I believe that what keeps Clausewitz especially relevant is the degree to which he examines people at war and how they interact with war, which may be supported by the oft repeated and not inaccurate assessment that he could not take into account the material technological advances in warfare in succeeding years.
As he says in his first chapter of the book on theory, weapons are part of war, but they aren’t the thing itself. It’s the more fundamental parts of war that determines the relevance (or irrelevance) of particular technological advances.
Yes, he is difficult to read. Maybe he needs translation not only in the literal sense, but in style too. It would be interesting to write it up in some formalized language, similarly to maths.
By the way, his note that the newspapers will write the direction the enemy will come was spot on at the beginning of the Russo-Ukrainian war. I just don't understand why the authorities denied that there will be war at that point. It just made them look stupid and incompetent some days later.
Interesting that you quoted the line about wrestling being combat too, from the beginning of Book II. Most readers don't get that far. I didn't get much farther, and even parts of Book I felt of its period.
On War's fate is much like that of other momentous books, presaged by Martial's Epigram 49 in Book IV: "Laudant illa sed ista legunt". This work is praised, but those, those are read. It's much like Sun Tzu's The Art of War, whose aphorisms are much quoted but never with reference to the original's context, because the original was never read.
One bucking this trend is Tolstoy's War & Peace, like On War, written out of the cataclysmic impact of the Napoleonic Wars. Edwin Starr's "War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothin'" would be a good summation of War & Peace, leading as it seemingly did only to upheaval, destruction and death.
The most-read books are The Bible and The Quran. Both take war to be an Act of God, they both have troubling tracts about war being God's instrument against unbelievers, and both have adherents in positions of political power. And while that last fact "endures", civilisation may not.
Clausewitz certainly considered war necessary for resisting foreign domination and expanding state power towards that end. The Napoleonic Wars certainly did no good for the French, but Clausewitz considers war to begin with the act of resistance. The calculus would be very different had the nations of Europe chosen peace when France asserted hegemony.
Likewise, the North Vietnamese would also disagree on the utility of war. Most usefully, we might say that what war is "good for" depends on what the alternative is.
I believe that what keeps Clausewitz especially relevant is the degree to which he examines people at war and how they interact with war, which may be supported by the oft repeated and not inaccurate assessment that he could not take into account the material technological advances in warfare in succeeding years.
As he says in his first chapter of the book on theory, weapons are part of war, but they aren’t the thing itself. It’s the more fundamental parts of war that determines the relevance (or irrelevance) of particular technological advances.
Yes, he is difficult to read. Maybe he needs translation not only in the literal sense, but in style too. It would be interesting to write it up in some formalized language, similarly to maths.
By the way, his note that the newspapers will write the direction the enemy will come was spot on at the beginning of the Russo-Ukrainian war. I just don't understand why the authorities denied that there will be war at that point. It just made them look stupid and incompetent some days later.
Interesting that you quoted the line about wrestling being combat too, from the beginning of Book II. Most readers don't get that far. I didn't get much farther, and even parts of Book I felt of its period.
On War's fate is much like that of other momentous books, presaged by Martial's Epigram 49 in Book IV: "Laudant illa sed ista legunt". This work is praised, but those, those are read. It's much like Sun Tzu's The Art of War, whose aphorisms are much quoted but never with reference to the original's context, because the original was never read.
One bucking this trend is Tolstoy's War & Peace, like On War, written out of the cataclysmic impact of the Napoleonic Wars. Edwin Starr's "War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothin'" would be a good summation of War & Peace, leading as it seemingly did only to upheaval, destruction and death.
The most-read books are The Bible and The Quran. Both take war to be an Act of God, they both have troubling tracts about war being God's instrument against unbelievers, and both have adherents in positions of political power. And while that last fact "endures", civilisation may not.
Clausewitz certainly considered war necessary for resisting foreign domination and expanding state power towards that end. The Napoleonic Wars certainly did no good for the French, but Clausewitz considers war to begin with the act of resistance. The calculus would be very different had the nations of Europe chosen peace when France asserted hegemony.
Likewise, the North Vietnamese would also disagree on the utility of war. Most usefully, we might say that what war is "good for" depends on what the alternative is.