your work on an academic level. I would very much like to see the bibliography of your learned tomes.

From my limited experience as a pogue, I've never seen Napoleon on the reading list of any of the four services. You are correct in stating that Clausewitz was no Napoleon and it is equally true that Napoleon was no Clausewitz. I've never seen anyone in modern times quote Napoleon. When some naive person quotes Napoleon they simply regurgitate something that someone else attributed to Napoleon. If Wellington was Napoleon's master, why should one put Nappy on one of his five fingers?

I am not a historian from an academic perspective, I have written from a contemporary perspective. Since you are no doubt a retired Marine and most probably a member of the MCA, why don't you search "airlift" in the archives of the Gazette. I did not get a grade from the editor, Col. Greenwood. But he was kind enough to send me checks for my work. As the sages have written, "If you can prove it, you ain't braggin'.

I'm sure you have heard the phrase, "If a tree falls in the forest ..." All you know about Napoleon or Khan is from those that write first hand from experience. Just as Herodotus is known as the "Maker of History," those who do or claim are but figments of those who write (and publish).:salute:


History is nothing more than people writing about other people and events. Herodutus is hypocritical in his own statement and I believe you may have missed that.

So rather than you going to the library to get a free copy of a number of books dealing with Napoleon you want me to dig up some paper on old disks. Yeah I'll get right on that.

These days you're hard pressed to find anyone quoting anybody else. Quoting Napoleon doesn't make anyone naive unless he doesn't get it or he's trying to make himself seem tougher than he really is. No different than some numb skull quoting Patton or the opening scenes of Full Metal Jacket.

Just because Napoleon isn't on the DOD reading list doesn't mean officers don't have to read about him or his tactics. Wellington may have been the winning general on the last day of the Battle of Waterloo but calling him Napoleon's master is a bit harsh.

Napoleon conquered much of Europe. Europe was also broken into many principalities and kingdoms. He even smashed an army raised by the Holy Roman Emperor himself.

Upon Wellington's dying days a reporter was helping dictate Wellington's memoirs. The reporter asked Wellington who in his opinion was the greatest commander ever. Wellington responded with one word "Napoleon".

Now go the library or Amazon.com and stop being so sensitive. Nobody took a real shot at you. Get a tougher skin.

On the flip side I'll look up "Airlift". Pretty sure I've seen one on TV.

[wukong]

You will fit right in this forum considering your ability to avoid answering questions.

The fact that Napoleon is not on military reading lists is that he never wrote anything that was published except for maybe letters to some of his chicks. Books by title and authors by name are on the lists. Nappy no, Clausewitz yes.

If nobody took a shot at me, how did you perceive that I took one at you.

Napoleon conquered much of Europe. Europe was also broken into many principalities and kingdoms. He even smashed an army raised by the Holy Roman Emperor himself.

Hitler did the same in a lot less time. Is he on one of your fingers?

You are the one that engaged me in a conversation. Am I to understand that insults can only go in one direction in our polite discourse or am I the only one that being too sensitive?

[Dirtynappy]

You will fit right in this forum considering your ability to avoid answering questions.

The fact that Napoleon is not on military reading lists is that he never wrote anything that was published except for maybe letters to some of his chicks. Books by title and authors by name are on the lists. Nappy no, Clausewitz yes.

If nobody took a shot at me, how did you perceive that I took one at you.



Hitler did the same in a lot less time. Is he on one of your fingers?

You are the one that engaged me in a conversation. Am I to understand that insults can only go in one direction in our polite discourse or am I the only one that being too sensitive?

No Napoleon did not write a book. His letters to his chicks are well known. His memoirs are well known. So you don't like the guy? Cool. No biggie. I'm not promoting him just pointing out that he was without a doubt a conqueror and politically savvy.

Hitler? Absolutely! Of course he did it faster than Napoleon! Napoleon had to carve out trees to carry his equipment over mountains by foot and mulepack. Hitler had these things called tanks, mechanized infantry, and planes. Nobody can take away what the Wehrmacht did in WW2.

I'm not taking pot shots at you. Not trying to dodge anything either. YOU do seem more educated and willing to go toe to toe than some of the other knobs on here. I respect that. At least you aren't deleting my posts and keeping yours on here.

I'm just trying to point out that IMO Napoleon was the epitome of greatness especially in his time while Von Clauswitz was an insightful combat veteran writer that penned his book on some experience and what he observed.

Honestly take the time to read just one book about Napoleon. Not the stuff about Josephine either but his line of thinking and tactics used. He fully admits that his tactics were always there and used before. He just happened to put them all together and formed a devastating army even when outnumbered. His use of cavalry was well copied by the other armies. That's one reason why he lost. His opponents knew what was coming.

[JohnP]

No Napoleon did not write a book. His letters to his chicks are well known. His memoirs are well known. So you don't like the guy? Cool. No biggie. I'm not promoting him just pointing out that he was without a doubt a conqueror and politically savvy.

Hitler? Absolutely! Of course he did it faster than Napoleon! Napoleon had to carve out trees to carry his equipment over mountains by foot and mulepack. Hitler had these things called tanks, mechanized infantry, and planes. Nobody can take away what the Wehrmacht did in WW2.

I'm not taking pot shots at you. Not trying to dodge anything either. YOU do seem more educated and willing to go toe to toe than some of the other knobs on here. I respect that. At least you aren't deleting my posts and keeping yours on here.

I'm just trying to point out that IMO Napoleon was the epitome of greatness especially in his time while Von Clauswitz was an insightful combat veteran writer that penned his book on some experience and what he observed.

Honestly take the time to read just one book about Napoleon. Not the stuff about Josephine either but his line of thinking and tactics used. He fully admits that his tactics were always there and used before. He just happened to put them all together and formed a devastating army even when outnumbered. His use of cavalry was well copied by the other armies. That's one reason why he lost. His opponents knew what was coming.

I personally appreciate Napoleon’s abilities. Though not the 1st to conquer the known world, in my opinion, he was an inspirational theorist and tactician. May I submit for you approval an excerpt from The Napoleonic Wars, 1803–1815 – David Gates:


In the field of military organization, Napoleon borrowed from previous theorists such as Jacques Antoine Hippolyte, Comte de Guibert. Napoleon was regarded by the influential military theorist Carl von Clausewitz as a genius in the operational art of war and historians rank him as a great military commander. Wellington, when asked who the greatest general of the day was, answered: "In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon."


Napoleon's biggest influence was in the conduct of warfare. A new emphasis towards the destruction, not just outmaneuvering, of enemy armies emerged. Invasions of enemy territory occurred over broader fronts which made wars costlier and more decisive. The political impact of war increased significantly; defeat for a European power now meant more than the loss of isolated enclaves. Near-Carthaginian peaces intertwined whole national efforts, intensifying the Revolutionary phenomenon of total war.


For the record, given time, I love to debate tactics and history. My favorite debate is over the SonTay Raid; Bull Simmons “accidently” landed the best equipped and better manned helicopter next to the foreign instructors’ compound and engaged them in CQC thus eliminating an unplanned threat. This was not briefed in the mission statement; it was not briefed in the OPORD or the OPLAN. The official word from everyone was oops, we’re not at the right LZ. The question always arises; did Col. Simmons do a last second improvisation, or was he the luckiest leader in a combat zone?

For the record, I may be a Mod, but don’t have a delete button; if I had, it would only be to delete a possible Opsec or Cadet CPP violation, not just because someone disagrees with me.

[Dirtynappy]

While no expert I would find it hard to believe that Napoleon isn't studied at West Point. Not so much outdated military manuevers but the type of "lightning war" that Napoleon laid down on his enemies. The shock effect of catching your enemy off guard is important to this day. Especially with air power and artillery.

[wukong]

I'm not taking pot shots at you. Not trying to dodge anything either. YOU do seem more educated and willing to go toe to toe than some of the other knobs on here. I respect that. At least you aren't deleting my posts and keeping yours on here.

From a PM that I received, I gather that you are part of a group that jumped into this forum to out posers. Well two can play the game. I'll accept that you are what you claim by your dog tags. I seldom get offended by being rocked back on my hells as I feel comfortable engaging where I feel qualified. As an airman, I do not mind discussing the details of air combat tactics or organization especially dealing with airlift or airborne operations. I have never maneuvered an infantry squad much less a battalion, regiment or army. I can grasp broad aspects.

On this forum I'm just another Joe $hit the rag man and cannot modify, moderate or delete anything except for the crap that I post. I don't post "eye candy" as I don't wish to defend anything other than the AF pilot wings. I will answer any appropriate question you or other wish to ask. And no I have not stopped beating my wife.

FWIW, I haven't been called a knob since I was a freshman at The Citadel.

My hatched is buried.

[Dirtynappy]

Wukong I have no beef with you and you not liking Napoleon doesn't affect me in the least bit.

I don't care for General Chesty Puller either and that always gets me weird looks from the Jarhead crowd.:D