The Genesis Of Future Conflict

On July 14, 1789 a mob of craftsmen, salesmen, and rebellious soldiers stormed the Bastille (state prison) to get powder and shot for their muskets. When the guards defending the prison resisted a battle ensued and the Bastille was eventually captured. This marked the beginning of the bloody French Revolution. The revolution in France was based on three principles, liberty, equality, and fraternity. These ideals radically changed European politics and brought about the idea of nationalism, which enabled the creation of the “people’s army” in France. The notion of national fraternity was a very powerful and paved the way for a renovation in how military affairs. How and why did the French Revolution factor in military change? The military

Through separate publications, Geoffrey Parker and Victor Hanson describe principal foundations (Parker) and a prominent element (Hanson) that serve as the basis for their argument in defining a Western Way of War. However, both men fall short in clearly describing what is a true Western Way of War. Both the principal foundations by Parker and the prominent element by Hanson, while insightful, only delineate a single type of warfare that was used by the armies of Europe and the United States, however they fail to capitalize on the basis of their argument because neither man legitimately compares that type of warfare to any other method of fighting that was used, or is currently used, by other nations around the world. Hence, there is no

Technology, Discipline, Unique System of War Finance, Highly Aggressive Military Tradition, and Emphasis on Innovation are the five principles of the Western Way of War. Having a unique system of war finance, emphasis on innovation, and discipline are the aspects of the western way of war that describe warfare in the age of Napoleon (1789-1815).

Historical writings have evolved from procedural accounts of events to inquisitive reflections on combatants. Focusing on weapons, strategies and generals’ perspectives the procedural approach quickly provides in-depth information, but often in a distorted way 1. It is important to remember a commander’s actions and the events of their battles are often exaggerated to support current political goals . Alternately, a slightly more encompassing approach to warfare considers the conflict’s decisiveness in addition to the battle’s statistics and facts 1. That is to say, what influence did the battle have on future events and how were people’s lives changed by it. Beyond these procedural approaches, modern historians now use a more inquisitive method that combines personal experiences and facts. This more inclusive method allows

The nature of war changes, rather adapts, based on social, political and economic factors. The time period between World War I and World War II is a notable time frame for observing ways in which military organizations across the globe developed their doctrine, strategy, personnel and equipment. The paper will argue that the two most important qualities that a military organization must posses are skilled, flexible leaders and doctrine that is globally-informed and proactive. The US military benefits, and could have benefited historically, from innovative actions taken by other countries. Contextually, there is a third element which is important being the federal government's support of research and development through funding.

The Napoleonic Era is an example of Revolution of Military Affairs (RMA) and is fundamentally relevant today. During the Napoleonic Era many scholars studied the techniques used during his nearly twenty years of military success two of the more famous scholars is Clausewitz and Jomini. Both scholars were on Napoleons staff and learned a lot from failure as well as success. During my paper I will discuss three main points that represent a few of Napoleons contributes to the current military. The first point will be the change from dynastic armies to ideological nationalism. This change was valuable because the army called for volunteers and most of the population supported the revolution.2 The second point will be Napoleons ability to master maneuver wafare. Clausewitz and Jomini were two military scholars that studied Napoleon’s techniques used during his nearly twenty years of military success. They both took differenc

Napoleon Buonaparte, was one of the major historical figures of the past, and one of the greatest generals ever. His strategies and policies remain essential reading in today’s society. This essay shows that he did fulfill the ideals of the French Revolution but also destroyed them in several different ways.

This topic can only be analyzed by examining Napoleon in action, so I assessed reports and depictions of Napoleon’s actions on the battlefield from battles such as Toulon, The Battle of the Pyramids, Leipzig, Borodino, and Austerlitz. I also examined comparisons of his tactics to previous tactics to deduce why Napoleon was so successful on the battlefield, despite sometimes being at a numerical disadvantage. Finally, I studied a biography, Napoleon in Egypt, to take an even closer look into his thinking and tactical genius.

By doing so, the U.S. excel the western way of war by following the five factors, superior technology, superior discipline and training, continuity on the western’s military theories and traditions, the challenge and response dynamic, and adopting new technologies and expand their military or forces .

This passage from Alessandro Beneditti’s account of the Battle of Fornovo highlights the absolute loyalty of the French army to their king, Charles VIII. This is significant because the soldiers’ common loyalty is one of the reasons why the French army was incredibly formidable. Because the majority of soldiers were nobles and gentlemen who were subjects of the king, “they had no other ambition than to earn their King’s praise” (Guicciardini, 548). This lack of self-serving ambitions mitigated internal conflicts, including greed and competition, within the king’s army. Partially as a result of that, the French army functioned like a well-oiled machine, operating with incredible discipline, demonstrated by how they always returned to standard

When examining the projection of power of each individual political leader in the nineteenth century, it is not hard to see that among the great powers only Nicholas I had the freedom to initiate any armed encounter in whatever way he desired. Although President Louis-Napoleon (or Napoleon III as he established dictatorship in 1851) had the power to do so as well, he chose to approach conflicts in a more calculated manner. This is because Napoleon III wished to establish sound relations with Britain and harness his ideology of nationalism, and this required him to be cautious when treating public opinions. (reader, Rich 104) Thus, it is in contrary to many’s belief that Nicholas I was indeed a more aggressive political leader than Napoleon during the 1850s, especially throughout the Eastern Crisis. Nicholas I consistently pushed for more hostile measures especially in regards to the dispute over the Holy Places, although the conflict could be

The Battle of Bautzen is a French victory, but the victory is not well deserved. Napoleon finds little joy in being named the victor of this battle, but displays a smile nonetheless while in the presence of his men. This time, however, his men do not share in his delight. They have long accepted the direness of the German campaign, and now patiently await their emperor to come to the same realization. And while the soldiers of the Grande Armee loved their emperor far too much to abandon him, they would not win him another war, not out spite, but because they simply couldn’t. The Grande Armee is but a shell of its former self, a decade of ceaseless warmongering has deprived it of its most veteran officers, strained its resources,

The organisation of armies during the period of 1789 – 1945 changed drastically, with the increasing devolvement of power and the introduction of army sections, such as Napoleon’s corps system. These changes were the main factor in the outcome of wars during the period, but only where the organised army had effective command and control in place. Well-organised armies could perform tactics better; more easily carry out strategy and use transport more effectively to gain victory. Of all of these elements, the most important strength of a well-organised army was tactics.

The First World War was a logic termination of the so-called “Сoncert of Europe”, which destruction had begun with the Franco-Prussian war. As far as the French needed revenge and the Germany sought for colonies, the active military actions were inevitable, and, due to the French and German diplomacy, the scope of warfare was unprecedented. Both parties had a stake on a short-termed war, thus, they made military reforms and preparations to fit the character of the actions. Before the First World War, Europe stood at the height of its international dominance and prosperity, making tremendous advances in technological innovation, industrialization, and globalization. In addition, security concerns led to alliances and arms races in which ever-larger militaries, sustained by nationalism created volatile and ambiguous conditions for war. High levels of planning, preparation, and training caused many European statesmen and soldiers to anticipate that a quick, decisive victory at the onset of war in 1914 was possible. However, the quick, decisive victories anticipated in 1914 did not materialize due to the unique imbalance in the interaction of firepower, mobility, and protection. These three elements caused a protracted war of attrition.

Napoleon Bonaparte is credited with being a great military tactician as well as a military genius during his era. He played a significant role in world history and the art of war. The man’s genius was fundamentally practical, and all the military concepts he used were attributed to his close study that he did of his earlier commanders, predominantly Fredrick the Great. He did not trust any novel idea and thus by no means used other people’s concepts. He made the fullest utilization of the notions of his predecessors, which he breathed life into them making them successful. Napoleon had to be strategic in order to be victorious in his conquests. The skills, strategies and tactics he used in the battlegrounds were desired and thus copied by many during his era and up today. Warfare especially during the Napoleonic era fundamentally changed modern warfare and continues to be the main reason the military studies Napoleon today. It impacted the battles of today. This essay’s main purpose is to point out the impacts of Napoleon’s warfare strategies and tactics on modern day warfare. It will analyze the principles Napoleon used during his era, and they include the theory of nationalism, creation of the corps’ system and leading disciplined and professional armies.