One of the reasons that the Prussians recognized kriegspiels as a tool with which to prepare an army for war was that the games offered Prussian officers the opportunity to practice making decisions and seeing the consequences of those decisions. Military history (obviously emphasizing good military history) offers similar opportunities as the reader follows a past commander's series of decisions from planning to execution to building on the outcome.
One of the big problems i have with the majority of old and new historical accounts is the complete disregard for the financial interests that ultimately decide much of history. More so than great commanders, the bankers determine winners and losers. They also determine what books are printed, and what is taught in schools.
Once one understands the underlying factor of banks and corporations aiding both sides of almost every conflict for the last several hundred years, it throws out any strategy or political considerations of the final outcome. How many hundreds of years is debatable for my argument, but secret societies and usury have affected society for thousands of years.
And this hidden thing allows those same influencers to hold sway over the minds of men today. We are presented with "intelligent analysis" and Hegelian dialectics that cast a fog of war amongst humanity, who largely don't realize they are combatants.
This is a compelling piece of commentary ("The Utility of Military History" on The Bazaar of War) that cuts straight to the heart of how strategic thinkers grapple with the past. It rightfully acknowledges Napoleon’s classic dictum while immediately introducing a healthy, rigorous skepticism about the practical utility of distant historical examples—highlighting how blind copying of antiquity (such as Machiavelli’s theoretical misadventures or Renaissance commander.
You might find this complements your paper…,….
Michael Howard's Rules for Using Military History
Study in Width: Examine warfare across long historical expanses to distinguish between changing technologies and enduring constants (such as human nature, friction, and command stress).
Study in Depth: Look past tidy, bloodless staff-college diagrams by exploring specific campaigns through memoirs, letters, and firsthand accounts to understand the true chaos, muddle, and role of chance in combat.
Study in Context: Never analyze battles in a vacuum; anchor them in their broader political, social, economic, and industrial environments.
As Howard famously concluded, the true purpose of studying military history is "not to make men clever for next time; it is to make them wise forever".
I hope you continue my dear friend. I enjoy following you
Thank you!
One of the reasons that the Prussians recognized kriegspiels as a tool with which to prepare an army for war was that the games offered Prussian officers the opportunity to practice making decisions and seeing the consequences of those decisions. Military history (obviously emphasizing good military history) offers similar opportunities as the reader follows a past commander's series of decisions from planning to execution to building on the outcome.
Great analysis. Battles are often won before they are fought-because the campaign is well executed
One of the big problems i have with the majority of old and new historical accounts is the complete disregard for the financial interests that ultimately decide much of history. More so than great commanders, the bankers determine winners and losers. They also determine what books are printed, and what is taught in schools.
Once one understands the underlying factor of banks and corporations aiding both sides of almost every conflict for the last several hundred years, it throws out any strategy or political considerations of the final outcome. How many hundreds of years is debatable for my argument, but secret societies and usury have affected society for thousands of years.
And this hidden thing allows those same influencers to hold sway over the minds of men today. We are presented with "intelligent analysis" and Hegelian dialectics that cast a fog of war amongst humanity, who largely don't realize they are combatants.
Brilliant and succinct. Thx.
This is a compelling piece of commentary ("The Utility of Military History" on The Bazaar of War) that cuts straight to the heart of how strategic thinkers grapple with the past. It rightfully acknowledges Napoleon’s classic dictum while immediately introducing a healthy, rigorous skepticism about the practical utility of distant historical examples—highlighting how blind copying of antiquity (such as Machiavelli’s theoretical misadventures or Renaissance commander.
You might find this complements your paper…,….
Michael Howard's Rules for Using Military History
Study in Width: Examine warfare across long historical expanses to distinguish between changing technologies and enduring constants (such as human nature, friction, and command stress).
Study in Depth: Look past tidy, bloodless staff-college diagrams by exploring specific campaigns through memoirs, letters, and firsthand accounts to understand the true chaos, muddle, and role of chance in combat.
Study in Context: Never analyze battles in a vacuum; anchor them in their broader political, social, economic, and industrial environments.
As Howard famously concluded, the true purpose of studying military history is "not to make men clever for next time; it is to make them wise forever".
Read the full essay:https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1251&context=parameters