On War

C >> Carl von Clausewitz >> On War


This division into tactics and strategy is now in almost general use,
and every one knows tolerably well under which head to place any
single fact, without knowing very distinctly the grounds on which the
classification is founded. But when such divisions are blindly adhered
to in practice, they must have some deep root. We have searched for this
root, and we might say that it is just the usage of the majority which
has brought us to it. On the other hand, we look upon the arbitrary,
unnatural definitions of these conceptions sought to be established by
some writers as not in accordance with the general usage of the terms.

According to our classification, therefore, tactics IS THE THEORY OF THE
USE OF MILITARY FORCES IN COMBAT. Strategy IS THE THEORY OF THE USE OF
COMBATS FOR THE OBJECT OF THE WAR.

The way in which the conception of a single, or independent combat, is
more closely determined, the conditions to which this unit is attached,
we shall only be able to explain clearly when we consider the combat; we
must content ourselves for the present with saying that in relation
to space, therefore in combats taking place at the same time, the unit
reaches just as far as PERSONAL COMMAND reaches; but in regard to time,
and therefore in relation to combats which follow each other in close
succession, it reaches to the moment when the crisis which takes place
in every combat is entirely passed.

That doubtful cases may occur, cases, for instance, in which several
combats may perhaps be regarded also as a single one, will not overthrow
the ground of distinction we have adopted, for the same is the case with
all grounds of distinction of real things which are differentiated by a
gradually diminishing scale. There may, therefore, certainly be acts of
activity in War which, without any alteration in the point of view,
may just as well be counted strategic as tactical; for example, very
extended positions resembling a chain of posts, the preparations for the
passage of a river at several points, &c.

Our classification reaches and covers only the USE OF THE MILITARY
FORCE. But now there are in War a number of activities which are
subservient to it, and still are quite different from it; sometimes
closely allied, sometimes less near in their affinity. All these
activities relate to the MAINTENANCE OF THE MILITARY FORCE. In the same
way as its creation and training precede its use, so its maintenance is
always a necessary condition. But, strictly viewed, all activities thus
connected with it are always to be regarded only as preparations for
fighting; they are certainly nothing more than activities which are very
close to the action, so that they run through the hostile act alternate
in importance with the use of the forces. We have therefore a right to
exclude them as well as the other preparatory activities from the Art of
War in its restricted sense, from the conduct of War properly so called;
and we are obliged to do so if we would comply with the first principle
of all theory, the elimination of all heterogeneous elements. Who would
include in the real "conduct of War" the whole litany of subsistence and
administration, because it is admitted to stand in constant reciprocal
action with the use of the troops, but is something essentially
different from it?

We have said, in the third chapter of our first book, that as the fight
or combat is the only directly effective activity, therefore the threads
of all others, as they end in it, are included in it. By this we meant
to say that to all others an object was thereby appointed which, in
accordance with the laws peculiar to themselves, they must seek to
attain. Here we must go a little closer into this subject.

The subjects which constitute the activities outside of the combat are
of various kinds.

The one part belongs, in one respect, to the combat itself, is identical
with it, whilst it serves in another respect for the maintenance of the
military force. The other part belongs purely to the subsistence, and
has only, in consequence of the reciprocal action, a limited influence
on the combats by its results. The subjects which in one respect belong
to the fighting itself are MARCHES, CAMPS, and CANTONMENTS, for they
suppose so many different situations of troops, and where troops are
supposed there the idea of the combat must always be present.

The other subjects, which only belong to the maintenance, are
SUBSISTENCE, CARE OF THE SICK, the SUPPLY AND REPAIR OF ARMS AND
EQUIPMENT.

Marches are quite identical with the use of the troops. The act of
marching in the combat, generally called manoeuvring, certainly does
not necessarily include the use of weapons, but it is so completely
and necessarily combined with it that it forms an integral part of that
which we call a combat. But the march outside the combat is nothing but
the execution of a strategic measure. By the strategic plan is settled
WHEN, WHERE, and WITH WHAT FORCES a battle is to be delivered--and to
carry that into execution the march is the only means.

The march outside of the combat is therefore an instrument of strategy,
but not on that account exclusively a subject of strategy, for as the
armed force which executes it may be involved in a possible combat at
any moment, therefore its execution stands also under tactical as
well as strategic rules. If we prescribe to a column its route on a
particular side of a river or of a branch of a mountain, then that is
a strategic measure, for it contains the intention of fighting on that
particular side of the hill or river in preference to the other, in case
a combat should be necessary during the march.

But if a column, instead of following the road through a valley, marches
along the parallel ridge of heights, or for the convenience of
marching divides itself into several columns, then these are tactical
arrangements, for they relate to the manner in which we shall use the
troops in the anticipated combat.

The particular order of march is in constant relation with readiness for
combat, is therefore tactical in its nature, for it is nothing more than
the first or preliminary disposition for the battle which may possibly
take place.

As the march is the instrument by which strategy apportions its active
elements, the combats, but these last often only appear by their results
and not in the details of their real course, it could not fail to
happen that in theory the instrument has often been substituted for the
efficient principle. Thus we hear of a decisive skilful march, allusion
being thereby made to those combat-combinations to which these marches
led. This substitution of ideas is too natural and conciseness of
expression too desirable to call for alteration, but still it is only a
condensed chain of ideas in regard to which we must never omit to bear
in mind the full meaning, if we would avoid falling into error.

We fall into an error of this description if we attribute to strategical
combinations a power independent of tactical results. We read of marches
and manoeuvres combined, the object attained, and at the same time not
a word about combat, from which the conclusion is drawn that there
are means in War of conquering an enemy without fighting. The prolific
nature of this error we cannot show until hereafter.

But although a march can be regarded absolutely as an integral part of
the combat, still there are in it certain relations which do not belong
to the combat, and therefore are neither tactical nor strategic. To
these belong all arrangements which concern only the accommodation
of the troops, the construction of bridges, roads, &c. These are only
conditions; under many circumstances they are in very close connection,
and may almost identify themselves with the troops, as in building
a bridge in presence of the enemy; but in themselves they are always
activities, the theory of which does not form part of the theory of the
conduct of War.

Camps, by which we mean every disposition of troops in concentrated,
therefore in battle order, in contradistinction to cantonments or
quarters, are a state of rest, therefore of restoration; but they are
at the same time also the strategic appointment of a battle on the spot,
chosen; and by the manner in which they are taken up they contain the
fundamental lines of the battle, a condition from which every defensive
battle starts; they are therefore essential parts of both strategy and
tactics.

Cantonments take the place of camps for the better refreshment of the
troops. They are therefore, like camps, strategic subjects as regards
position and extent; tactical subjects as regards internal organisation,
with a view to readiness to fight.

The occupation of camps and cantonments no doubt usually combines with
the recuperation of the troops another object also, for example, the
covering a district of country, the holding a position; but it can very
well be only the first. We remind our readers that strategy may follow
a great diversity of objects, for everything which appears an advantage
may be the object of a combat, and the preservation of the instrument
with which War is made must necessarily very often become the object of
its partial combinations.

If, therefore, in such a case strategy ministers only to the maintenance
of the troops, we are not on that account out of the field of strategy,
for we are still engaged with the use of the military force, because
every disposition of that force upon any point Whatever of the theatre
of War is such a use.

But if the maintenance of the troops in camp or quarters calls forth
activities which are no employment of the armed force, such as the
construction of huts, pitching of tents, subsistence and sanitary
services in camps or quarters, then such belong neither to strategy nor
tactics.

Even entrenchments, the site and preparation of which are plainly part
of the order of battle, therefore tactical subjects, do not belong to
the theory of the conduct of War so far as respects the execution of
their construction the knowledge and skill required for such work being,
in point of fact, qualities inherent in the nature of an organised Army;
the theory of the combat takes them for granted.

Amongst the subjects which belong to the mere keeping up of an armed
force, because none of the parts are identified with the combat, the
victualling of the troops themselves comes first, as it must be done
almost daily and for each individual. Thus it is that it completely
permeates military action in the parts constituting strategy--we say
parts constituting strategy, because during a battle the subsistence of
troops will rarely have any influence in modifying the plan, although
the thing is conceivable enough. The care for the subsistence of the
troops comes therefore into reciprocal action chiefly with strategy, and
there is nothing more common than for the leading strategic features of
a campaign and War to be traced out in connection with a view to this
supply. But however frequent and however important these views of
supply may be, the subsistence of the troops always remains a completely
different activity from the use of the troops, and the former has only
an influence on the latter by its results.

The other branches of administrative activity which we have mentioned
stand much farther apart from the use of the troops. The care of sick
and wounded, highly important as it is for the good of an Army, directly
affects it only in a small portion of the individuals composing it, and
therefore has only a weak and indirect influence upon the use of the
rest. The completing and replacing articles of arms and equipment,
except so far as by the organism of the forces it constitutes a
continuous activity inherent in them--takes place only periodically, and
therefore seldom affects strategic plans.

We must, however, here guard ourselves against a mistake. In certain
cases these subjects may be really of decisive importance. The distance
of hospitals and depots of munitions may very easily be imagined as the
sole cause of very important strategic decisions. We do not wish either
to contest that point or to throw it into the shade. But we are at
present occupied not with the particular facts of a concrete case,
but with abstract theory; and our assertion therefore is that such an
influence is too rare to give the theory of sanitary measures and the
supply of munitions and arms an importance in theory of the conduct
of War such as to make it worth while to include in the theory of the
conduct of War the consideration of the different ways and systems
which the above theories may furnish, in the same way as is certainly
necessary in regard to victualling troops.

If we have clearly understood the results of our reflections, then
the activities belonging to War divide themselves into two principal
classes, into such as are only "preparations for War" and into the "War
itself." This division must therefore also be made in theory.

The knowledge and applications of skill in the preparations for War are
engaged in the creation, discipline, and maintenance of all the military
forces; what general names should be given to them we do not enter into,
but we see that artillery, fortification, elementary tactics, as they
are called, the whole organisation and administration of the various
armed forces, and all such things are included. But the theory of War
itself occupies itself with the use of these prepared means for the
object of the war. It needs of the first only the results, that is, the
knowledge of the principal properties of the means taken in hand for
use. This we call "The Art of War" in a limited sense, or "Theory of the
Conduct of War," or "Theory of the Employment of Armed Forces," all of
them denoting for us the same thing.

The present theory will therefore treat the combat as the real contest,
marches, camps, and cantonments as circumstances which are more or less
identical with it. The subsistence of the troops will only come into
consideration like OTHER GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES in respect of its results,
not as an activity belonging to the combat.

The Art of War thus viewed in its limited sense divides itself again
into tactics and strategy. The former occupies itself with the form of
the separate combat, the latter with its use. Both connect themselves
with the circumstances of marches, camps, cantonments only through the
combat, and these circumstances are tactical or strategic according as
they relate to the form or to the signification of the battle.

No doubt there will be many readers who will consider superfluous this
careful separation of two things lying so close together as tactics and
strategy, because it has no direct effect on the conduct itself of War.
We admit, certainly that it would be pedantry to look for direct effects
on the field of battle from a theoretical distinction.

But the first business of every theory is to clear up conceptions and
ideas which have been jumbled together, and, we may say, entangled and
confused; and only when a right understanding is established, as to
names and conceptions, can we hope to progress with clearness and
facility, and be certain that author and reader will always see things
from the same point of view. Tactics and strategy are two activities
mutually permeating each other in time and space, at the same time
essentially different activities, the inner laws and mutual relations of
which cannot be intelligible at all to the mind until a clear conception
of the nature of each activity is established.

He to whom all this is nothing, must either repudiate all theoretical
consideration, OR HIS UNDERSTANDING HAS NOT AS YET BEEN PAINED by the
confused and perplexing ideas resting on no fixed point of view,
leading to no satisfactory result, sometimes dull, sometimes fantastic,
sometimes floating in vague generalities, which we are often obliged to
hear and read on the conduct of War, owing to the spirit of scientific
investigation having hitherto been little directed to these subjects.



CHAPTER II. ON THE THEORY OF WAR

1. THE FIRST CONCEPTION OF THE "ART OF WAR" WAS MERELY THE PREPARATION
OF THE ARMED FORCES.

FORMERLY by the term "Art of War," or "Science of War," nothing was
understood but the totality of those branches of knowledge and those
appliances of skill occupied with material things. The pattern
and preparation and the mode of using arms, the construction of
fortifications and entrenchments, the organism of an army and the
mechanism of its movements, were the subject; these branches of knowledge
and skill above referred to, and the end and aim of them all was the
establishment of an armed force fit for use in War. All this concerned
merely things belonging to the material world and a one-sided activity
only, and it was in fact nothing but an activity advancing by gradations
from the lower occupations to a finer kind of mechanical art. The
relation of all this to War itself was very much the same as the
relation of the art of the sword cutler to the art of using the sword.
The employment in the moment of danger and in a state of constant
reciprocal action of the particular energies of mind and spirit in the
direction proposed to them was not yet even mooted.


2. TRUE WAR FIRST APPEARS IN THE ART OF SIEGES.

In the art of sieges we first perceive a certain degree of guidance of
the combat, something of the action of the intellectual faculties upon
the material forces placed under their control, but generally only so
far that it very soon embodied itself again in new material forms, such
as approaches, trenches, counter-approaches, batteries, &c., and every
step which this action of the higher faculties took was marked by some
such result; it was only the thread that was required on which to string
these material inventions in order. As the intellect can hardly manifest
itself in this kind of War, except in such things, so therefore nearly
all that was necessary was done in that way.


3. THEN TACTICS TRIED TO FIND ITS WAY IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

Afterwards tactics attempted to give to the mechanism of its joints the
character of a general disposition, built upon the peculiar properties
of the instrument, which character leads indeed to the battle-field, but
instead of leading to the free activity of mind, leads to an Army made
like an automaton by its rigid formations and orders of battle,
which, movable only by the word of command, is intended to unwind its
activities like a piece of clockwork.


4. THE REAL CONDUCT OF WAR ONLY MADE ITS APPEARANCE INCIDENTALLY AND
INCOGNITO.

The conduct of War properly so called, that is, a use of the prepared
means adapted to the most special requirements, was not considered as
any suitable subject for theory, but one which should be left to
natural talents alone. By degrees, as War passed from the hand-to-hand
encounters of the middle ages into a more regular and systematic form,
stray reflections on this point also forced themselves into men's minds,
but they mostly appeared only incidentally in memoirs and narratives,
and in a certain measure incognito.


5. REFLECTIONS ON MILITARY EVENTS BROUGHT ABOUT THE WANT OF A THEORY.

As contemplation on War continually increased, and its history every day
assumed more of a critical character, the urgent want appeared of the
support of fixed maxims and rules, in order that in the controversies
naturally arising about military events the war of opinions might
be brought to some one point. This whirl of opinions, which neither
revolved on any central pivot nor according to any appreciable laws,
could not but be very distasteful to people's minds.


6. ENDEAVOURS TO ESTABLISH A POSITIVE THEORY.

There arose, therefore, an endeavour to establish maxims, rules,
and even systems for the conduct of War. By this the attainment of
a positive object was proposed, without taking into view the endless
difficulties which the conduct of War presents in that respect.
The conduct of War, as we have shown, has no definite limits in any
direction, while every system has the circumscribing nature of a
synthesis, from which results an irreconcileable opposition between such
a theory and practice.


7. LIMITATION TO MATERIAL OBJECTS.

Writers on theory felt the difficulty of the subject soon enough, and
thought themselves entitled to get rid of it by directing their maxims
and systems only upon material things and a one-sided activity. Their
aim was to reach results, as in the science for the preparation for
War, entirely certain and positive, and therefore only to take into
consideration that which could be made matter of calculation.


8. SUPERIORITY OF NUMBERS.

The superiority in numbers being a material condition, it was chosen
from amongst all the factors required to produce victory, because it
could be brought under mathematical laws through combinations of time
and space. It was thought possible to leave out of sight all other
circumstances, by supposing them to be equal on each side, and therefore
to neutralise one another. This would have been very well if it had been
done to gain a preliminary knowledge of this one factor, according to
its relations, but to make it a rule for ever to consider superiority
of numbers as the sole law; to see the whole secret of the Art of War in
the formula, IN A CERTAIN TIME, AT A CERTAIN POINT, TO BRING UP SUPERIOR
MASSES--was a restriction overruled by the force of realities.


9. VICTUALLING OF TROOPS.

By one theoretical school an attempt was made to systematise another
material element also, by making the subsistence of troops, according to
a previously established organism of the Army, the supreme legislator
in the higher conduct of War. In this way certainly they arrived at
definite figures, but at figures which rested on a number of arbitrary
calculations, and which therefore could not stand the test of practical
application.


10. BASE.

An ingenious author tried to concentrate in a single conception, that of
a BASE, a whole host of objects amongst which sundry relations even with
immaterial forces found their way in as well. The list comprised the
subsistence of the troops, the keeping them complete in numbers and
equipment, the security of communications with the home country, lastly,
the security of retreat in case it became necessary; and, first of
all, he proposed to substitute this conception of a base for all these
things; then for the base itself to substitute its own length (extent);
and, last of all, to substitute the angle formed by the army with this
base: all this was done to obtain a pure geometrical result utterly
useless. This last is, in fact, unavoidable, if we reflect that none of
these substitutions could be made without violating truth and leaving
out some of the things contained in the original conception. The idea
of a base is a real necessity for strategy, and to have conceived it
is meritorious; but to make such a use of it as we have depicted is
completely inadmissible, and could not but lead to partial conclusions
which have forced these theorists into a direction opposed to common
sense, namely, to a belief in the decisive effect of the enveloping form
of attack.


11. INTERIOR LINES.

As a reaction against this false direction, another geometrical
principle, that of the so-called interior lines, was then elevated to
the throne. Although this principle rests on a sound foundation, on the
truth that the combat is the only effectual means in War, still it is,
just on account of its purely geometrical nature, nothing but another
case of one-sided theory which can never gain ascendency in the real
world.


12. ALL THESE ATTEMPTS ARE OPEN TO OBJECTION.

All these attempts at theory are only to be considered in their
analytical part as progress in the province of truth, but in their
synthetical part, in their precepts and rules, they are quite
unserviceable.

They strive after determinate quantities, whilst in War all is
undetermined, and the calculation has always to be made with varying
quantities.

They direct the attention only upon material forces, while the whole
military action is penetrated throughout by intelligent forces and their
effects.

They only pay regard to activity on one side, whilst War is a constant
state of reciprocal action, the effects of which are mutual.

13. AS A RULE THEY EXCLUDE GENIUS.

All that was not attainable by such miserable philosophy, the offspring
of partial views, lay outside the precincts of science--and was the
field of genius, which RAISES ITSELF ABOVE RULES.

Pity the warrior who is contented to crawl about in this beggardom
of rules, which are too bad for genius, over which it can set itself
superior, over which it can perchance make merry! What genius does must
be the best of all rules, and theory cannot do better than to show how
and why it is so.

Pity the theory which sets itself in opposition to the mind! It cannot
repair this contradiction by any humility, and the humbler it is so much
the sooner will ridicule and contempt drive it out of real life.