God of War, War gods

Posted on 17 September 2024 by Les armes et la toge

Many cultures have their own god of war, but this function is often tied to other roles. This shows us how each culture perceives war. Here’s an overview of the main war gods from different cultures around the world. The list is, of course, not exhaustive.

Western Europe : Tension between brutality and intelligence

Roman mythology – Mars, god of war

Mars , the Roman god of war, was more than just a god of violence and conflict. His role in society was significant, both military, agricultural, and civic. Mars embodied the Roman ideal of discipline, strength, and justice. As the protector of soldiers and guarantor of borders, he played a vital role in Roman public life. His function also extended to agriculture and the founding of colonies, illustrating the importance of warfare to the preservation and expansion of the Roman Empire. Read more.

Ares, god of war and violence

Ares, the Greek god of war, is an emblematic figure of ancient mythology. Worshipped mainly in Greece, he embodies the violence and brutality of conflicts. His attributes include weapons and animals symbolizing strength and aggressiveness. Ares represents the destructive and chaotic aspect of war. He is opposed to Athena, who symbolizes strategy and wisdom. He is associated with bloody and disorganized battle. Read our full article.

Athena, goddess of intelligence in war

Athena , goddess of war and wisdom, is a central figure in the Greek pantheon. Representing strategic intelligence in conflict, she was worshipped in several city-states, including Athens. Her attributes include the aegis, spear, and owl. Unlike Ares, who symbolizes brute violence, Athena embodies a thoughtful and tactical approach to warfare. In addition to her martial skills, she patronized the arts, justice, and crafts, reflecting her versatile role in Greek mythology. Read the article.

TEUTATES, GALLIC god of war AND fertility

Teutates was one of the most revered gods of ancient Gaul. His name means “the god of the tribe” or “the protector of the people.” A versatile deity, he represented both war and fertility, two areas essential for the survival and prosperity of the tribes.

As a god of war, Teutates was often associated with Mars, the Roman god of war. This reflects an adaptation of Gallic beliefs in the face of Roman influence. Rituals dedicated to this god were sometimes marked by human sacrifices, testifying to the fervor and gravity of these practices. Victims were often drowned, a form of sacrifice that aimed to appease this demanding deity and gain his support.

Teutates was not only a warrior god. As a fertility deity, he also watched over the crops and prosperity of the people. His protection thus extended well beyond the battlefield, symbolizing the strength and unity of the Gallic tribes. Each tribe had its own cult dedicated to Teutates, which reinforced the collective identity and sense of belonging.

The cult of Teutates gradually disappeared with the Romanization of Gaul, but it remains today a powerful symbol of Celtic culture.

Camulos, Celtic god of war

Camulos , the Celtic god of war, was worshipped in ancient Gaul and Britain for his military power and protective role. His cult spread far beyond the Celtic lands, becoming part of various regions of the Roman Empire. This spread is evidence of Camulos’ importance to warrior populations.

Like Mars, Camulos was a symbol of military strength and protection. The Romans often depicted him with similar attributes: an imposing helmet, a sword, or a shield, which referred to his martial nature.

Camulos was not only a god of war. He also embodied the sovereignty and legitimacy of the chiefs, who invoked his name to reinforce their authority. The rituals in his honor were aimed at ensuring victory but also at guaranteeing the prosperity of the tribes. This aspect proved crucial in societies where war and fertility were closely linked.

Despite the progressive Romanization of Celtic territories, the figure of Camulos has managed to survive. It has become a bridge between local traditions and Roman influences. Its image, combining warrior strength and sacred power, remains today a testimony to the beliefs and values that animated the Celtic peoples in search of protection and prosperity.

Sucellos, war, fertility and forge

Sucellos was a complex Celtic deity, worshipped throughout Gaul. While he was often associated with fertility and blacksmithing, his role extended far beyond these domains. He embodied the duality of creative and destructive power. His powerful image made him a deity honored by blacksmiths and warriors alike.

One of the most characteristic symbols of Sucellos is the mace he carries. This object, both tool and weapon, symbolizes brute force but also the ability to shape and transform. As god of the forge, Sucellos was the patron saint of artisans. They shaped weapons and tools, essential elements for daily life and wars. His association with the forge directly links him to the earth and natural resources, sources of fertility and wealth for the Celtic peoples.

But Sucellos was not only a god of life and creation. His mace, a symbol of destruction, also gave him a warrior role. He was invoked to protect communities during conflicts and to ensure the victory of tribes in battle. His ability to destroy as well as create made him a fearsome figure, capable of maintaining the balance between peace and war. This dual nature, both nurturing and destructive, reflects the Celtic conception of the universe, where opposing forces coexist and complement each other.

contemporary france

Asterix and Obelix (France). Asterix and Obelix are the two major warrior figures of the French pantheon. Always invoked at the beginning of battles involving French troops, they continue to inspire strategists and warriors. They are afraid of only one thing: that the sky will fall on their heads.

Asterix and Obelix are the main icons of French warrior culture. Imagined by the creator gods Goscinny and Uderzo, they have become warrior symbols. They represent the resistance and bravery of the French. Their fighting spirit and perseverance make them models for strategists and soldiers.

Asterix, a clever little warrior, embodies tactical intelligence. He stands out for his ingenuity. His strength lies in his ability to thwart enemy plans. Asterix proves that a quick mind can beat the greatest armies. His cunning makes him a formidable strategist.

Obelix, at his side, is brute force. His imposing stature and power make him formidable. Thanks to the magic potion, he has unmatched strength. Obelix is the image of French solidity and resistance. He symbolizes robustness in the face of adversity.

Together, they form an invincible duo. Their complicity illustrates solidarity in the fight. Asterix and Obelix represent the unity needed to win. Their only fear? That the sky will fall on their heads.

Norse mythology – gods associated with war

Thor is the god of thunder, lightning, and protection in Norse mythology, but he also plays an important role as a warrior god. Although Odin and Týr are more specifically associated with war, Thor is often invoked by warriors for his unmatched strength and destructive power. He fights giants, the enemies of the gods, and protects humanity with his famous hammer, Mjölnir . He represents bravery, raw power, and the defense of order against chaos.

Odin (Norse mythology). Although he is a god of wisdom, Odin is also often invoked by Viking warriors to guide them in battle.

Týr, god of war, courage, honor and justice.

Týr, the god of war in Norse mythology, embodies courage, honor, and justice. Unlike other warrior deities, Týr symbolizes war as an act of justice, where honor and loyalty prevail. The Vikings revered him for his bravery and righteousness in battle.

Týr does not fight for violence, but for justice and fairness. His role therefore goes beyond mere warlike confrontation. He represents war as a means of restoring order and protecting fundamental values. His courage inspires those who seek to defend the truth.

The Sacrifice of Tyr

Týr is best known for his heroic act of sacrifice. According to Norse mythology, Fenrir, a gigantic and dangerous wolf, was destined to cause great destruction. The gods, concerned about his power, decided to chain him up.

Fenrir, wary, refused to be bound unless one of the gods proved his good faith by putting his hand in his mouth as a token of trust. Knowing the danger, Týr accepted this sacrifice. When the gods managed to bind Fenrir with an unbreakable magic chain, the wolf, enraged, tore off Týr’s hand.

This heroic act symbolizes Týr’s courage and honor. He was willing to lose his hand to protect others, showing his deep sense of duty and justice. This gesture reflects Týr’s nature, ready to do anything to protect others and ensure cosmic balance. This story also reflects the theme of sacrifice necessary to maintain order in the face of chaos.

Týr remains a central figure in Norse mythology, where his strength, honor, and sacrifice make him a role model for warriors. Týr also symbolizes fighting with rig

West Africa: Gods of War and Metal

Ogun, god of war and iron

Ogun , god of war and iron, is a major deity in traditional African religions. Revered in West Africa and the diaspora, he embodies brute force, power, and the ingenuity of metallurgy. Ogun is distinguished by his mastery of iron, which he transforms into weapons and tools. The latter are symbols of progress, but also of destruction.

Ogun’s attributes include iron tools and weapons, representing his technical mastery. Animals, such as the dog and the leopard, are often associated with his worship to illustrate his strength and determination. In rituals, followers pray to him for victory, protection, and justice. Despite his association with war and violence, Ogun is not only a destroyer. He is also the guardian of hunters and blacksmiths, ensuring the balance between creation and destruction.

Ogun is also revered as a god of justice, punishing injustice and protecting the oppressed. His role in traditional African societies therefore goes beyond mere warlike violence. He embodies order, protection and law. Ogun embodies the duality of war: both destroyer and protector, ensuring order in chaos. Read our article.

Gu, war and forge

Gu , the god of war, has been venerated in the Voodoo cultures of Benin and Togo for centuries. He is closely linked to the forge and weapons. He plays a protective role for warriors. His attributes, such as iron, hammer and anvil, symbolize his power over metals and his ability to forge the tools of war. He embodies the strategic and creative aspect of conflict, while having other attributions in protection and metalworking. Read more.

Egypt: A lioness woman goddess of war

Sekhmet (Ancient Egypt) is a goddess of war, destruction, and healing in Egyptian mythology. She appears in the form of a lioness, symbolizing her ferocity in battle. According to myths, Ra, the sun god, sent her to punish humanity, and she nearly exterminated humanity in her fury. However, she is also a healer, able to cure diseases, making her a complex deity, combining war and healing. Read the full article.

hteousness and justice, an ideal that the Vikings sought to embody on the battlefield.

Asia , some gods of war

India, INDRA, king of gods and god of war

Indra, king of the gods in Hinduism, embodies war, storms and the sky. He reigns over the deities and imposes his authority on the universe. Ancient Vedic texts, such as the Rig Veda, recount his exploits as defender of the heavens. Indra stands as the shield of cosmic order.

He relentlessly fights the forces of evil, especially demons, whom he defeats with his formidable weapon, lightning. He is famous for having defeated Vritra, a serpent-demon who held back the waters of the world. Thanks to this victory, Indra freed the rivers, thus ensuring the survival of living beings.

The storms he controls symbolize his power. Indra can indeed make rain fall and nourish the lands. His role is essential to maintain the balance between heaven and earth.

Beyond war, Indra also protects humans. He thus grants his favors to those who honor him. Warriors and kings, in particular, paid him homage to obtain his blessing. Through his courage and strength, Indra establishes himself as the champion of good, thus guaranteeing the stability of the universe in the face of chaos.

India, Kartikeya, celestial commander

Kartikeya, the Hindu god of war, commands the celestial armies. He embodies victory, youth and courage. This son of Shiva and Parvati is a formidable warrior, revered for his strength and bravery.

He leads the gods into battle against the forces of evil. His weapons, often represented by a spear and a peacock, symbolize his power and control. Kartikeya defends good against the demons, thus ensuring the victory of the divine forces.

Kartikeya is not only a warrior. He also inspires youth and vitality. Young men, in particular, revere him as a model of courage and discipline. His eternal youth makes him close to the faithful, who seek his protection and guidance in difficult times.

His role extends beyond the battlefield. Kartikeya is also the guarantor of justice and order in the celestial world. He ensures that balance is maintained between the forces of good and evil.

Thus, Kartikeya embodies both warrior strength and life energy. Through his victories and fighting spirit, he remains a model of courage and endurance for those who seek victory and justice.

Japan: Hachiman, god of war

Hachiman, one of the most important deities in the Shinto pantheon, is the god of war in Japan and the protector of samurai warriors. His veneration dates back to the time when the samurai dominated the warrior class, representing courage, strength, and honor. Hachiman is also considered the spiritual guardian of Japan, responsible for protecting the archipelago from external threats and ensuring the country’s prosperity.

This god is often identified with Emperor Ōjin, with whom he sometimes shares the same identity. His cult quickly spread throughout Japan. More than 30,000 shrines, called Hachimangu, were dedicated to him. He thus became one of the most popular Shinto deities. Samurai paid homage to him before each battle. They hoped to obtain his blessing for victory and protection.

Hachiman does not only embody war. He also plays a role in fertility and the protection of crops. This reinforces his place in Japanese society. A complex deity, he symbolizes both war and peace.

PERSIA, AResha, God of victory and justice

Aresha , the god of victory and justice in Zoroastrianism, symbolizes balance in the midst of conflict. He also embodies the force that triumphs over chaos and restores order. The Persians revered Aresha for his power to ensure divine justice in a world plagued by disunity.

Aresha is not only a celestial warrior. He also represents moral triumph. The faithful venerate him for his principles and his ability to maintain a just cosmic order. He is the protector of souls who fight for the truth.

As the deity of victory, Aresha ensures that justice always prevails over deception and violence. Her presence is a reminder that justice and balance are the keys to overcoming chaos. Through her role, she represents moral strength and righteousness in the midst of conflict.

CHINA: Chi you, warlord, god of war

Chi You , an ancient warlord and god of war in Chinese folklore, embodies brute force and military strategy. He is famous for leading numerous rebellions and for his epic battles against the imperial forces. Chi You symbolizes the power and indomitable spirit of warriors.

With his martial skills and supernatural powers, Chi You was a feared and respected opponent. But beyond battles, he also embodied rebellion against oppression. For many Chinese, Chi You thus represents resistance and the quest for justice against the powers that be. His courage inspires those who defend their freedom.

The Battle of Zhuolu

He fought the Yellow Emperor, a legendary figure of ancient China, in the famous Battle of Zhuolu. This fight has remained engraved in history as one of the greatest mythological clashes.

Although defeated, Chi You was deified and revered as the god of war. He remains a prominent figure in Chinese folklore, illustrating the importance of courage, strength, and resilience in the face of adversity. Through him, the story of China’s great warriors continues to live on and inspire.

According to legend, Chi You, endowed with supernatural powers and a formidable army, had the upper hand at the beginning of the battle. However, the Yellow Emperor, aided by ingenious strategies and advanced technologies, managed to prevail. He is said to have summoned spirits and used a compass to counter Chi You’s magical mists, which allowed him to triumph.

The Yellow Emperor’s victory over Chi You symbolizes the triumph of order over chaos, and marks the founding of an era of civilization in ancient China. Read the rest of the article.

Middle East , gods of war and destruction

Anat, destruction and creation

Anat , the Phoenician goddess of war and fertility, is a formidable and complex figure. Known for her power and aggression, she embodies destruction on the battlefield. The Phoenicians revered her as a relentless warrior, capable of sowing death among her enemies.

In mythological tales, Anat is often depicted as fighting mercilessly, ravaging opposing armies. Her ferocity makes her invincible, and she embodies the brute force necessary for victory. The gods themselves respect her for her ability to restore order through violence. Anat thus plays a vital role in maintaining cosmic balance.

However, she is not only a warrior goddess. Anat is also linked to fertility. Her duality reflects the idea that destruction and creation go hand in hand. She ensures the continuity of life after battle. Her role as protector of the cycles of life counterbalances her violent nature.

Revered throughout the Levant, Anat is a symbol of feminine strength. She embodies both war and rebirth, making her an essential figure in Phoenician mythology, where she combines destruction and fertility in a fearsome harmony.

Nergal, Mesopotamian god of war and the underworld

Nergal , the Mesopotamian god of war and destruction, also rules the underworld. He embodies violence, epidemics and chaos. In Mesopotamian mythology, Nergal is therefore a feared figure, often associated with death and the plagues that ravage peoples.

He leads the heavenly armies with unmatched brutality. His destructive powers strike terror into his enemies, whom he mercilessly destroys. Nergal does not hesitate to use violence to restore order, even if it means plunging the world into chaos. The ancient Mesopotamians prayed to him to avert war and calamity, while fearing his wrath. They often depicted him as a lion.

His connection to the underworld reinforces his image as a destroyer. Nergal reigns over the dead, ruling the underworld with absolute power. He is also associated with the spread of epidemics, which he uses to weaken mortals.

Despite his fearsome appearance, Nergal plays a necessary role in the cosmic balance. He embodies the destruction necessary to make way for renewal. His presence reminds us that chaos and violence are an integral part of the world’s order, just as life and death are.

America , celestial figures

Huitzilopochtli: Aztec god of war and the sun

Huitzilopochtli (Aztecs, Mesoamerica). God of war, the sun, and patron of the Aztec capital, Tenochtitlan. Huitzilopochtli is also associated with victory and human sacrifice to maintain cosmic order.

Huitzilopochtli , god of war and the sun, was the patron of Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztecs. Considered the protector of the Aztec people, he embodied victory and military power. Huitzilopochtli was linked to the cosmic order, requiring human sacrifices to ensure the balance of the world.

According to mythology, Huitzilopochtli was born on top of the Serpent Mountain, Coatepec. From the moment he was born, he triumphed over his enemy brothers and sisters, thus proving his warrior nature. This legend quickly placed him at the heart of Aztec beliefs, making him a feared and venerated god. Human sacrifices, often practiced at the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan, were intended to offer him the strength necessary to fight the darkness.

Huitzilopochtli was depicted with warrior attributes: a spear, a shield decorated with feathers, and brightly colored clothing. His image embodied the sun in motion, traveling across the sky to repel the forces of chaos. Festivals in his honor, such as the Panquetzaliztli, punctuated the religious life of the Aztecs and strengthened their social cohesion.

Huitzilopochtli symbolized warrior determination and the duty to protect cosmic balance. His legend has survived the centuries, recalling the importance of war and sacrifice in Mesoamerican culture.

Texcatlipoca

Tezcatlipoca , one of the major deities of the Aztec pantheon, is primarily known as the god of the night and stars. However, his influence extends beyond the nocturnal sphere. He also plays an important role in conflicts and war intrigues. Considered a complex and mysterious god, Tezcatlipoca embodies both destruction and regeneration, war and magic.

Tezcatlipoca (Aztecs). Although primarily a god of the night, he also has a role in conflicts and war intrigues.

In Aztec mythology, he is often associated with deception, discord, and power struggles. Tezcatlipoca is described as a skilled strategist, able to manipulate his enemies and sow confusion. This ability to orchestrate conflicts made him a feared and respected god. In particular, he could determine the outcome of a war thanks to his ability to influence the destiny of men.

Tezcatlipoca possesses a number of attributes. His obsidian mirror is a symbol of vision and clairvoyance, but also of war and destruction. This mirror allows him to see the past, present and future. It thus gives him an almost omniscient power over human events and decisions.

For the Aztecs, honoring Tezcatlipoca meant seeking divine protection in battle, while accepting the uncertainties of war. His figure recalls the importance of cunning and courage, qualities essential for survival in a world where brute force was not the only path to victory.

Mixcoatl Aztec god of hunting and war

Mixcoatl (Aztecs). God of hunting and war, he is also linked to the stars and celestial paths.

Mixcoatl , an Aztec deity, was worshipped as a god of hunting and war. His name, meaning “cloud serpent,” evokes his connection to the stars and celestial paths. This cosmic association made him a guide for warriors and hunters.

According to mythology, Mixcoatl was the father of many gods, including Quetzalcoatl, the feathered serpent. His legend is marked by episodes of struggle and conquest. As a warrior god, he embodied the spirit of the hunt and battle. His followers believed that his powers helped them navigate the darkness and thwart the traps of their enemies.

Mixcoatl was often depicted with hunting attributes: bow, arrows and deer skin. These elements emphasized his protective role towards those who lived from hunting.

Mixcoatl was also linked to celestial phenomena. He symbolized the Milky Way, which was considered a sacred path for the souls of the deceased. The stars, in particular, played an important role in his cult, illustrating his ability to guide and defend.

Viracocha: creator god and warrior of the Andes

Viracocha , a major deity of the Incas, was the creator god and a powerful warrior. He was considered the one who shaped the world and human beings. However, his role was not limited to creation. Viracocha was also a conqueror, fighting against darkness to establish cosmic order.

Viracocha (Incas, Andes). Creator god, but also of war for having brought order by conquering darkness.

Legend has it that Viracocha emerged from the primordial waters, bringing light and life to a world of chaos. With his divine power, he created mountains, rivers, and the skies. He then shaped humanity, teaching them the laws of life and civilization.

However, faced with the forces of disorder, he had to take on a warrior role. Inca myths describe him as a wise but fearsome god, capable of unleashing storms and lightning to restore balance.

Viracocha was often depicted with attributes of creator and warrior: a staff or scepter to symbolize his power, and rich clothing, decorated with celestial motifs. His imposing presence recalled his duality, between generosity and destruction. The Incas venerated him as the guarantor of prosperity, praying that he would maintain order in the face of the threats of chaos.

Viracocha, by combining creation and war, illustrates the importance of cosmic order in Andean culture. His legacy, still present in local traditions, testifies to the depth of his legend.

Oceania – Gods of War

Ku, god of war and fishing in Hawaii

Ku , the Hawaiian god of war, represents strength, virility and victory. His cult extends throughout the archipelago, particularly during times of war. Hawaiian warriors invoke him by offering sacrifices, some of which are human. Indeed, these rituals aimed to obtain victory in exchange for bloodshed. Furthermore, Ku embodies brutality and tactical intelligence, two qualities essential to war.

Ku is not limited to war. He also symbolizes virility, fertility, and the protection of communities. Thus, he occupies a central place in the daily life of ancient Hawaiians. War chiefs, in addition to seeking his favor on the battlefield, also asked him to ensure the continuation of their lineages and the prosperity of their lands.

Furthermore, Ku is linked to the sea. Fishermen pray to him to ensure abundant catches and to protect their boats. This connection with the sea demonstrates Ku’s versatility, capable of influencing both conflicts and natural resources.

His worship is manifested through temples, called heiau , and ceremonies including songs, dances and sacrifices. Ku thus embodies an omnipresent god, both in wars and in the protection of Hawaiian communities. Learn more about Ku, god of war in Hawaii.

Tūmatauenga

Tūmatauenga is one of the principal gods in New Zealand Māori mythology. He is often considered the god of human conflict. He embodies the warlike and destructive aspect of humanity, symbolizing violence, war and struggle. Tūmatauenga, literally “the heart of man” or “the fighting spirit”, plays a central role in Māori stories as a deity of battles and clashes.

In Māori cosmogony, Tūmatauenga is the son of Ranginui, the Sky, and Papatūānuku, the Earth. His conflicts with his brothers, especially Tāwhirimātea, the storm god, reflect the constant struggle between the natural elements and humanity. While his brothers choose to appease conflicts, Tūmatauenga is distinguished by his willingness to fight and conquer. This behavior makes him the protector of the Māori martial art, the “haka”, and of warrior practices.

However, Tūmatauenga’s power is not limited to destruction. His presence is also a reminder of the need for strength and courage to overcome obstacles. He thus symbolises resilience in the face of challenges. Māori honour Tūmatauenga to achieve victory in war, but also to strengthen their resolve in the trials of daily life. His worship highlights the importance of finding a balance between strength and wisdom, while respecting ancestral traditions.

Thus, Tūmatauenga embodies not only anger and violence, but also discipline and survival.

*

In conclusion, these deities illustrate how cultures around the world have often personified war, each with its own characteristics, either related to violence, destruction, or sometimes, to wisdom, justice and protection. Finally, they give us indications on the place of war in each civilization.

To go further with the gods of war:

Paul Veyne, Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? An Investigation into Myths and Truth.

Clio’s attic , well filled with mythologies from around the world.

Understanding Liddell Hart’s Indirect Approach

Posted on 5 September 2024 by Les armes et la toge

In Strategy, Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart develops the concept of the indirect approach. He provides a broad overview of military history from antiquity to World War II to demonstrate that the indirect approach yields far more decisive results at a significantly lower cost than the direct approach.

In Strategy, Sir Basil Henry Lidell Hart develops the notion of the indirect approach. He surveys military history from antiquity to the Second World War, to demonstrate that the indirect approach allows for much more decisive results at a significantly lower cost than the direct approach.

Avoiding Strength Against Strength

Liddell Hart contrasts the indirect approach, which he advocates, with the direct attack on the enemy’s army, for which he views Clausewitz as the main proponent. Indeed, in a strength-against-strength approach, even in the case of victory, it is likely that the winner will no longer be in a position to exploit their success.

One example he uses is the Battle of Malplaquet. In 1709, the French were on the ropes; the numerical superiority of the coalition (England, Austria, the Netherlands) was overwhelming. As a result, Marlborough and Prince Eugene opted for a direct approach, with the well-known outcome. Their losses were so severe that, despite their victory, they destroyed any hope of winning the war.

Liddell Hart’s Indirect Approach : A Geographical Approach

According to Liddell Hart, a series of movements along the line of least expectation, threatening multiple objectives at once, should allow for surprising the enemy and striking them where they are weakest while keeping them uncertain, “on the horns of a dilemma” (Sherman). This method has proven far more decisive and economical throughout history than the direct attack on the enemy’s army.

For example, in 1864, Sherman’s raid did not target the Confederate army but the cities. He took care to always move in a direction that forced Confederate forces to defend multiple objectives. This movement proved decisive and hastened the defeat of the Confederacy.

The indirect approach for Liddell Hart is initially geographical, but it also has another dimension.

Deception and Psychology

The geographical dimension of the indirect approach, which brings surprise and indecision, is inseparable from its psychological dimension.

Liddell Hart recounts numerous instances of military deception in Strategy, such as Napoleon’s ruse at Arcole, where he sent his trumpeters behind enemy lines to signal a fake charge. The purpose of deception is to create a psychological effect, targeting the mind of the opposing commander. The indirect approach seeks to unbalance the enemy psychologically as much as physically.

Liddell Hart cites the example of Germany’s capitulation at the end of World War I. In 1918, the German armies were undoubtedly in a bad situation, but they were not yet defeated. Nevertheless, Germany surrendered. This can be explained by the fact that the Entente’s offensive in the Balkans shattered the German High Command’s confidence, leading them to believe—perhaps wrongly—that there was no way out of their situation.

Imbalance and Center of Gravity

The goal remains to unbalance the enemy, through actions on their forces, but also on the psychology of their leader.

Ultimately, the core of Liddell Hart’s analysis is the search for the enemy’s center of gravity, which is not necessarily their army. It can be material, such as their rear supply lines, or immaterial, like the mind of their commander.

It’s not about simply attacking the enemy where they are weakest, but rather identifying the point that, when pressured, will unbalance the enemy’s entire system with minimal effort. Liddell Hart is probably much closer to Clausewitz than he thinks…

Strategy and Grand Strategy

Liddell Hart’s analysis is limited to the use of military means within an armed conflict. This is because, for Liddell Hart, “strategy” is confined to warfare and is limited to the use of military forces. Only “grand strategy” looks beyond the horizon of war and considers the use of non-military means.

Finally, it’s worth noting that Liddell Hart’s reading of Clausewitz seems somewhat superficial. His thinking is reduced to a doctrine of frontal and reckless attacks on the enemy’s strongest point, whereas On War contains much more than that. However, discussing it here would take us too far…

Strategy according to General Beaufre’s “Introduction to Strategy”

Posted on 2 September 2024 by Nicolas Blanchard-Farce

In Introduction à la stratégie (Introduction to Strategy), French General André Beaufre presents the conclusions of his reflections on strategy in a dense, concise, and clear text.

According to Beaufre, the meaning of the term “strategy” is often misunderstood. Historically, it was the science and art of supreme command, transmitted by example. However, with the evolution of warfare, this empirical transmission became obsolete, giving way to strategic research.

Nevertheless, this research remains inevitably influenced by the conflicts of its time. Only an abstract approach truly allows one to grasp the nature of strategy.

The Purpose of Strategy According to Beaufre

Before defining strategy, one must understand its purpose. Strategy does not unfold in a vacuum; it has a clear goal:

“The purpose of strategy is to achieve the objectives set by politics by making the best use of available means.”

Beaufre’s Definition of Strategy

Following the purpose, comes the definition. The famous definition of strategy appears early in Beaufre’s work. It is “the art of the dialectic of wills using force to resolve their conflict.”

In war, each side seeks the opponent’s acceptance of the conditions it wishes to impose. Ultimately, it’s about convincing the other that continuing the fight is futile. Strategy thus targets the opponent’s will.

It is by placing a strategic problem within the psychological terrain of the adversary that one can properly assess the decisive factors. Therefore, the goal is to “reach a decision by creating and exploiting a situation that leads to a moral disintegration of the opponent, sufficient to make them accept the conditions one wants to impose.”

Thus, both sides aim simultaneously for the moral disintegration of the other. Strategic action is therefore dialectical: each side seeks to act while countering the actions of the other. Strategy becomes a struggle for freedom of action.

In the final analysis, according to Beaufre, strategy should be considered an art, as it requires the strategist to assess key elements based solely on their judgment. It is impossible to establish a set of rules that would apply in every circumstance.

The Means of Strategy According to Beaufre

Both belligerants choose their means by confronting the possibilities and vulnerabilities of the adversary. The question becomes: who do we want to defeat?

This leads to very concrete questions. For example: is capturing the enemy’s capital essential or not? Is the enemy particularly sensitive to human losses? The goal is to find the best way to achieve moral disintegration. From this confrontation of possibilities and the adversary’s vulnerabilities, a strategic objective emerges.

Strategic “Models”

General Beaufre identifies five strategic “models” based on means and objectives:

Very powerful means for a modest objective: exerting a direct threat (nuclear deterrence).
Modest objective, but insufficient means: limited freedom of action, requiring indirect pressure.
Important objective, but limited means and freedom of action: successive limited actions, like Hitler between 1935 and 1939.
Great freedom of action but weak means: prolonged total struggle of low military intensity, leading to the adversary’s moral exhaustion.
Strong military means: military victory through the destruction of the enemy’s forces and occupation of its territory. However, the objective remains the opponent’s will. This model only works with a quick victory; otherwise, its cost becomes disproportionate to the stakes.

*

For General André Beaufre, strategy is “the art of the dialectic of wills using force to resolve their conflict.” It serves to “achieve the objectives set by politics by making the best use of available means.”

Strategic reasoning thus combines both material and psychological factors. It is a method of thinking that allows one to direct events rather than merely endure them.

Understanding the moral dimension of the fight in Ardant du Picq in less than five minutes

Posted on 26 August 2024 by Les armes et la toge

In his Studies on Combat (1880, posthumous), Colonel Charles Ardant du Picq (1821 - 1870) proposed to start from the real soldier and combat, and not from theoretical conceptions to determine what it is possible to do in war. Indeed, things that are conceived in the mind or realized on the field of maneuver are not necessarily achievable in combat, because of the "primary instrument of war": man.

In Études sur le combat (Studies on Combat, 1880, posthumous), Colonel Charles Ardant du Picq (1821–1870) sets out to base his analysis on soldiers and combat. He takes them as they are in order to determine what is realistically achievable in war.

Indeed, what can be conceived in theory or practiced in maneuvers is not always feasible in combat. This is due to that “primary instrument of war”—the human being—and the supreme emotion in war: fear.

Ardant du Picq analyzes ancient wars, particularly the tactical formations of the Romans, before dissecting 19th-century combat.

Morale is the Key Dimension of Combat

For Ardant du Picq, morale is the key dimension of combat. Consequently, all attempts to approach war mathematically are futile.

He observes that in combat, gunfire is not very effective. Studies of the time showed that it took approximately 3,000 rounds to wound an enemy. This was due to the conditions of combat such as the smoke from weapons and, above all, fear. Soldiers would fire quickly and without aiming, creating the illusion of safety and helping to forget the danger. In many ways, this has not changed. He notes that the fire from skirmishers, who were less exposed because they were dispersed, was far more effective than that of battalions.

Physical fire has less impact on the enemy than movement. Movement brings the psychological threat of an impending clash, causing the weaker-minded to break. Ardant du Picq analyzes cavalry and infantry battles to show that hand-to-hand combat almost never occurs. He demonstrates that the unit with the weaker morale, often the one that must withstand the shock, will turn and flee at the mere prospect of physical contact with the enemy.

Discipline According to Ardant du Picq

Under these circumstances, how can soldiers be kept in combat? Only discipline makes this possible. In Studies on Combat, discipline can resemble mutual surveillance between soldiers or what we might call the social pressure of the unit. The author notes that punishments allowed at the time were no longer sufficient to keep troops in line, and a different motivator was needed.

Discipline, in fact, should not be understood as merely obeying orders without question, but as what enables soldiers to stay with and for their comrades in situations where instinct tells them to flee.

Ultimately, military organizations and command systems are, above all, mechanisms for managing fear.

“The combatant is flesh and bone, body and soul, and no matter how strong the soul, it cannot so dominate the body that there is no revolt of the flesh and disturbance of the mind in the face of destruction.”
— Colonel Charles Ardant du Picq,

When General Poirier Theorized Hybrid Warfare Before Hybrid Warfare

Posted on 24 August 2024 by Nicolas Blanchard-Farce

In Stratégie théorique II (Theoretical Strategy II), General Poirier describes a form of conflict that extends beyond the traditional concept of war under the pressure of nuclear weapons. This state between war and peace is reminiscent of what we now call “hybrid warfare”. Which, by the way, has always existed—but that’s another debate…

When General Poirier Theorized Hybrid Warfare Before Hybrid Warfare

Competitive Commerce

He introduces the concept of “Integral Strategy” into the theoretical field. In order to achieve their political goals while countering those of their adversaries, sociopolitical actors combine military, economic, and cultural strategies.

The state of conflictual tension without resorting to physical violence, which arises from the clash of different actors’ political goals, is called “competitive commerce.” However, with the advent of nuclear weapons, this state of tension evolves into what the general calls “generalized aggressiveness.”

Also read: Understanding Why, For de Gaulle, General Knowledge Is the True School of Command

Hybrid Warfare or Crisis Maneuver ?

Indeed, due to the prospect of a nuclear confrontation, the realization of a state’s political project is largely deprived of the military dimension of their integral strategy. This results in increased activity and aggressiveness in economic and cultural strategies, but with the obligation to remain “below the critical threshold of open conflict”. This blurs the distinction between peace and war in a “crisis maneuver.”

In this context, military strategy must use “sub-war forms.” Previously, war encompassed military strategy; now, it is merely one of its modalities.

Finally, let’s read the general’s description of this type of conflict. While expressing the reality of the Cold War, he almost exactly describe hybrid warfare:

“Localized and sporadic interventions, with varying degrees of controlled violence (unrest, attacks, sabotage, coups, piracy, terrorism, subversion, etc.) support ideological propaganda and economic pressures that become challenges, with bargaining that no longer hides the fact that it is blackmail.”

—Lucien Poirier, Stratégie théorique II

Try one of our Clausewitz articles. War is the Continuation of Politics by Other Means. Or Clausewitz’s Friction.

The crisis of authority

Posted on 23 August 2024 by Les armes et la toge

“ Our youth love luxury, have bad manners, mock authority, and show no respect for the elderly. In our time, children are tyrants. ”
— Socrates

This brief reflection on the past shows us that the crisis of authority remains a highly subjective phenomenon. It must be studied in light of its contemporary manifestations.

In Qu’est-ce qu’un chef ? (What Is a Leader?), General de Villiers highlights the paradox of a crisis of authority accompanied by a strong demand for leadership.

How does this crisis of authority manifest, and how should we respond?

Authority should ultimately benefit those upon whom it is exercised. Without this, it will remain in perpetual crisis.

Authority: according to Hannah Arendt (1906–1975), authority is a form of power that requires neither persuasion nor coercion. Etymologically, it stems from “to augment.” Yet, it remains a form of domination.

The Crisis of Institutions Representing Authority

All the institutions that have traditionally represented authority no longer wield the power they once did.

The Church no longer exercises real authority over the behavior of the masses as it did before the late 19th century. Papal decrees no longer hold political influence.

Schools are a prime battleground for the contemporary crisis of authority. Some teachers struggle to maintain classroom discipline, and some even refuse to assert their authority. For instance, in 2018, a student in Créteil threatened his teacher with a weapon. Arendt noted that if authority is in crisis in education, it’s because “adults refuse to assume responsibility for the world into which they have placed children.” Moreover, the school’s failure to mitigate social inequalities has diminished its legitimacy.

This crisis is highly visible because it coincides with a crisis of power (distinct from authority) over physical bodies. Exercising control over bodies outside the economic realm is increasingly difficult. For example, the Universal National Service is controversial because it’s intended to be mandatory. Furthermore, discipline in schools is hard to enforce. The end of military service has removed the routine political control over bodies.

On closer analysis, however, this crisis of authority reveals itself as a crisis of legitimacy.

Crisis of Authority or Crisis of Legitimacy?

The crisis of authority is, in fact, a crisis of legitimacy.

Authority is grounded in legitimacy. In Economy and Society, Max Weber distinguishes three forms of legitimacy for authority:

Traditional authority, based on sacred respect for customs and those who hold power by tradition;
Legal-rational authority, grounded in the validity of laws established through legislative or bureaucratic means;
Charismatic authority, which relies on the devotion of followers to a leader with exceptional qualities.

In reality, these three forms of legitimacy are often intertwined.

Traditional authority has largely evaporated. Arendt noted that authority disappeared from the modern world due to the rise of totalitarian regimes in the 20th century, which challenged all forms of traditional authority.

Legal-rational authority is insufficient. In Le fil de l’épée (The Edge of the Sword), de Gaulle noted that rank alone is not enough to command obedience; it must be coupled with charisma. Today, as Christophe Guilluy points out in French Fractures, the political sphere has been discredited in favor of consensual or technical solutions, which are ill-suited to challenge economic domination.

Knowledge as a source of authority is now questioned, due to its easy accessibility through ICT. Michel Serres addresses this in Thumbelina, noting that knowledge is no longer the sole prerogative of teachers or doctors. Thus, the sources of authority in schools need to be redefined with new value added by teachers.

Authority is indeed in crisis, but our societies can address it.

How to Address the Crisis of Authority

While the crisis of authority is real, its consequences can be managed by placing humanity at the center of authority.

This involves aligning authority with human measures. According to General de Villiers in Qu’est ce qu’un chef ? (What Is a Leader?), at the heart of the crisis of authority is its dehumanization. We might question the role of leaders in the corporate sphere, their exemplarity, and their willingness to engage with subordinates. Indeed, their task is to maximize profitability, their workforce is easily replaceable, and they themselves are embedded in systems of domination and exploitation.

What Is Authority?

Authority is about uplifting others. Etymologically, “authority” comes from “to augment.” This is the condition sine qua non for the acceptance of authority: it must benefit the one who submits to it, as they do so voluntarily. The benefit is not material, like a salary, which would remain in the realm of power since individuals are compelled to earn a living. It is moral: belonging to a prestigious group, enhancing skills or personal qualities that one values. This explains the need for leadership noted by General de Villiers.

What About the Military?

The military experience serves as a laboratory for contemporary forms of authority. Uniquely, it trains leaders in the exercise of authority. It’s based on exemplarity and a leader’s ability to ensure the continuity of their unit (recruitment, rest, training). Leaders who deplete their unit without renewing its strength, who consume more than they build, see their authority diminish and are forced to rely on power. Moreover, the military operates in a realm insulated from profitability. Leaders serve their superiors by fulfilling missions and serve their subordinates by preparing them for engagement. They are not seeking to exploit them (in the Marxist sense). Finally, they are statutorily responsible for defending their subordinates’ interests.

By refocusing leadership on human needs, we can restore balance to the structures necessary for our society. This requires distancing ourselves from the neoliberal dogma, which culminates in a society of entirely “free” individuals, placed in competition and recognizing only the law of the market as legitimate.

However, the crisis of authority also reveals a deeper crisis of power that could fracture the cohesion of French society.

Additional Reflection

Notably, this “crisis of authority” actually benefits the dominant class.

There is no crisis of authority in prestigious Parisian high schools or elite universities. These institutions serve as legitimizing tools for the elite’s continued dominance through academic credentials (Bourdieu). There is also no crisis of authority in corporations generally, which maintain power dynamics. A disgruntled employee challenging the authority of their leader would quickly be shown the door.

It’s primarily the dominated classes who challenge authority, and only in the public sphere (the State, police, schools)—to their own detriment (hindering social mobility due to ignorance of the real rules of the game). This may be because authority and the State, as the visible face of power, are unconsciously, yet rightly, perceived as instruments of social domination. Economic domination, however, remains invisible and is even viewed as legitimate and natural.

The State and public authority may indeed serve as instruments of domination for the benefit of the ruling class. However, in France at least, they also act as bulwarks for the working class against economic power. The crisis of authority may thus stem from a self-destructive reaction to a vague sense of injustice. In this sense, we could say the crisis of authority benefits the dominant class. Perhaps, given its persistence over time, it serves the structural function of perpetuating the subordinate position of the dominated class, since the model being challenged remains the only one offering freedom, social justice, and security.

Could the real cause of the crisis of authority be class struggle?

Manufacturing Consent: The Press and Media According to Noam Chomsky

Posted on 20 August 2024 by Les armes et la toge

Understanding the Structural Submission of the Media to Dominant Power According to Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent

According to Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent, the Western mainstream media defends the power in place in a structural way.

According to Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent, mainstream Western media structurally defend the interests of the ruling power.

In Manufacturing Consent (1988), Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman identify five filters through which Western media align with the interests of dominant power. This means that the latter doesn’t need to resort to censorship.

Discover Ares and Athena, Gods of War.

Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation

First, it’s important to remember that major media outlets are huge corporations run by billionaires or CEOs, who are themselves closely controlled by purely profit-driven interest groups. These companies, therefore, share common interests with other corporations, banks, and the government.

Advertising

The economic model of mainstream media relies on advertising. This dependency leads to an alignment with advertisers’ interests and a reduction in content quality.

Source Selection

Powerful institutions maintain a continuous flow of information to the media. These “official” sources (government, industrial groups, experts) are cheaper than sending a reporter into the field. Moreover, their information is readily accepted and requires no verification. Today, we can cite the media’s obsession with the Twitter accounts of political leaders, a convenient and free source.

Flak. Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent.

Any dissenting opinion faces a barrage of criticism from institutional actors, such as think tanks (often conservative), the government, or other media outlets.

Ideology

Lastly, information that aligns with the dominant ideology (at the time of Manufacturing Consent, anti-communism) is less likely to be scrutinized than information that challenges it.

*

To summarize, according to Manufacturing Consent, mainstream media’s defense of ruling power interests is structural, almost invisible, and therefore much more effective than censorship.

Another topic : Charles de Gaulle, General Culture As The True School Of Command.

India: A Deceptive Power

Posted on 18 August 2024 by Les armes et la toge

Will India have the capacity to impose itself as a great power on the international scene?
India Great Power, Arms and toga.

New Delhi has nuclear weapons but is unable to electrify its entire territory. Under these circumstances, will India be able to establish itself as a great power on the international stage?

Over the next ten years, India is likely to be confined to a regional power role because it is a paper tiger and due to its relations with its neighbors.

The Assets of an Emerging Great Power

India possesses several assets that suggest it could become a great power in the short term.

Nuclear Power. New Delhi acquired nuclear weapons in 1998. It is believed to have around 100 nuclear warheads, bombers, and a nuclear-powered submarine (with a second one under construction).

Stable Political Regime. India is known as the “world’s largest democracy.” It manages to have 900 million voters in a stable system since 1947. However, the ruling party of Narendra Modi exploits religious divisions, which can sometimes lead to violence.

Desire for Power. India has a genuine desire for power. It has a prestigious past and sees itself as a great power. For instance, it attempted to send a probe to the Moon in July 2019.

However, India’s desire for power faces structural obstacles.

Limitations to India’s Power

Certain successes should not obscure the real limitations to India’s ambition for power.

An Illusory Economy

Although India shows a growth rate of 7%, higher than China’s, and has risen to the 6th largest economy globally, just ahead of France, it still faces deep challenges. The country struggles to feed its population. One in two children suffers from malnutrition. India needs to integrate 12 million new entrants into the labor market each year, requiring an 8% growth rate. Inequalities are increasing, and 20% of the population lives on less than $2 a day. Furthermore, South Asian economies are poorly integrated regionally: India’s trade with its neighbors accounts for only 2%.

Population and Territory Issues

While the population size (1.3 billion and growing) and territory size are power factors, India struggles to harness this space. Not the entire country is electrified. Additionally, while the population is large, the education system is inadequate, especially in rural areas: some schools lack teachers, and 25% of the population is illiterate. The state of public health is unsatisfactory, with the country spending only 1% of its GDP on health (compared to 11% for France). Some power factors thus become limitations to Indian power.

An Ineffective Military

Although India has nuclear weapons, its armed forces and military-industrial complex are actually underperforming. The Indian army has 1.2 million personnel, but its equipment is outdated. It is undergoing modernization, but its industrial and technological defense base cannot supply the needed equipment. As a result, India is the world’s largest arms importer, acquiring Scorpene submarines and Rafale jets.

Limited Soft Power

While India is known for its cuisine, yoga, and especially Bollywood, its diplomatic weight is overall insufficient. Some of its 160 embassies lack ambassadors. Moreover, it lacks a network of cultural centers like the Confucius Institutes or the Alliance Française.

These internal limitations are exacerbated by a contested regional environment.

A Contested Regional Environment that Could Limit India’s Power

Competition in India’s regional environment influences its internal situation and is likely to limit its power expansion in the medium term.

Border Conflicts. India’s borders remain geopolitical issues. China claims Arunachal Pradesh in the Himalayas, and Pakistan claims Kashmir. India has fought several border wars: in 1962 against China, which annexed Aksai Chin; against Pakistan in 1948 (status quo maintained), 1965, and 1971 (India’s victories). Skirmishes occurred in Kargil in 1999, with the latest clashes in 2019. The accession of both countries to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in 2017 does not seem to have changed the situation.

These border conflicts fuel internal tensions. Kashmir, historically a tension point between Pakistan and India, sees a strong Indian military presence. Riots regularly erupt to protest against troop behavior. Pro-independence movements and jihadist groups have committed attacks (2001 against the Indian parliament, 2019 by Jaish e Mohammed against an Indian barracks). Pakistan supports some terrorist movements to defend its claims and tie down 600,000 Indian soldiers. This region, which requested attachment to India under pressure from Pakistani incursions in 1947, is strategic as it controls the Indus River, crucial for water supply to both India and Pakistan.

Competition with China. The competition between China and India seems to favor China. India’s Look East Policy, with a regional scope, is confronted by the globally oriented Belt and Road Initiative. China’s navy is superior to India’s. Economic competition also heavily favors China: India exports iron to China and imports manufactured goods, reflecting the relationship between a developing country and a developed neighbor. Finally, China firmly opposes India’s access to the UN Security Council.

*

India’s aspirations for power may thus be hindered by its economic development limits and especially by a contested regional environment that weighs on its power policy.

However, the American reaction to the rise of Chinese power could provide India an opportunity to position itself as an important intermediary.

Understanding Absolute War and Real War in Clausewitz in Five Minutes

Posted on 16 August 2024 by Les armes et la toge

Absolute war, the realm of the rise to extremes, therefore only exists in theory. In real war, several principles of moderation prevent this rise to extremes.

In Books I and VIII of On War, Clausewitz develops the concept of rise to extremes, as well as those of “absolute” and “real” war.

Absolute war, theoretical war

From the start of Book I, Clausewitz offers a definition of war. It is “an act of force by which we seek to force the adversary to submit to our will”. From there, incapacitating oneself from the enemy becomes an intermediate goal. This is the condition for bending it to our will.

In a purely logical approach, Clausewitz shows that in theory this “act of force” which is war can only go to extremes. It is absolute war (for war taken in the absolute, in its principle).

Three “reciprocal actions” allow the rise to extremes according to Clausewitz.

– Unlimited reciprocal use of force. He who makes the most complete use of it has an advantage over his enemy. The latter is then forced to do the same.

– The search for the overthrow of the adversary. Each of the two camps tries to submit the other to its will. He will therefore try to reduce his enemy to impotence. Neither of them is therefore safe until the other is unable to defend themselves.

– Calculation of the necessary efforts and escalation. Each of the two opponents calculates the efforts that will be necessary to surpass the other. This can only lead to a perpetual gradation leading to extremes.

The rise to extremes is therefore an unlimited use of force. Because of these three “reciprocal actions”, in the world of ideas, the natural movement of war leads to the rise to extremes.

Actual war

However, the theoretical principle of rising to extremes does not apply in actual warfare . Indeed, in real war there are brakes on this rise to extremes.

Real war cannot go to extremes

The belligerents are not abstract entities emerging from nothing for instant confrontation. They know each other, and are able to estimate the will of their opponent. This introduces a first principle of moderation .

Furthermore, war has a duration. An error in estimating the enemy’s will can therefore be repaired. This introduces a second possibility of reciprocal moderation. And even in case of defeat, the result is never final.

There are other obstacles to achieving absolute war. This is the case with human weaknesses such as indecision or imperfection of judgment; or else friction in the conduct of war by state apparatuses. Finally, low stakes can discourage rise to extremes.

Real war has limits

The limits of the use of force in real war will therefore not be positioned at the extremes. They will be determined by calculation, reasoning and probabilities.

These terminals will be placed according to the political goal. It will require more or less significant efforts for one, and will provoke a greater or lesser will to fight in the other.

It is this political goal which will determine the result that military action must achieve.

Absolute war , the realm of the rise to extremes, therefore only exists in theory. In real war, several principles of moderation prevent this rise to extremes. While Clausewitz recognizes that trying to avoid bloodshed in war would go against the essence of war, he does not recommend introducing rise to the extremes of violence into actual war. The rise to extremes is only a theoretical object which is intended to remain so.

However, and this is the usefulness of the theory, this concept must be kept in mind as the natural direction of all war.

The principle of moderation in war

This leads us to analyze a quote from the master that is often repeated, but often misunderstood:

“it will always be an absurdity to want to introduce a principle of moderation into war.”

On War , p. 28

Taken in this way, it would be the profession of faith of a Clausewitz apostle of the rise to extremes, who would advocate maximum use of force without taking into account the laws and customs of war or the political context. The indiscriminate unleashing of violence would be the only way to win.

Nothing could be more false, nothing more criminal against the thought of the master. Let’s put the quote in context:

“If the wars of civilized peoples are much less cruel and devastating than those of unsophisticated peoples, this is due to the social state of the former and their international relations. War is influenced by this state and these relationships which modify and temper it, but these elements remain foreign to it, a simple external fact , so that it will always be an absurdity to want to introduce a principle of moderation into war.”

On War, p. 28. Emphasis added.

If war taken in theory has no moderating principle and naturally rises to extremes, real war is in fact moderate. However, the moderating element comes not from the nature of war itself, but from its environment. He nonetheless has a very real influence. The maxim which closes our quotation therefore only applies to absolute war. It is anything but a negation of moderation in the reality of war.

This brings us closer to one of the major themes of On War , which is that war should not be considered as an autonomous phenomenon, but as a political phenomenon subject to political decisions. But addressing it here would take us beyond five minutes…

*

Thus, if he places violence at the heart of war, both absolute and real, Clausewitz in no way recommends giving free rein to unbridled violence to achieve victory. The rise to extremes is a theoretical object which is not intended to be embodied in real war. The latter is indeed marked by several limitations external to its nature.

“We are thus led to consider war not as it should be according to its concept, but as it is in reality, that is to say with all the foreign elements which are introduced into it and modify it »

Carl Von Clausewitz, On War , Book VIII

EDITOR’S NOTE:

Some authors consider that absolute war could occur in reality, as in the case of nuclear war. In book VIII, Clausewitz himself indicates that the Napoleonic wars brought absolute war to earth.

However, it seems to us that even in the event of an outbreak of extreme violence, a certain number of obstacles would remain. For example, due to the friction that would arise in the units responsible for annihilating opposing cities, such as disagreements, equipment malfunction, hesitation or even refusal to obey. The fact that a war can take an apocalyptic form does not mean that it would be without brakes.

The hypothesis according to which absolute war is an ideal (in the theoretical sense of a pure and perfect form of war) which would serve as a compass to understand the direction taken by real war seems to us the richest. Quite simply, without this the concept of absolute war would not be of much interest.

*

See our other articles on Clausewitz.

War as a continuation of politics by other means

The astonishing trinity in Clausewitz, and why the master describes war as a chameleon

Friction in Clausewitz

The center of gravity in Clausewitz

Is France a maritime power?

Posted on 14 August 2024 by Les armes et la toge

France has the second largest Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the world. However, its fishing fleet is declining and its navy is regularly falling in the ranking of world navies. Does France have a real ambition for maritime power?

Despite the size of its EEZ, France does not seem to have the desire to be a maritime power.

Is France a maritime power? The mirage of space

The French EEZ is little developed, but not very valuable.

Strong potential

The French EEZ (200 miles around the French coast) is 11 million km ². Polynesia alone has an EEZ of 4 million ^km2 . It is the 2nd ^largest in the world after that of the United States. Its maritime domain, even more extensive, is the 1st ⁱⁿ the world. However, this area is not very coherent since it extends over the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans.

NB the maritime domain of a country extends over an area of 350 miles around its coasts. Unlike the EEZ, the maritime domain does not include the water column, but only the soil and subsoil.

The sea: a primary, but also industrial, sector with high added value

The French maritime economy represents 300,000 direct jobs (for reference, the automobile sector represents 220,000). Naval Group and the Atlantic shipyards (3,000 employees) have strong technological and industrial know-how . In these times of deindustrialization , the maritime economy is therefore a key sector.

Few resources

However, this EEZ and this maritime domain contain few resources apart from fisheries resources. They contain little or no hydrocarbons: research in Guyana has been abandoned . Only scattered islands could contain oil. If it is likely that rare earths are found in the subsoil of the French maritime domain, their research and exploitation would represent a technical and financial challenge.

A fishing fleet in difficulty

The EEZ therefore only contains fishery resources. However, the French fishing fleet is in difficulty. Its boats are few and diminishing. Brittany was home to 3,000 fishing vessels in 1995, compared to 1,300 today. The boats are small, 80% are less than 12 m. They are also old, with an average age of 27 years. Maintenance is therefore expensive and profitability declines . The situation is even more difficult overseas. The entire Polynesian EEZ only allows the capture of 13,600 tonnes of fish per year, while the Fiji Islands alone catch 44,000 tonnes per year. In addition, this fishing is essentially coastal, it overexploits the coasts to the detriment of the open sea.

The size of its EEZ also creates difficulties in asserting France’s sovereignty.

Offer us a coffee on Tipeee

A sovereignty difficult to assert

While the French maritime space could be a source of power, the difficulties of the French Navy in controlling it make it a reason for fragility.

Is France a maritime power? A national navy in decline

The French Navy has 120 ships of more than 100 tonnes . It ranks 7th ⁱⁿ the world of navies , but the general trend is towards the development of naval forces everywhere in the world, except in Europe and the United States. It could therefore see itself caught up in the coming years, particularly by South Korea. In reality, the French navy lacks resources in relation to the area it has to control. For example, it only deploys 2 surveillance frigates per ocean . The United States Navy is 10 times larger in tonnage, while the two EEZs are approximately the same size.

However, the national navy has assets which rank it among the leading navies in the world despite its tonnage . Its ability to fight and resupply on the high seas, to project forces or its carrier group represent rare capabilities, the result of significant investments.

The distances cause difficulties in asserting France’s sovereignty over its maritime zone

Thus, the Clipperton Atoll, off the coast of Mexico, is only visited once a year by a vessel of the French Navy. The atoll is uninhabited, but has an airstrip, regularly used by drug traffickers with complete impunity.

France therefore sees its sovereignty called into question in places

Thus, the scattered islands are claimed by Madagascar, which is supported by the UN general assembly. However, the EEZ of these islands could contain oil, and in any case they make it possible to control the Mozambique Channel. As a result, they are almost all inhabited by a gendarme and military detachments are stationed there. These are the forces of sovereignty.

All this does not prevent certain successes in the fight against drug trafficking in the Antilles or against piracy . Thus, thanks to the European operation Atalanta, piracy off the coast of Somalia has almost disappeared.

The source of these difficulties is that France does not really have the desire to be a maritime power.

A lack of will

It is due to a lack of political will that the maritime space is transformed into a weakness instead of being a power multiplier.

No port strategy

Le Havre, ^{the leading} French container port, is only 56th ⁱⁿ the world. In fact, one container in two destined for France does not pass through French ports. However, the 2018 national port strategy is limited to the merger of the ports of Paris, Le Havre and Rouen, and the rapprochement of Mediterranean ports. Édouard Philippe even declared in substance in 2018 that there was no real port strategy in France. The success of CMA-CGM, the 3rd ^maritime transport company in the world, should not overshadow the reality of the absence of a national strategy.

Weak investment in Marine Renewable Energy (MRE)

The vast French EEZ could be used for the development of MREs. However, there is little productive infrastructure, such as a few tidal farms or the Rance tidal power plant (which has a power of 57 MWatts, compared to 1 GW for a nuclear power plant). The rest is in the experimental stage. The State finances research through aid, to the tune of 3 million euros per year. MRE are the poor relation of renewable energies, which give priority to solar and wind power. The French ambition is to have a production of 100 MW in 2023. For comparison, Scotland already produces a power of 1 GW thanks to EMR.

A global disinterest

The sea is not a priority for France. Its issues were not the subject of any major speech by the president . The priority given to the construction of the new aircraft carrier, understandable in view of nuclear deterrence , shows that France sees above all in the sea an environment allowing the projection of power and the protection of its territory through deterrence . Effective control of its maritime space will remain problematic despite the planned entry into service of Oceanic Patrollers and Overseas Patrollers. Certainly, France has embarked on freedom of navigation operations (this involves navigating in contested waters) to assert its global role, but this is not enough to make it a maritime power.

This French distance from the sea has its roots in the long term . For a long time, the question of maritime power was posed in opposition to continental security. Unable to make an effort everywhere, France resolved its dilemma at the expense of the sea. Despite some successes, its navy was never able to compete with the Royal Navy .

*

France therefore does not give itself the means to be a great maritime power. France’s relative disinterest in the sea can be understood by the historical tension between the country’s security, which has long required giving priority to land forces, and its power, which is expressed on the seas.

The shift of the world towards Asia and the period of peace experienced by the European Union could change this paradigm, unless regular tensions in the East bring this French dilemma back into focus.

You can support us on Tipeee!