Wow, it's sure soupy today: we had tropical downpours yesterday, and this morning more heat, so all that rain is evaporating. When I was looking out the back yard this morning at 6:30, it looked like fog, but no, just evaporating moisture. When I got out of the car to walk to the office at 7:30ish, my glasses completely fogged up by the time I'd stood up: not sure what the temperature was at that point, I think around 84C.
It prolly won't go over the low 90s, but with 80% humidity to go with it, makes it a mad dash just to get to the car. Still, if last year is to judge, it will pass off in afew weeks in favour of higher temperatures but much lower humidity.Thank goodness for air conditioning in the meantime.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Courtesy of my birthday, I'm reading through Chris Duffy's Frederick the Great: A Military Life, which is utterly fascinating (well, for wargamers, anyway). Duffy is perhaps the preeminent historian of the 18th & 19th century in military areas, and has long made a speciality of Frederick, so this is both animated and quite specific, with endless details apparently at the authors' fingertips, and - as always with Duffy - written in a lucid, flowing prose that is a positive pleasure to read.
What I'm finding particularly illuminating is to compare Frederick with Napoleon: both came to command of an army quite young, with no experience under fire and little other military education except some practice with drill, and voracious reading of military history on both their parts.
With Frederick, once he launches into the 1st & 2nd Silesian wars, you can visibly see him learning, groping for the practicalities of strategy and grand tactics piece by piece: writing up his own critiques after each campaign, with a list of his mistakes and what to learn from them, and also his opponents' clever moves, and what they showed: how to defend a river line from in front, rather than behind; the sensitivity to scouting; the importance of little-wars and the support of civilian populace; the disadvantages of the direct approach; the whole headache of lines of communication and the war of depots.
I can see how, by the time of the Seven Years War (16 years later), he had turned into a general of great ability and vision, but in these early campaigns, he is clearly starting no better than most of his contemporaries, except perhaps in the measure of his determination and ruthlessness: although after a couple of years, he is also clearly improving far past them.
The comparison I still find startling is, Napoleon takes charge of his first army, apparently already knowing all of these things. How, why? Their education seemed very much on a par - Nappy, obviously, has the advantage of reading the history of Fredericks' wars, but that is not so illuminating or astonishing as to provide a key to unlock all the secrets of generalship. Is it just a matter of inherent talent and penetration, perhaps? It certainly can't be determination and energy, as both seemed to exhibit more-or-less identical monomania on the reading matter.
It's hard to think of any other general who emerged, so instantly fully-formed. -
Alex the Axe Murderer? Well, yes, in the tactical sense - a brilliant leader of men and tactician, but he never seemed to learn any strategic lesson except one: make a dash at the enemy army and beat them. If he'd run into a Fabius, or even a competent general willing to put reliance on his fortified cities, he would I think have come a cropper comprehensively.
Wellington, again, you can watch him grope his way towards strategic understanding through his Indian campaigns (altho he astonished Europe by apparently emerging fullyformed, this is just because India didnt count, to them).
Rommel? Again, his concepts in WW2 clearly stem from the lessons he learnt fighting in Italy in Big One, as a relatively junior officer.
Conde? Again, a tactician, without the strategic grasp to win wars rather than just battles.
Hannibal? Ah. There, the lack of knowledge fails me - I don't think I've ever seen a comprehensive military (or other) biography of him: I suspect adequate resources are lacking.
Of course, the depressing side of Nappy is watching him deteriorate and lose much of his ability with age and indulgence - something he only regained, rather too late, once he was again hardpressed.
Enough blithering for today - work calls
4 comments:
Surely Napoleon did have some military training, albeit Ancient Regime officer training which is hardly an explanation for military genius.
But do you really think that his performance in for instance his Italian (or even worse his Egyptian) campaign was as accomplished as (say) the campaigns leading to Jena/Auerstadt or Austerlitz?
Sure, he had some military training - pretty much the same training that Frederick got, reading the histories, talking to old soldiers, walking over old battlefields; plus junior officer training (drill, etc), again just as Frederick got as prince & colonel of a regiment.
And yes, I'd actually rate his Italian campaigns as amongst his best - the unpinning of the Sardinians (I forget the name of the river) & knocking them out of the war, with an army in fairly dreadful state, has always struck me as a particular masterstroke: and the maintenance of the siege of Mantua was just breathtaking.
The Egyptian campaign, eh, aside of the strategic lunacy of it, was I thought, again conducted with great (and mostly wasted) skill, until choices got severely narrowed & Nappy got desperate: I'll admit it's not a campaign I've read in any depth, tho, deeming the opposition so paltry as to reduce its' significance.
Ok Phil, let;s see if we can post a comment.
We're glad you're enjoying your birthday present book on Frederick.
If this works, I'll get some more comments from Mum at weekend and try posting them.
Love
Little Sis
Seems to have worked just fine!!
thanks :)
Post a Comment