[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/pol/ - Politically Incorrect


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: Clausewitz.jpg (346 KB, 649x807)
346 KB
346 KB JPG
Is his book decent or is he being over-hyped?
>>
File: on war.jpg (107 KB, 651x1000)
107 KB
107 KB JPG
>>528044535
its a good read, but its mainly a reference piece not to be read in a start-to-finish context. treat it more like an encyclopedia or guide. there's a better translation than my picrel which is a white cover and blue text, it has a very good index in the back. i recommend this as essential reading
>>
File: 12238434.png (211 KB, 1483x571)
211 KB
211 KB PNG
>>528044624
this is the best version to introduce yourself to this text
>>
>>528044535
It says everything politicians want to hear when it comes to war. If anything gets popular in military / economic circles, you bet that it is convenient for the thinking of the time.
>>
How do I learn how war works then if I'm not supposed to believe in this book?
>>
>>528044624
>>528044867
Thanks for the recommendation, anon.
In any case, from what little I know of the book, it does seem to cover rather basic topics, nothing revolutionary seems to have been formulated.
I'm therefore skeptical, especially considering his almost nonexistent role during the Napoleonic Wars and his presence in the battlefield at the Auerstedt debacle in 1806.
Furthermore, most of the Prussian reforms resulting from that war were copied from the Grande Armée and therefore didn't originate with Clausewitz, I suppose.

It might be contextualizing for people unfamiliar with certain aspects of war, but his book seems primarily to be a synthesis of basic conventions that pretty much everyone was already familiar with.
Perhaps it's often cited because its content is rather vague, and therefore more eventual regarding multiple contexts.
>>
>>528044535
He just copied the methods of Napoleon.
>>
>>528045931
>it does seem to cover rather basic topics, nothing revolutionary seems to have been formulated
clausewitz was a soldier during the napleonic wars and fought against the grand armee which is where a lot of his ideas come from (watching napoleon).
>It might be contextualizing for people unfamiliar with certain aspects of war, but his book seems primarily to be a synthesis of basic conventions that pretty much everyone was already familiar with.
this is how i recommend it. its an easy to read, broad stroke stepping stone which covers everything you need to understand so you can head into the niche topics youre probably more interested in



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.